Where have all the painters gone?

I went to Art Institute in Chicago this past weekend to see and an exhibit of works by Van Gogh and Gauguin (please don’t miss it if you’re in the neighborhood), and got to wondering whether there will ever be another painter with the name recognition that the “superstar” artists achieved. Granted, many didn’t achieve such status in there own lifetime, but quite a few did. I suppose the last to reach the heights of fame were Picasso and Dali. Regardless of talent (some might question Dali’s), their name’s were known to even those outside art circles. Today I can think of a handful (David Hockney, maybe Chuck Close) that I’ve heard of, but none have come close to mainstream recognition.

Is painting genarallyviewed as irrelevent in the age of film and digital art? Will there ever be another painter who achieves the fame associated with past artists?

Man, I just looked at this post and it sticks out like a sore thumb amid all the WTC/ terrorist stuff. Mods, feel free to transport this to MPSIMS!

Here’s a connection to the WTC/Terrorist stuff:

Where’s the new Guernica? (I think I spelled that right)

I saw something about Picasso on a PBS show the other night. They quoted him as saying something like “My art is not meant to decorate people’s livingrooms; my art is a weapon used to wage war against the enemy.” (Someone feel free to correct that)

Who’s stepping up to the plate to wage war in oils (or mixed media) for us?

Well, I’d argue that Warhol, Lichetenstein, Rauschenberg, Oldenberg, and Johns were the last of the “famous” painters and sculptors.

What’s happened since then? Well, the dividing line between fine art and art has eroded to the point where it is no longer easy to discern between the two. I’d say H.R. Giger is an example of the “new” artists whose works are no longer “mere” paintings or sculptures.

Damien Hirst?
Jeff Koons?
Robert Mapplethorpe?
Jean-Michel Basquiat?

Whether or not you like their art, you have to be impressed by their marketing skills.

There’s also a handful of people who will be added to the list of “famous” artists in ten years time and whose stuff you could snap up dirt cheap right now. (Of course, picking one of those people today is about as easy as picking Microsoft or Dell stock 20 years ago.)

Are we talking artists or painters?

Damien Hirst? – not famous for his paintings
Jeff Koons? – hiring other people to do your stuff is not my idea of an artist, let alone a painter
Robert Mapplethorpe? – not a painter
Jean-Michel Basquiat – OK check (up to a point)

My two penn’orth:

I doubt whether any of these will ever be as well-known or as widely-known as Van Gogh, Picasso or Gaugin (or a hundred others). It does seem that for a long time painting has been falling out of fashion as the serious art medium it was a century ago. Historically I’d guess that most paintings have been predominantly used for decorative purposes anyway, but nowadays the “serious” artists practically all produce conceptual works or installations, not pigment applied to a vertical plane.

Where have all the painters gone?
Long time passing.
Where have all the painters gone?
Long time ago.
Where have all the painters gone?
Gone to photographers, ev’ry one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will theeeeeey ever learn?

In the spirit of the OP, might I submit…

In earlier times, painters were one category of a larger group I will call “visual artists”. True painting was but one discipline available for creating visual arts. There also existed sculptors, tile artists (mosaic), carvers, architects, furniture makers, jewelers, etc.

Some of these disciplines have lost prominence in modern times.

In todays world, our visual artists can choose from a variety of new disciplines: photography, film making, computer graphics, animation, etc.

So, to answer your question, today’s Van Gogh may be into computer graphics, Rembrandt may be doing cinematography, Da Vinci could be a photographer…

Actually, I just read an article on this topic in my newspaper : In the WTC attack, 300 Rodin’s works and many other artworks from the Cantor’s collection have been destroyed. Also the collection of Axa Nordstern, and Salomon Smith,Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, a great tapestry by Miro, a Lichtenstein, a Calder’s sculpture, a woodwork by Louise Nevelson. Several paintings of the army’s collection have also been destroyed in the Pentagon.

300 Rodins? I wasn’t even aware he had done 300 works! My gods…

I’ve been surprised too…but the number printed is 300. Actually, they say that it’s the biggest private collection of Rodins, ant that they had 750 of them (sculptures, drawings and engravings) but that most of them were either in museums, at Stanford or were part of “wandering” (don’t know the correct english word) exhibitions.

There is all sorts of painting going on out there. There is even some amount of easel and representational painting. The basic problem is that in an art market dominated by NYC and San Francisco and by a demand for something new every 15 minutes, it takes the cream a while to rise to the top. What we see of contemporary painting is to a great extent the product of marketing through the big retail galleries and that in turn is, I am told, greatly determined by with whom the painter is sleeping.

Just in the genre of representational painting, Chuck Close is making a reputation for himself although some find his pixel system more than a little tired and formulistic. Ralph Goings is doing some tremendous photo-realism stuff if you like that sort of thing. Alfred Leslie does remarkable representational stuff. Mark Tansey does stuff that is not only good, but at times it is very funny. Robert Bechtle will be a prominent name in the future if it isn’t already. There are all sorts of painters out there.

Do your self a favor. Rather than going into the big city frou-frou galleries and the small city galleries that specialize in prints of wild life, take a trip to your regional art shows. There is much mediocre Sunday painting in the local shows, but there is some surprisingly good stuff produced by struggling professionals and gifted amateurs. Go to your local college or university at take a look at what the students and faculty are putting out. You may be able to pick up something by the guy who will be the next Larry Rivers for a reasonable price and help out a painter at the same time. After all, the stuff is just decoration; it is enough that you like it.

Oh my. I am so sorry to hear about the destroyed art works. (I am a big Rodin fan.)

I agree with Icarus, btw.

Regarding the OP, would not Maxfield Parish also qualify as one of the last painters to become a household name?

I am by no means a visual artist, or even have a decent grasp of art history, so from a layperson’s viewpoint, I can’t think of any contemporary painters off the top of my head. In fact, I can think of very few visual artists from the last, oh, 30 or 40 years who are not/did not work in photography or film in some way.

tracer,
too funny! That song was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title.

I keep hearing about the “death of painting” over and over. Those are usually the times that painting is coming back into prominence.
Ross Bleckner, Terry Winters, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke, Eric Fischl, Susan Rothenberg, Anselm Kiefer, Howard Hodgkins, these are just a few of my favorite contemporary artists that work almost exclusively in painting.
Painting will always remain as the most important of all arts, it is the most difficult medium with the most severe limitations. A painter must do the most with the least. Painting will always be the King of the arts, and nothing will ever dethrone it.

matt_mcl wrote:

My God, wasn’t one Rodin enough?! I mean, he’s over 200 feet tall, and has, what, a 500 foot wingspan? Just one flap of his mighty wings can produce hurricane-force winds, knocking over all the major buildings in Tokyo.

Thank heavens Godzilla stepped in, or Rodin surely would have finished us!

This is a bit of a wag, but I do have a BFA, and I remember the general attitude towards painting, and some of my art history classes.

The material prosperity of the last century, especially the latter half, in the first world, has allowed a lot more people to pursue art. It’s never been a better time to try to be an artist: there are government grants, there are parallel gallery systems, there’s more money than ever (private and corporate) being thrown at art.

With the increased money available, commercial pressures have decreased. It’s not so necessary these days to sell through a gallery to make a living. Artists have day jobs; they’re professors at universities; they live on welfare or grants or short-term jobs at public galleries, and show in parallel venues. There’s far less pressure to make saleable art. While it’s always nice to sell a piece, because it’s both money and recognition, that’s not imperative anymore.

The rise of non-commercial artists who aren’t dependent on pleasing a non-critical audience coincided with and reinforced the expansion of what was considered art. The flowering of various short-lived “schools” of art in the twentieth century effectively destroyed homogenous orthodoxy in the art world. There has also been a movement against technically demanding art, like naturalistic painting or drawing: they’re viewed as enforcing the tyranny of skill. Talent in art is less about artisanship and more about marketing (Lichenstein, Warhol and Koons deliberately built their careers on this).

The effect on painting was, as Willem de Kooning put it, that painting “lost its purpose, and therein found its freedom”. In other words, the traditional, convservative form of art was rejected, and has come to stand for what isn’t current. To say, in art school, that you want to paint like Michelangelo is to stigmatize yourself as unimaginative, politically obtuse, with ambitions to be a technician.

While there will undoubtedly be artists from our generation remembered as great artists, the best analogue to the great artists of history will probably be filmmakers, for whom commercial pressures are still intense, and who are still forced to strike some balance between artistic vision and popular acceptance by their audience.

Find out more about the Cantors’ Rodin collection here.

Thanx. Rodin was one of the very few artists that I actaully liked with this:

http://www.cantorfoundation.org/Rodin/Gallery/rvg15.html

being my favorite, damn well better not have been destroyed.

As for the OP I really don’t know where all the artists are since I don’t much like art. I’m sure we’ll see some over the next few years. My step-father-in-law almost bought some of Escher’s works because Escher went to Crystalographer’s meetings in Europe to try and sell his work. I’m sure the next wave of artists are doing the same thing now.

I am shocked that no one has mentioned Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light yet.

And you people call yourselves cultured.