“A Flask of Water with Two Lemons,” 1996. Oil on canvas mounted on wood, 24 x 18 cm
LG In your own work, much of what I’ve seen, anyway, has been over extended periods of time. They seem like they’re really highly resolved, very fine work done over a period of time. I am not familiar with any kind of premier coup work that you’ve done yourself. Can you speak to that in relation to what we were just talking about?
IH Yes, I’ve done a lot of premier coup! In the earlier years most of what I did was generally hammered out in one sitting. That’s certainly changed over the last 25 years. I can’t say honestly that I know why or how this change, this slowing down, came to be. I could easily point to a whole corpus of painterly concerns that now occupy a more forefront plane in my thinking, but I’d never trust that as any kind of definitive answer. Neither would I want to dwell on it. I think I’m still a pretty fast painter but it takes so damn long to get what I’m after.
You know, one reason there are no images of my early work making the rounds is that they are in 35mm film slide form. Scanning and enlarging these tiny images into any format is total grief. The grain on the rough side of the slide, remember…? That gets magnified along with the image. The results are pitiful and therefore just not part of my archiving activities. That’s one reason – the other: I don’t really like most of it…
LG So you do them, you just don’t show them…
IH No, no, I haven’t done a premier coup in a very very long time. Actually I should qualify that, not really true. Almost every painting I start starts as a premier coup really – it’s essentially what becomes my underpainting, the context out of which I continue to work. I approach the initial laying in when starting a work in precisely the same way I would a premier coup. I don’t start with a ghost of a thing and then work up to the full corporeality of color range and experience I’m after. I start with it! I start with a full bodied paint in large masses that hit at the outset the specificity and large color relationships, laid in with a big brush and run through flat with a palette knife to keep things as open as possible for the longest time possible. I find it very liberating to start this way. Down the line it allows me to take on, unencumbered, many other concerns. I must say, I’m averse to the idea of spending one’s time painting just to get things right. I make a strong distinction between finish and completeness and it’s just the most dreadful thing imaginable to finish a thing before one completes it. I see this all the time when teaching. I start with that completeness and if in the process I do something that discounts it, the painting, if it has that probity, vomits it out. So in a way the premier coup is still very much there, but eradicated and concealed, like a sinopia.
LG I understand that you do work from observation on site, as well as from other sources such as photographs in the studio. Can you tell us a little bit about your painting process? What thoughts might you have before you start a painting that will take you a long time? Maybe even up to a year or more?
IH Well, I used to be very canonical about the idea of painting strictly from life. That changed with the series of Tree Portraits I started in 1998 and were shown in 2001 at what was my second show at the Marlborough Gallery. I hadn’t done landscape in a really long time, and you know, being out in the landscape is very, very different than doing a still life or figure in the stability of your north lit studio. Working in an extended way under such conditions enables, if not creates, certain concerns or preferences that take hold and develop pictorially and ideationally. The way my work evolved during that period and what I was determined to go after in these tree portraits, made it very clear after the first few attempts out in the “nature”, that the “nature” of painting, in fact, had come to reassert and restore itself.
A major preoccupation for me at the time was how I go about transubstantiating the sensory quality of surfaces, you know, I mean on the nervous system, the whole range of plastic and tactile values and how they can be transmogrified and re-experienced pictorially. I had found that the stillness of studio work with a north light opened the way to these kinds of contemplations of surface, their substitution in paint.
The cypress trees here not only possess a dark self-contained knotted conoid perplexity; they have a kind of tufted and scraggy foliage that the dust blowing in from the desert sticks to, making them appear almost petrified when there is no rain to wash them down. I wanted to get that, among other qualities. Look, I think once we get down to saying things in paint beyond the large experience of things and enter into tactilities, the exquisite lie, the artifice of painting makes itself more than just felt, it’s inescapably present. Something like this we know we cannot do from observation. We make it up! Maybe where trees have a more predictable repetitious patterned foliage, a case can be made for something registering by painting it from life. But this kind of tactile complexity, well, it would be truly daffy to pretend one were painting that from life. That gap in time and space between perception, memory [the short and long of it in the painterly process] restores us, I think, to the artifice of it all.
Detail from “Cypress, City’s Edge”
I’d bring these premier coups into the studio and completely based on the color context I established in the nature, proceeded to invent that scraggy foliage as best I could. The primary and secondary plane breaks I needed were down to suggest how I’d go about it. In doing that, however, I saw immediately the dangers of systemization taking over. I’d paint at the start as I’m usually wont to do, with my right hand. But when I got to the tufted foliage, I switched to my left hand with which I could perhaps control “where” I put something but not “how”. I didn’t want the trees to look like they came out of a one-time formula for tree-making – do you know what I mean? My interest was to maintain the empiric quality of what I nailed down in the nature and weave that into what I was intent on contriving. There’s nothing new in any of this! Vermeer, Velazquez, Corot, Morandi all did this in varying aggregates and summations. And each painter working perceptually reveals, I think, his or her construct of this dichotomy unknowingly, unpredictably, individually. I think it’s bad to reconcile, as we have it today, in a highly academized and theorized art world, this apparent contradiction. Painting’s best when it’s born of this dichotomy.
If we can revisit now the idea of the time-capsule I spoke about earlier. That inner treasury, if you remember, what we “forge in the smithy of our souls”, as not only another layer or lens via which we peer, but as a civilizing layer, then the whole question of what makes for a stimulus or impetus for putting things down in paint becomes a very open matter. Everything and all on this strata, of painting as desire, is or can be nature. A photograph too. It – a photo, an illustration, a movie still, another’s painting, drawing or sculpture, can inform a painting but it cannot define it.
With all that said, for me, the most succinct color sketch or barest color notation done in the nature, will decisively and comprehensively impact what I do more than anything else.
“Cypress, City’s Edge” 2000. Oil on canvas mounted on wood, 21.3 x 26.7 cm
LG So when you’re painting from a photograph, you’re able to access your response to other art as kind of your primary reason for making the painting, of the continuum of the art process …
IH Yes, like in a Degas or Vermeer, the photograph can inform, as I said – it does not define. And to clarify, neither does any subject, narrative or object before us define, they inform. The moment it is put through that lens, those civilizing layers, and abstracted into motif; every impetus comes under the sway, the imperative of the painterly impulse. You know, there are things external and internal to the formation of all things…
Painting Perceptions was started in 2009 by Larry Groff to promote the ideas, practice and experience of painters working from observation in a modernist vein from around the world through interviews, essays, videos and community. It later evolved to include imagination-based and abstract painting as well.
Thank you so much Larry for this interview… Israel is one of the artists I most admire in the world.
Thanks Thomas, I feel the same way. I wish there were more opportunities to see his work in person.
Nice interview. But I wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Hershberg’s response to your question on self-study and find it paradoxically anti-student and obfuscating. He seems to suggest that the role of an art educator is simply the dissemination of sadly archaic trade-secrets to mindless, indiscriminate vessels. Be independent discovery impossible or not (or just difficult) I should hope that an educator would be more concerned with the strength of the desire for education rather than the manner by which it is obtained. I think Cezanne’s axiom on nature and the Louvre is a perfect truth. Not everyone needs to explore them via an institutional proxy, or for that matter has the resources to pay the tab. The precedent is far, far greater than simply Courbet nor is it an either/or proposition or rendered lately and uniquely obsolete. Far from it. Nevertheless, I know alumni and am convinced The Studio School is one of the finest programs out there. Thanks for the interesting read.
Thanks for your comment Austin and I’m happy you enjoyed the interview. I’m somewhat on the fence about the issue of whether one can learn painting from self-study or not. On one hand there are painters whose formal training is minimal at best and still are able to paint masterful works. Perhaps not the best example but Fairfield Porter was largely self-trained. He did study at Harvard but to my knowledge didn’t really study under the tutelage of a “master” in a studio setting – he learned it more from looking at and deeply thinking about great art. There are also many other painters who explore more imaginary, expressionistic and abstract subjects that have great power and appeal despite limited study in academic settings (I can’t think of names right off hand but I know they are out there)
That said, I think many painters who want to study realist, perceptual painting will likely get far greater benefit from studying under a “master” than on their own. I’m sure with enough dedication and perseverance someone could learn to paint realistically from workshops, books and dvds but will they also get an understanding on why to make a painting as well as how? My limited experience in the world of workshops, dvd’s and the like is that they tend to be commercially driven and tend to focus on techniques like how to paint a tree, head or bottle and little to do with all the other trees, heads and bottles painted over the past 2000 years. However, I think it all boils down to the student and the teacher themselves. Naturally, some teachers, despite being great painters are terrible at teaching and of course vice-versa. Some students would do much better on their own than with a teacher in terms of finding their unique voice. Other students need guidance and give up on their own.
Perhaps what Israel was thinking more about with this issue is the seeming increased prevalence of people learning on their own these days, as seen in online venues. The often saddening display of self-taught hobbyist landscape painters who proudly display their blue-ribboned county fair paintings and who use the leveling power of the internet to market themselves as great artists…
The road to becoming an artist who eventually realizes that the goal ( in all human pursuits) is the never-ending road is the engine which encourages
continual growth. The manner in which one learns is immaterial. At different times in both each of our individual voyages and those interwoven with both past and future travelers are but facets of the condition which, for lack of a better word, is the definition of life.
In the same manner that we can never again enter the same river, so should our lives and work reflect the never ending development of both
ourselves and our expressions, in the same manner that Judaism lost
it’s ability to continue to be an ever-evolving philosophy when, our ancestors, in fear of losing the essence of our beliefs by freezing the religion to moment we were cast into the diaspera, was the moment that
Judaism began it’s slow march to death. The only manner to be able to continually receive sustenance for unending development is by realizing that we can never enter the same river twice and appreciating that that is the blessing which both is and was the gift we have given and hopefully will
be to forever give the children and the societies of the future.
Nice read….I’ve seen a few pieces of his work in person and he’s a really strong painter who is obviously bubbling over with intensity. I found the remarks on kitschy landscape paintings and sentimentality very relevant to my pursuits, and enjoyed his thoughts on the Degas painting. I sure you learned a lot from him this summer Larry…thanks
Terrific piece Larry, one of the most interesting things I’ve read in some time – like Francis, I found the comments on the picturesque and beauty, Kitsch and sentimentality very relevant to my ‘practice’ (I admit I’ve toyed with the idea of paintings of Provençal malls, and wrecking yards!). I love that description of students turning their work around and starting to describe what they are attemting to do — guilty
Great interview. I appreciate the fact that Israel Hershberg speaks his mind. I also disagree, however, with his view that one cannot truly learn to paint through self-study. To be sure, hands-on study with a master the student painter wishes to emulate is probably the surest and quickest path to acquiring the requisite skill and sensitivity to create true art; however, in view of the multitude of books, workshops, galleries, and museums available to aspiring painters, I can’t help but believe that a determined student could also make his way to mastery.
As far as the discussion on self-study versus studying ‘under’ someone, I’d say it’s probably best to have a mixture of both. I agree that there are exceptions, artists who have found their way through studying great works in museums and following books (and now we can add video, workshops, seminars, etc..) but some of the best moments in my learning process is when a teacher took my pencil while drawing perspective and corrected the lines in the margin, or showed me how to mix the color I was trying to achieve, grabbing the brush out of my hand and showing me right in front of my eyes. You also get a certain ‘energy’ from being in the presence of an engaging and intense artist (like Israel), which sort of rubs off on you…it becomes more than just the sum of the parts of information they are disseminating. Of course that all has to be followed up by the self-study…copying great works, visiting museums, reading, looking, and above all, painting and drawing a hell of a lot.
Tremendous!
Just what the art world needs; A profound, fearless voice of reason and beautiful artwork.
Thank you Israel and Larry!
Hi Larry, I keep thinking about this interview. it is dense. I fear it comes off as somewhat elitist and very discouraging if one is not from a traditional art background. There is nothing like spending four years immersed in art study. and there is nothing like studying alongside a great artist, watching them demonstrate, or mix a color for you, etc. The two may not be mutually exclusive, and there are many ways to find such an experience if one is motivated. workshops may be short, but I do believe they are worth doing for many reasons, exposure to new ideas, to associate with peers, perhaps learn something. Even Certosa offered a two-week option.
I think all the commenters here have said it better than me. I just walked away feeling really discouraged, which I know was not his intention.
also, I want to say that there have always been hobby painters. there have always been folks who think that the person painting the most detailed scene is the greatest artist; folks who think their 5-year-old is a great artist!, etc. I think we just see more of it because we now have the internet. it is not a threat. just as there are many people in the world who think that a shark suspended in formaldehyde is somehow great art. they are not a threat. Non-artists are generally under the impression that they do not understand what art really is, and I would be more inclined to blame the Hirsts out there, more than hobby/internet artists. The example given where the English professor took over an art department — I dont think we can blame the internet!
*sigh* maybe I will get to Certosa one summer.
Jade, As much as I normally abhor elitism, my experience is that the arts is one place where elitism (not sure that’s the best word) makes sense. We are not all above-average painters! To truly excel at our craft, so that you begin to approach the vicinity of greatness that you find in such painters as Antonio Lopez Garcia or Israel Hershberg, for instance, requires a level of skill, training and dedication that would be very difficult to get through self-study alone. It isn’t just about learning technique – it is also learning the ART, the tradition, the aesthetics, the poetry, the critical thinking and the intensity of commitment. These things are hard to get without the day to day close interaction with a mentor in a group setting. Of course you could be in such a setting and still not get that much out of it – which is perhaps all too common, but having a really good teacher in a good school or program will make a very big difference and go far beyond what you can just get from a few workshops, dvds and books. I think you can learn to paint through those means but to truly master the craft of painting, you need to immerse yourself in it full-time over a long period. However, I’m not convinced that you have to go to college or an art school (sometimes these places do more harm than good) but I do think most people will do best with some sort of mentor who is a master of his/her art.
Despite all of what I’ve said, I still think that learning to paint is still largely learning to become your own teacher. Ultimately you learn it all on your own. But, like learning to play the piano, you can take “lessons” online I’m sure, read books, even study with a teacher for awhile. But if you want to become really good you will need to practice 6-8 hours a day for years and even then you will benefit greatly from having a mentor who is a master. Of course this is if you want to become a concert pianist and not just playing the piano at a bar or for friends. Of course there are always exceptions – prodigies and geniuses.
Bruce, There is a great interview with Fairfield Porter, where he talks about his education at length. I agree completely with what you are saying in your comment.
here is a link…. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-fairfield-porter-12873
LARRY (Porter – never studied with anyone? I don’t know if it true or not.. but Porter was surrounded by painters and knew many closely… the formal study might not have happened but he certianly showed his paintings to his friends and studied their work methods. He got more from them then we know)
And to those who want the quick way——Your kidding yourselves if you think a video, book and a little workshop will make you a painter. That said, that got nothing to do with talking lots of people into thinking your a great genius!
Lennart Anderson told me something like “it is time in front of the easel that will teach you …”
but that was after years of study. Painters Paint….but they need training.. it is hard to know how to paint and then maybe harder to know what to paint. No coincidence that so many real painters came from Hoffmann.
Thank you Larry-
I wish I said it as well as you…. I’ll check out the Porter link…
. I’m so glad I.H. turned me on to this site
I truly respect Israel Hershberg. His views and opinions are sincere, based on both thorough knowledge and rich experience. We share many views on art in general and representative art in particular.
However, I can not help posing here a sort of academic question, something which I always ponder upon reading an interesting statement or thought provoking interview with some artist. Can one (*) feel the „ideology“ (**) of an artist, the views and artistic beliefs by looking at his/her artworks? Do those pieces work in such a way on a visual level, without the need to resort to verbal crutches?
In this particular case I wonder if it can be felt in these beautiful Hershberg’s paintings.
Let me say it this way: imagine you are being presented with a dozen of paintings without knowing its authors. Half of those (still lives, cityscapes/landscapes etc…) from IH and the other half (with similar subjects) from some skilled painter who studied at atelier of say – Jacob Collins, Nelson Shanks, Jeffrey Mims, Florence Academy of Art…you know what I mean. Could you tell the difference in approach? Could you feel formula and sentiment behind XY’s „View of the Valley“ or „The Dish and Onions on the Table“ and sincerity and 21st century mind of, say, Mr. Hershberg or his students..? After all, JSS has very similar curriculum to majority of ateliers: “drawing and painting with emphasis on perception and the human form, copying the casts” etc.
For the record – I am not being ironic here, nor am I trying to defend atelier system or attack people like IH, Antonio Lopez, Burton Silverman (whom I all admire) and their likes.
I am genuinely interested in this, as I think it is an important issue.
One’s mind by definition should be felt in his/her work, since a painting – intentionally or not – always reflect the attitude(s) of its author.
(Otherwise, besides other things, art criticism would be impossible and pointless.)
(*) say – average educated person who has affinity towards art
(**) for lack of better term – English is not my mother tongue
Thanks for your comment Valentino. I was hoping someone else might jump in to respond to your comment, sorry to have taken so long to respond.
Of course any observant and knowledgeable painter or art viewer could easily see big differences between the styles, intent and overall attitudes and aesthetics of these painters you mention. But your question seems to be more about why is Israel Hershberg’s approach to teaching so different from ateliers who also have students train from casts and other traditional and academic means of learning representational painting.
I’m probably not the best person to answer, but my understanding is that the JSS looks to very different painters and philosophies than most ateliers. Of course they both study from casts, copy from master works and similar things but how and why they study the casts are likely to differ greatly.
My understanding is that ateliers such as Florence Academy of Art and similar who often emulate more French 19th century type academic training and look to painters like Bouguereau, Sargent or their particular atelier’s master/leader for inspiration and emulation. The JSS instead looks to painters like Piero, Titian, Velázquez, Corot and Ingress and also embraces a more modernist aesthetic and study painters like Morandi, Franz Kline, Philip Guston, etc.
They really couldn’t be more different. I don’t have enough time here to get into a very complicated and probably very contentious debate. Perhaps someone else will feel inspired to toss in their .02. Israel made a very strong statement about contemporary academic painting in the interview – this is probably more the central issue we’re dancing around here. I’d love to get into it more – with a raging debate but I need help and more time!
Sorry I’m late to the party Larry, I would have loved to jump in first, although albeit not as article as you all. English is my first language, Valentine, but I must have skipped school that day… Boy you did fine.
Here goes… There are so many artists…. and Those guys, although I hate to admit it, sure can paint! Holy crap! Thank goodness they have taste up their ass. Otherwise it would be hopeless….I ‘d give up painting. I’m obviously joking, sort of. There is a big difference. The difference is taste. Roy Lichenstien said, “if your mother likes it your doing something wrong..” Maybe he took that from somebody else but Ironically I used to gauge what I was doing by my dad and neighbors response…
I once went to Mexico and saw a place they made paintings to ship to every Mall, frame shop and starving artist auctions on the plant. A few guys stretched and primed, one guy slapped in a sky, another clouds.. this one guy was the hero of the joint, cause here could whip out some of the coolest (by Mexican factory standards) looking ducks and deers. They were paintings on canvas and sold more then I will ever..They were art by grandma sofa standards. Ok this guys are a hell of a lot more together then that… I wish I could do what they do… but its missing so much… personality. THEIRS! for one. They fall short on feeling, . they do not even have the decency to be devoid of feeling.In a cool hip way that is truley about honesty, sincerity.. Color can’t hurt!!! Something in the 20th century must have been worth thinking about. Looking at . Hoffmann taught an eclectic taste. Piero Giotto Rembrandt, Picasso…. V. I am giving you a quick but honest answer and in no way to I mean any unkindness… Maybe art is about self..or selflessness…. not an easy thing.. The temple at Delphi( I want to be real smart here but….not in the cards) The TEMPLE AT DELPHI, after all ,did not say , KNOW THY OTHER GUY! Totally – self consciousness, aspriations to paint like the painting my mother would buy at the mall for her sofa…….yuck! I feel much better now….thank you for the opportunity.
I have to apologize for my grammar and spelling..and my ranting….. I was passing by my computer and was chomping at the bit when I read the post…..also perhaps I should take a longer look at these paintings. (not too long)….or at least see them in real life before beating them up so bad.
Great interview again Larry! Thank you and of course thank you Mr. Hershberg.
Just to jump in a bit about Larry’s comments about the different approach to painting in the ateliers vs. JSS. I have known so many people who run ateliers or who have studied in them or teach based upon them and I always found them to be so depressing and dead end. That is because they tend to be so backwards looking – Larry used the word “emulate”- and that’s just it. They approach painting as a lost art that if we could only get back to where Bougereau was we’d fix this art world that’s gone off the tracks. It’s as if painting has died and nothing has happened since the 19th century. And to dismiss all the fantastic painters of the 20th century and not build on them is just silly. It sounds like the JSS school teaches all of painting – learn the techniques: drawing, mixing correctly, and look at ALL of the history of painting – the abstract expressionists did as much interesting work as did the Dutch in their Golden Age.
I do think that most successful artists are self-taught in that they pick and choose what to keep from their different instructors. I was talking with Wade Schuman (head of the NYAA painting program) and he said that the people who are serious will succeed one way or another (though this was in the context of graduate schools). It’s just whether they are making the paintings that they themselves feel are successful. I just saw the poet/painters show at Tibor de Nagy – the Porters are beautiful – and have been looking at Albert York. These two painters don’t deal with the technical aspects that the Lopez-Garcia or Israel Hershberg deal with but the paintings – like Morandi – are incredibly beautiful in a different way. I suspect that is why Hershberg teaches using great painters that do other things than emulate great technicians of the 19th century. Stuart Shils also teaches this way and it’s so much more open ended and interesting.
First off I have to say thank you Larry for doing these wonderful interviews with some of my favorite painters.
My two cents worth on the education of painters, well if you can’t draw painting realism will be a difficult hill to climb. There are exceptions, but in my view one can move a lot faster if they find a good drawing teacher. I suppose one could learn from copying, but there is a nothing like having a good teacher to break away your conventions and bad habits. Life is short, why waste time with your ego in this regard.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything IH has stated here and admire him, enormously, for his candor.
I have reread this interview several times now and am tempted to send a link to it to every pseudo classical atelier on earth (but they are cropping up so quickly that that might be a near impossibility).
The reason they are cropping up so quickly is because after a determinedly blinkered student of any such atelier has done their stretch of time painting figurines of aphrodite in a lightbox they have no alternative but to convert their garage in North Dakota into their own atelier in order to make a living without having to face reality or resuscitate their aesthetic.
It is an appalling situation and I am very glad that IH has come out and stated with such care and insight the fact that it is a dead religion for hacks and sentimental saps and definitely not the revival of a great lost tradition that it suckers people, many sincere and talented, into believing it is.
His comments on how official academia is even worse (placing the cart before the horse, whereas ateliers, small in number, stupidly place the cart before a slavish copy of a George Stubbs) is also right on and really does sum up what is a depressing situation for anyone with enough experience to look, with a sense of loss, at the direction that painting is headed in as a result of the state of ruin of most training establishments.
I was fortunate to receive my training from some old timers in Philadelphia and New York some years ago and there was never a sense of a broken tradition from Degas to Dickinson and the present (nor the artists that Degas and Dickinson studied in depth, like Mantegna, El Greco, etc.).
Somewhere along the line Jacob Collins (an English major at Columbia I believe) decided that he could formulate an erroneous improvisation of didactic step-by-step painting in order to ape a degraded pastiche of Arts L’art pompier of the most pedestrian order and then set up shop selling this unbelievably restricted method to the kinds of nervous and frightened art students who always minor in conservation studies to play it safe.
The internet has made all of this like a pestilence with so much shameless self aggrandizing and circle jerking lackeys chiming in about how they are so glad that art is finally measurable and something that certain wealthy idiots feel reassured about collecting again.
To the people who felt discouraged by what IH said regarding self instruction, that is too bad.
It does take sacrifice and courage and if you claim that you simply don’t have the cash to attend to real study then you obviously are either confused about what the life of a student is like or you are just making convenient excuses for being a dilettante.
It’s okay, frankly this kind of painting isn’t for everyone. In fact, few people I know who are painting full time think that anyone would really want to trade places with them if they knew what it has cost.
Thank god that there are still men like IH around and that he is healthy and teaching and sharing these things with people.
I really needed to hear his voice of reason.
This coming summer I am hoping to make it to Civita Castellana to study with Mr. Hershberg. I did not know about this incredible artist and teacher until reading about the JSS on this life-changing blog – Thank you Larry for everything you are doing – You are one of my personal heroes. Anyway, I just read the interview with Mr. Hershberg and I feel compelled to share some of my thoughts in response even though so much time has passed since the original posting.
I am an adjunct professor of painting and drawing at Austin Community College in Texas where paintings and education of the magnitude displayed by Hershberg, Anderson, Dickenson and Hawthorne is scarce to non-existent. In my years of study and teaching I can say that everything Mr. Hershberg said about our current institutions of art is spot on. I have watched several artist’s careers decline over the past two decades after being given tenure. I have also watched artists commercially driven succeed for a while in particular galleries to only be dropped once their work fell out of favor. I am absolutely certain that those of us who continue to paint and learn about painting our whole lives are the lucky ones. Never so certain that we can ever really articulate the mystery that painting has brought into our lives we continue to learn from the colored goo that we smear with hairy sticks and knives and we share our experiences with fellows bitten by this bug. Whether from people sharing our actual space, videos or books our search for a semblance of an understanding of what painting is continues fueled by the “hunger of the eye.” While we can learn about all the techniques of painting and their historical and theoretical contexts it is in the realm of the philosophical that great teachers like Hershberg and Anderson shine. I have never met Mr. Anderson but I have learned through Larry’s wonderful work on this blog about what he calls “qualities.” I’ve linked to wonderful painters who studied with him like David Marshall, Lucy Barber and Diana Horowitz and understand what he means when he says this. I have watched your paintings change Larry due to your study with Hershberg and Anderson, and you have been making some absolutely beautiful pieces my friend. Anyway, what I trying to say is that the techniques are only a small part of what art education is about. More importantly is the gift of painting as a path to understanding relationships between people and the world. Perceptual painting is revelatory. It doesn’t matter if you use dead-coloring under glazes or go for fast gestural facture. Everything is an option in painting. To concern ourselves with technique and whether it is learned in person or via Youtube is to misunderstand completely the gospel of perceptual painting that is being offered to us by these incredible masters.
If anyone has information on grants for artists/teachers to study with great artists like Hershberg please send me links or phone numbers. My email address is artistnoelrobbins@gmail.com
Thank you so much Larry and Mr. Hershberg for everything you have done and continue to do. I hope to one day meet you both in person. I feel like I know you already.
Sincerely,
Noel
Thank you Noel for your kind words. That’s great news that you’re considering joining us in Civita next summer. Despite my many years of experience and school, there was much I learned about ways to improve my painting. My experience studying with Israel Hershberg in Civita was an incredible experience – truly a life-changing event. I can’t recommend their program highly enough. I’ll send you more info by email soon and I’m planning a long article about the Civita program at some point in the near future.