Stanley is my old friend and my former teacher at AU. Very powerful work. Now he teaches far less, I have seen added energy and concentration on his work.

Writing about his work would be like writing about being in a candy store when I was young. Now the candy store would come with dietary disgust and mention of the delusion of colorful, but harmful seduction. But his work will never do that – morph from the initial allusion. His work is tangible, real, soft, a place I’ve been and most of all felt. If one artist finds it lonely, it is the lonely that we all feel when we have to leave those places of home or familiarity. His work fits perfectly in Larry’s Mission Statement for me.
VC

James, I also appreciate your comment and criticism of both Thaddeus’ review and of the wayward drift you see this blog heading. That you care enough about a creep away from my blog’s “mission statement” to write a comment I consider a compliment. I’m also not the greatest fan of Stanley Lewis or of Leon Kossoff, another painter Thaddeus reviewed awhile back. However, I wouldn’t say they were terrible painters by any means – just that they weren’t my cup of tea. I don’t have time to get into explaining my reasons here but if I reviewed Stanley Lewis it would have been completely different. When I think more about your criticism of his line about “Lewis’ paintings dictate a precise sense of light and harmonize…” I would argue it’s true his writing is a bit flowery and art-speaky here but you could also say it is poetic code to signify he is painting broadly, rapidly responding to changing light and his simplifications cross over into the “higher realm” of abstraction from nature rather than just describing.

Perhaps you are right, that this blog would be better with a tighter focus on observational painters who are often under represented by the mainstream artworld publications, as was my original intent. However, my thinking is that having other contributors with divergent views and tastes will encourage a broader readership (which may help my site grow into something more financially sustainable). Perhaps not unlike the American Artist Magazine that had an occasional well-written and insightful article about important artists along side the usual dreck of hack middle-America calendar art… (of course I hope to do the inverse! having primarily great articles with only the occasional dud…) All I can say is to suggest that one avert their gaze if the article offends and wait patiently for the next one which will likely be better.

Elana and I put together this blog in our spare time and we don’t make any real money from it. So I welcome contributors such as Thaddeus, and several others who are willing to share their writing. James, you seem like you’d be a good writer, if you wanted to submit an well-written article about why Art Forum type art-speak is bullshit and the ruination of painting I’d be all over it – as well as other ideas you might have. I’d like to write something along those lines myself but I can barely keep my head above water as it is.

My own painting and appreciation of other people’s painting has expanded quite a bit since I started this site and I consider my opinions and preferences to still be a work in progress. Talking to so many painters and thinking about their work with an open mind has stirred the pot for me, opening up new perspectives on what I’d want to have included for this site. I should likely change my mission statement to reflect this but then I’d likely just change it back again a few months later. I hate doctrinaire thinking in painting; I’ve never been able to stay on the one true path for very long. This has lead to many up and down sides but the traveling is more interesting.

Larry,
I appreciate your comment. I also suspect you have to defend your contributor, and I get that. This was not mean to be an attack on Thaddeus as a person– i looked at his work, expecting to hate it, and instead found a great artist. And I’m sure he’s a wonderful teacher as well. I would rather he wrote an article about himself and his process!

I’m just using this article as an excuse to complain about a gradual drift I’ve noticed on this blog toward more-mainline art criticism. I’m aware that it’s your blog, but i feel your mission statement in the “about” section is being ignored. (Although in your comment above, it sounds like that’s a bit intentional.) Moreover, I’m not concerned with any accusations of anti-intellectualism here. I think most of us can agree that there is a great deal to dislike about the state of art and criticism, with the latter often driving the former.

Regarding this review in particular, I would challenge anyone to say in simple terms what this means or how it is useful to other artists: “Lewis’ paintings dictate a precise sense of light and harmonize mesmerizing scales of urgent descriptive content.” or this, “Conversation with the artist is permeated with the difficulties faced by the painter in crossing the unbreachable threshold into true painting.” i could go on…

I understand the world we’re living in. But I’ve always felt this was a blog whose purpose was different — more useful to painters– if a bit “anachronistic” relative to the Artforum crowd. Ultimately, I feel that Stanley Lewis is a terrible painter, an embodiment of an artist whose work is without visual appeal, poetry, and especially technical merit, and which requires the standard verbal gymnastics to make the least bit interesting. Were Mr. Lewis an unknown, i might have some sympathy (despite not liking his work). But I fail to see why you should give another outlet to someone who already has such attention?

Anyway, thanks for indulging my rant. This is probably not an opinion shared by this blog or its readership, so I will sadly take my bookmark and go home. I just don’t feel like going to the afterparty for the emperor’s tailor.

James

I would echo Carol, Val and James sentiment about Thaddeus’s review. His review is insightful and helps me look at Lewis’ work in a new light. However, I don’t think you can dismiss people who complain about artspeak as mere anti-intellectualism. There is a big difference between a poetic lingo particular to the art and bad writing. Bad writing is too often vacuous, pretentious and elitist – using words more to demonstrate cleverness than making something clear. Thaddeus is clear and trying to say something with a poetic sensibility.

This may sound off to those who prefer to read more straightforward prose about the nuts and bolts of painting technique, art gossip or rants on what’s lame about the art world. I understand this inclination as I share it myself many times, getting pissed when I read some incomprehensible art-gibberish praising some art that I can find no appeal whatsoever. All too often the words are the only thing they have going for it.

One of my main thoughts in putting together Painting Perceptions was that I would include as many styles of painting and thoughts about of painting from observation as possible – even occasionally including non-observational painting. Thinking this site should be as much perceptions about painting as the painting of perceptions. Of course I have my own preferences and beliefs about what I like in painting but I’ve tried to keep my voice low so that others have more space share. Having different writers, with very different beliefs, contribute to making this site all the better. In time I hope to get more painters contributing reviews and essays as well as poetry, writings on technique, and the politics of the art world.

I disagree with the term “inscrutable artspeak” here; while this review is detailed with interpretation at a deeply sensitive level, I find this review quite readable, genuine and illuminating, showing true understanding of painting and o Lewis’s work. The connection to Faulkner is so true; I love Faulkner for the reasons Radell explores here and see the parallel quite easily; just wish I had thought of it myself!

Your blog is probably one of my favorites, so meaty and keeps us painters energized and encouraged to keep going.

warm regards,
Val Nelson

on a different note, that Auden poem is epic. thanks for the introduction.