R.I.P. Bill Wurster

My wife and I had a tenant for four years that unexpectedly decided to move out. He had been having some diabetes related health issues, and was acting kind of strange. He was sending me strange emails that were at times paranoid and other times like he was trying to connect in some way. He was not a person you could get close to, but I tried to make some sort of connection by sending him a link to this blog, he quickly replied saying that he doesn't read blogs.
Well, he eventually did read it and sent this as a reply: "Some of the humor is probably not too appreciated by some of the general public, but what the heck. I think putting your life out to dry in the public sector so people can watch your life unfold is a little hoakie."

Interesting point actually, but I am going to do it again, and finish by telling you that two days after moving out, Bill passed away. Even though I can't say we were close, his passing effected me pretty hard. The night he died, as he walked out of our house for the last time, there was something noticeably tired and sad about it. I knew he was sick, but I never thought that would be the last time I would see him.

It has been almost a month since his passing. Some of his friends were in town today from Detroit to go through his stuff and take care of business as they are the beneficiaries of his will.
Talking to them about Bill got me thinking that I should post something about him on the blog.

So, as this is a blog mostly about my art or my puffed up opinions on art, I will post some images of art that Bill used to do in his cluttered room.
He used to make beaded jewelry and little religious icons and other primitive pieces of artwork. He loved to comment on the paintings I would bring home and hang in the kitchen. He seemed to think I had a problem with objects in my paintings leaning to the right. Not sure I ever figured out what he was talking about. I started to think that he was the one with the problem, but he occasionally had some good criticisms.
Here are two small pieces he did for the Secret ArtWorks show two years ago.

Get Ya Some Learnin'

My next class starts very soon.
The extremely handsome fellow painting in the photo above will be your teacher. Sorry ladies, I am married, but don't let that stop you from taking it anyway.

Summer Landscape Painting Class [10 Saturdays, June 28 to Aug. 28 @ 10 AM - 1 PM]: Plein-Air is French for "in the open air.” Experience the pleasure of painting & seeing the world in a new way as you meet at various scenic parks around Cincinnati to learn to sketch & paint with oils. In case of rain, class will meet indoors or in parks with overhead cover. Details & directions to locations will be given in class. No experience necessary. Richard Luschek studied classical painting under Boston painter Paul Ingbretson for 3 years after earning his BFA degree with UC's DAAP program. In addition to working as an artist & maintaining his art studio, Richard has taught with the Art Academy of Cincinnati & currently teaches private classes in his studio. View his work @ www.richardluschek.com Tuition is $199 for the 10-week class #3715-01; does not include supplies. A list of supplies needed for the class provided with enrollment confirmation or @ www.uc.edu/ace/commu/PAINTING.mht. First class meets at artist's Eden Park studio, then at various parks. More info & register @ http://www.uc.edu/ace/noncreditreg/browseclasses.aspx?classid=_xx1, www.uc.edu/ace/noncreditreg/, richard_luschek@yahoo.com, & 513.479.3322

Red Tree Gallery

I got a painting juried in a show at the Red Tree Gallery. The show is called Out of the Blue, and is a themed show in which the painting had to have something, blue, be about blue, titled blue or possibly make you feel blue. I had a blue painting, with a blue title.

The show opens Friday, June 13th, 2008 from 6-9pm and runs June 9th through July 5th

Below is the painting in it's crazy frame, that I will have in the show. Hope you can stop in to see it in person and drink lots of coffee. I am hoping that this gallery/coffee shop will have tons of patrons all crazy hopped up on caffeine making spur of the moment rash decisions including buying this painting.

Back 2 Bach

As an update to this post, I thought I would post a photo that Linda Crank sent of the my work in this lovely space.

I am going to be showing a few new paintings at the College Hill Presbyterian Church. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the concert because my silly brother decided to get married that night. Too bad, as I am a fan of Bach, though he hasn't done anything new in years.
If you are interested, and you should be, the information is posted below.
College Hill Presbyterian Church
5742 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224
(513) 541-5676, Fax 541-1575 Directions

Part II of the Back 2 Bach concert series will be presented on June 7, 7 p.m. The first concert received an enthusiastic standing ovation. Four gifted pianists from CCM will perform Bach’s Concerto No. 6 in F Major, No. 7 in G Minor, No. 5 in F Minor and No. 2 in E Major. The concert will be preceded by a performance from young, talented pianists at 6:30 p.m. This evening of classical music will be complemented with an exhibition of classical art by two area oil painters, Richard Luschek and Linda Crank.

Mr. Richard J. Luschek II, SM

I recently applied for super special Signature membership of the Cincinnati Art Club. I had to drop off 5 paintings for a super secret Selection Committee. They accepted me in as a Signature Member and I am honored.
Still trying to figure out how to actually add this honor to my signature. If you were a member of the Royal Academy, you got an RA behind your name, so I suppose a 'SM' works. Should it be SMCAC (Signature Member Cincinnati Art Club)? I am sure I will find out in the next meeting.

The interesting thing about being a Signature member is that the Associate members have to carry my books and art supplies for me when I come to the club, open doors and just generally worship me as a Signature member.

I think there are secret meetings with Signature members, not unlike the Skull and Bones organization or the Masons. I am hoping to be involved in some sort of deep, dark Signature Member art conspiracies that we will discuss at length in meetings peppered with evil laughter in a cigar smoke filled room while we swirl the snifter of 20 year single malt scotch- yeah, technically a snifter is for Brandy, but that is just the kind of crazy stuff us Signature members do. Most of the crazy stuff of course I can't discuss with any of you non-Signature Members.

I probably should smoke a pipe more now. Just seems like something a Signature member should do.

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.

Rembrandt: Three Faces in a Closet

I went to a show at the Cincinnati Art Museum today to see the Rembrandt paintings. It was like going to see paintings by one of the top painters in history and then finding them hanging in a closet. The only thing that would have been worse would have been if they had just turned the lights off. Had to be the worst lit show I have ever been to. I suppose someone decided, "The paintings are dark, maybe the room should be too." I have seen drawings and works on paper (work that is actually sensitive to light) in better lighting than this show.
The amazing thing is that there are skylights in the room they were shown in, but they had blocked them, to then spot light the paintings with incandescent bulbs. I am not sure who made this decision, but it was a poor and ill informed one. Only explanation that I would accept is that this was a condition of them being lent from the other museums. I can't see why, as sunlight is good for oil paintings, and while I can't speak for our museum or the one in Indy, but I would think at least that the Louvre knows better.
I can't think of a single 'great' artist in history that would suggest that his work would look better in artificial light. Rembrandt would be horrified to see his work shown so poorly. It would have been nice to really study the work, but it was hard to see them and study them fairly. I bet with natural light on them they would have glowed and the colors would have sparkled. Rembrandt is not known for his color, but the full spectrum of daylight would have done this show wonders.