Over the past 20 years we have willingly subscribed to the ethics and ideals our Artists’ have represented in their work and demonstrated in their lives. Their integrity has made it easier to write the many checks needed to provide our clients with exceptional works and our Artists’ with the means to continue what they are compelled to do, i.e. paint.
Our Artists are passionate about their work and their commitment to demonstrable ideals; their excellence is our passion. Their continued pursuit of excellence has been contagious, affecting every aspect of our operations as we endeavor to be worthy advocates of the works we are humbled to represent. Aversion to mediocrity is a result of close working relationships with uncompromising individuals striving for excellence in what they do. It is in harmony that we, and our artists move forward.
Artists are not unlike great athletes, musicians or those in occupations where creativity and expression meet. Does the race make the star or the star make the race? Is it a great football play, if executed poorly or run at the wrong time? Is the creation of the work the “art” and the result simply a record of the endeavor? What makes us yearn ? What makes us desire repeated encounters? An outlandish performance may tinge our senses, but unless truly original, soon forgotten. A great performance is remembered warmly, while an outstanding one often becomes a classic example. What is “classic“ and why does there seem to be universal agreement to what becomes “classic” over time?
A great 21st century artist has said “If you fall asleep on horseback the horse will stop at the rock; art is a car kitsch is a horse”. We suppose “art” will run into the rock. A question arises, is there beauty in the carnage of a car wreck, and is beauty a quality that “art” must possess? If the beauty is the concept, is the expression even justified? If the concept or idea is the art, is admirable execution even necessary or warranted? After all, we have language.
The great American illustrator Norman Rockwell created four related paintings called the “Four Freedoms”. One of the four, “The Freedom of Speech’ holds particular interest. (See Image) Appearing anecdotal at a basic level, further study reveals more. Possessing a temporal understanding of our culture and knowing the title of the work renders this “Illustration” clear, distinguishing and sentimental.
Suppose one viewed this work with no understanding of the culture that created it? Would an Inuit Indian see it as sentimental? The work appears different without the cultural accouterments. The human element in the painting will engage any person viewing it. After short study of the painting it becomes evident care was taken, not only in the execution of the actual work, but also in the elements that bring the focus, subtly, to the subject firmly gripping the bench back in front of him. One could argue the importance of this symbolism to the painting, however, holding onto something under duress, is universal to humankind. The struggle to do, when doing goes against our very nature is a conflict humanity has always had to cope with.
Our present culture shuns sentimentality in “art” as it should. However, should sentimentality on one level relegate the work to the scrap heap of the “sentimental”? Is it possible, outside the context of “time periods” for a work to be beautiful and sentimental and art?
Our Common Sense tells us what is classic. Our education attempts to clarify it. Our life experiences refine it. Isn’t it interesting that the individuals and institutions that so vociferously advocate great latitude in what is considered art, are the most dogmatic when confronted with what their experiences regard as “Kitsch”?. Is it true that when standards become relative everything becomes art? A noted senator once said “I can not define pornography, but I know it when I see it. A “classic” is much the same.