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.

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.

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

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.

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!