Friday, January 16, 2009

Bon Voyage: Andrew Wyeth and George W. Bush

Christina's World

Andrew Wyeth 1964

(July 12, 1917 – January 16, 2009)

A note from Radarsite: Take note: A part of America has just passed away. A great artist of powerful yet understated and subtle vision. A truly American artist, a beloved painter whose poignant works have successfully bridged the gap between expert and layman and spoken to us all and moved us all. Like his equally famous American contemporary, Edward Hopper, he is known as a master of loneliness, yet there is so much more to their work than this. They speak to us of a different America, a quiet, introspective, more profound and soulful America, an America far removed from the glamor and glitz with which we are (so mistakenly, I believe) universally associated.
Bon voyage, Andrew, may you rest in peace. America will miss you. - rg

A postscript: This is in reply to Findalis' interesting reference to the controversies surrounding Wyeth (and others) work in the 80s.

As many of you may already know, my background is in art -- I attended the New York Art Students League and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. There are some interesting analogies between the liberals' hatred of artists like Hopper and Wyeth, and the liberals hatred of Reagan and G. W. Bush. That's why I mentioned that Wyeth had 'bridged the gap between the experts and the layman'. Both the working artists and the interested laymen loved and appreciated Wyeth's work. But those in between, those pseudo-intellectuals soon assumed the pose of disdain for what they considered to be commonplace realism. They had moved beyond that inferior art form long ago. Realism -- i.e., painting things as they appeared to the eye -- was out and obscurantism was in. Beginning in the late sixties with pop artists like Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein and pure abstract expressionists like Kline and Pollack and others, and culminating in the furious collecting mania of the 80s, the New York art world was effectively taken over by the elitist liberal left. Academic (traditional or figurative) art -- was demoted and looked down upon as second rate and intellectually inferior to abstract or non-objective art, or its various New Age offshoots, such as op art, anti-art, etc. In other words, the pseudo-intellectuals took over and the layman was almost completely -- and, I think, quite purposely -- alienated, effectively left out in the cold. "Artists" vied with one another to see who could be more avant-garde, who could be more outrageous. A painter was deemed important only if those critics who were deemed important said that they were important. The average person had no say in this matter whatsoever. To mouth the abstruse -- and often meaningless -- jargon of the art critics, the more obscure the better, (such as, 'plastic orchestration', metaphysical harmony', etc.) became a sign of one's superior intellect -- and just another way of separating oneself from the unlettered herd.

In the late 1950s, I had a one-man show of my work at a prestigious gallery in Rittenhouse Square, in Philadelphia (It was, in fact, so prestigious that I wasn't allowed in to view my own work until I had borrowed a tie from a friend). I remember sitting on a bench in the center of this rather elegant display area, surrounded by my work on the walls, and listening to the conversations of the elegant visitors as they casually circled the room, commenting on my paintings and drawings. It was so phony, so pretentious, that I almost started to laugh at them. I was the artist. It was my work, and I think I understood it and what it was intended to convey, but these Sunday connoisseurs were attributing meanings and motives to my paintings and drawings that I neither comprehended nor intended.

Well now, here we go again, folks. Once again the liberal elitists have won out. They hated GWB for some of the same reasons they hated Andrew Wyeth, and now once again they will be telling us what is suppossed to be important and what is not.

God help us all. - rg

A footnote: Interestingly, while researching this article I discovered that the "prestigious gallery" in Philadelphia -- the Philadelphia Art Alliance -- was the same gallery where the Wyeth family held one of their first exhibits of watercolors.

For more on Andrew Wyeth click here


  1. I remember the controversy over his work in the 80's. I didn't see what the fuss was all about myself.

    One of the greats have gone. His work was sublime at times, with a quiet understatement. And no crosses in urine. No wonder the liberals hated him.

  2. Ohhhh, what a great post, Roger. There is so much truth there, and so much I can personally identify with- so much so, in fact, that I'm going to have to do a blog piece on it rather than subject you to an overly-long comment. Let's just say I know whereof you speak!

    Yes, an exceptional talent is no longer here with us-- in more ways than one. Thank you, sir.