I Got Called Out

I was mentioned on Sara Pearce's Blog this weekend. She has a nice blog on the Cincinnati art scene.
I had no idea she was so riveted to my Blog. But honestly, she was just fishing for Art Museum news and found my rant in the search. She did not agree with my post below discussing the terrible lighting in the Rembrandt show. The title of her post was "Rembrandt: too little light for the master?". While it is true I thought there was too little light, I was kind of embarrassed that Sara called me a master. I mean come on, I could see Master used for Rembrandt, but I am just getting started as a painter.

What?

Huh? She was talking about Rembrandt, not me?

Oh.

Anyway, I know the museum went to great lengths to get the work, and surprisingly there were probably a bunch of meetings on the topic of how to display these masterpieces. A lot of work and thought went into how to display these paintings. I suppose I should be thankful for that at least. Still, I would like to have been able to actually see the paintings, in the truest sense, not in forced mood lighting.

In her post Sara says: "Meanwhile, I challenge Luschek's assertion that not "a single artist in history" would be happier with artificial light. C'mon. I know painters now who paint in studios lit by artificial light and who think their work looks best in artificial light. I can't begin to read the mind of the dead but I bet Andy Warhol would be an artificial light proponent."

Really, who cares what Warhol would have thought?
I swear anytime someone wants to argue about great painters and then whips out the Andy Warhol card *, I am done. You might as well bring up Bob Ross or Kinkade the Painter of Light.
Andy Warhol was a clown, and as I said before, work should be shown in the light it was painted in, I suppose then Warhol should be shown through marijuana smoke lit by a lava lamp.

Though, as was insinuated in a comment by Anonymous on Sara's blog, I am just a "nostalgic" fool bogged down in 1000's of years of tradition, too silly to jump on the series of uneducated ideas that have come and gone with "vitality" in the last 60 years.

I am done talking about this, as I am right on this subject. While the red walls and incandescent bulbs may be enough for those that just want to see a Rembrandt dog and pony show put on by the museum, serious students of painting must have daylight on paintings to study the color- yes I know that the sun goes down and occasionally we have to turn the lights on. I enjoy that technological advance as much as anyone, but one can never see a painting truthfully in artificial light.

Ives Gammell discussed this much better than I ever could in his article:
A Clarion Call for Daylight in Picture Galleries. Check it out. I am planning to print this out and stick it in the comment box at the museum.

Off to paint in my north lit studio. I will resist the urge to turn on the lights.

*note: This link is to David Hockney's idiotic book on the secrets of the masters. In it he uses the brilliant logic that the similar style of drawn lines by Warhol and Ingres prove that since Warhol couldn't draw and traced photos, Ingres must have not been able to draw either and must have used some sort of lens as an aid. Can't wait to read Hockney's book disproving Einstein's theories.