Viewing page 52 of 56

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

3

reclaim lost ideals in life and lost quality in art". How tinged with repentance the last sentence is!

The Karp article likens the reappearance of what he calls radical realism "to a fresh ripe, home-grown tomato which suddenly is so terribly important in our moment of micro-circuitry, body transplants, and significant conceptualism."

He promotes the artists of his gallery, the radical realists as he calls them who paint mostly from photographs. [[strikethrough]] And [[/strikethrough]] I who am [[strikethrough]] labaeld [[/strikethrough]] labelled an "old" realist I suppose but consider myself a realist of to-day, welcome whole-heartedly this ascendance of realism, whatever it encompasses, as long as the painting is representational, recognisable, communicative, even the work of the radical realists of Mr. Karp, though most of them do paint from photographs projected on their canvases, slickly, [[strikethrough]] monetousle [[/strikethrough]] monotonously, impersonally. 

At this point I want to talk about [[strikethrough]] the of [[/strikethrough]] some [[strikethrough]] of [[/strikethrough]] painters who do, from my point of view, try to re-intepret the human figure and human content in terms of to-day. I can think of a number of such artists: Philip Pearlstein, Alfred Leslie, Paul Georges, Alice Neel, Lennart Anderspn, Alex Katz, Don Perlis [[strikethrough]] May Stevens, Laterman Heinemann [[/strikethrough]] and others. They paint human life more-[[strikethrough]] glr[[/strikethrough]] glaringly, more naked, than was done before they appeared on the scene. I [[strikethrough]] sympathize [[/strikethrough]] agree with that because everything in life is more open, more naked, if you please [[strikethrough]] d [[/strikethrough]]. In literature and cinema similar changes have taken place. Many artists paint under fluorescent light (the word fluorescent was not even in my spelling book). I and my friends have always painted in north-light studios, depended upon daylight, light and shadow, and the nuances produced by such conditions. [[strikethrough]] B [[/strikethrough]]  

But to return to the artists whom I have mentioned. I may have lumped them together too carelessly. Unlike the so-called radical [[strikethrough]] artists [[/strikethrough]] realists, they do not all paint in the same manner. Each one is a person in his or her own right. I do question the size of some of their canvases. Why do so many of them paint huge canvases out of all proportion to the content? Does size per sé add important quality? Is a picture better because it's big? Why does Alfred Leslie paint a tycoon so many times bigger than life? Even in normal life-size he would be ferocious enough. Did he have in mind the Egyptian portrayals of their Pharaohs, or the Assyrian Portraits of their kings? Their purpose was to glorify the rulers and frighten their subjects. When I saw the painting of his children by Philip Pearlstein, 2 or 3 times the size of life, I could not [[strikethrough]] hepp [[/strikethrough]] help but think of the