Local Color- a movie about Painting

When watching the preview of Local Color, you may notice this is basically an arty version of Karate Kid- with less ass kicking action. Also, it ended with little chance for a Local Color II. Still, as a realist painter who has experienced the "master / apprentice" relationship, I knew that this movie, if done well, would have some special meaning. Since it was written and directed by an actual painter I figured a lot of typical art myths would be left out and replace with a bit of truth. For the most part I was satisfied with the results.
I certainly believe that art must be "uplifting to the human spirit"- a theme often cited in the film. Of course these days art often is not uplifting and most don't think it needs to be. Modern art is often too self indulgent to be uplifting. Today's artists spend a lot of its time pointing out the bad, the evil and the shocking. They also spend a lot of time pointing at themselves, in a "hey, look at me!" kind of way. Often this art is little more than pornography for the intellectual.

This movie is a low budget, small, independent film that is semi-autobiographical. It is not a documentary, so things have been adjusted and tweaked to make this movie watchable and entertaining. It is very sentimental and formulaic. As I like sappy movies, I did not mind. It has a lot of jargon and shop talk that my not be interesting to non-painters- but I found it pretty amusing. Some real gems of dialog were delivered by the "master" character- "If there is no beauty, there is no art". This character is one that I would love to hang out with. It would be a blast to sit down with Seroff, discuss art while sipping a bottle of some strong alcohol, trashing the ridiculousness of the art world. Being a pretty hard core curmudgeon myself, I identified with him totally.

This film is well acted by Armin Mueller-Stahl and Trevor Morgan as the two main characters. It is directed with passion and has some wonderful cinematography, but........... you knew there was going to be a but, didn't you? ............... I did have some issues with this film.

There were a lot of small problems in this movie. The Seroff character was a bit all over the place emotionally. He had some strong convictions- maybe too strongly portrayed. While his outlook may be based on truth, did not allow me to believe the friendship with the Ron Pearlman character- a art dealer type character that was filled with all the bile and crap you see in your typical modern art lacky, salesman type that can go on for hours using large words about nothing. I suppose the this relationship was an attempt to show that we can disagree about art, but still love each other. That is a lovely sentiment, but I can't imagine he would have suffered these ridiculous discussions for a second. It would be safer to discuss politics or religion. Even Mr Miyagi would have kicked his ass.

A summer studying painting under a master painter is barely enough time to skim the surface of what it takes to be a painter. This barely enough time to consider yourself a serious student of anyone.

There were some other small issues, but the big, over riding problem with this movie: The paintings portrayed in the file as being by this great Russian Master were terrible. They had none of the qualities that one sees in fine painting. Now, you may say, "It was just a movie. Give it a break!"
Well, if the message of the movie was not so strongly stated, if the modern art world was not so viciously attacked by the Seroff character, one would not mind that his work was only slightly better than the work you see in your typical hobbyist art fair. Seroff talked like someone who had amazing training- much more than a summer's worth. He spouted wisdom like a person that had years of classical training, involving time drawing from casts and master drawings. Hours spent drawing the nude figure. Serious time spent in the studio of a master painter that is not passing on his 'talent', but offering technical information that he himself received from a master- and so on- and so on. Seroff, who after years of working out the complicated problems of painting on his own, after some good training, talked like a painter.

Once you see his "art" you do not see that wisdom realized in paint. There is not the mastery.
These paintings are saleable in today's market, they may even win a local art show or two, but are they great works by someone with classical training? Not even close.
The film is full of paintings supposedly by the master in which the color was not true, with no real light effect and non existent drawing. If the film maker had used the paintings by George Cherepov, the actual painter he studied with and whom the character Seroff was based on, the movie would have had more weight. There are tons of really good landscape painters working today that would have loved to lend their work to this project, but unfortunately the director decided to use his own paintings. Concerning the director Gallo's work, we can give him a bit of a break- as he has had very little training, and has not really worked at it professionally. I am not saying that he is not capable of good work, he just needs to continue good training and some serious time spent painting in the field- or do what he does best- write and direct film.

For this movie and its message to be powerful, it needed powerful work. It needed work by a master- real or imagined.
The paintings did not carry the message, and in fact hurt it. This is too bad, as I was totally buying the message. I am all for discussions that undermine the hollow work of most modern painters. Some breathtaking work by an amazing landscape painter would have really made the argument all the more strong.

Richard Luschek II, Future Cincinnati Dead Artist!

So, it turns out that eventually I am going to die. I know! I'm as shocked at this as the rest of you. This is totally inconvenient since I have so much "stuff" I have to do.

Now, you may be wondering what prompted this morbid revelation. I am technically close to, or already at, 'middle age'. Of course, 'middle age' is relative. I can not be sure how long I will live, but we can assume that I am getting close to half way.
So, I figure I ought to start preparing for the 'Big Check Out'.

First things first- My tombstone. I fully expect that my friends and family will see to my wish that this monument, or one very similar, will be constructed in my honor. Subtle changes could be made. I would not be adverse to some additions of gold here and there, or that I be portrayed shirtless.

Click photo for a detailed look:


When you're an artist, one of the first subjects that will often come up with complete strangers is your death.

It sometimes seems inevitable that the conversation is going in that direction. You can feel it immediately- like they have been planning their whole life to say this to an artist should they ever meet one. People love to say it, and seem to think they are incredibly clever when they do (please read the following in your best hillbilly accent):

"You a artist huh? Too bad you ain't gonna make no money till you be dead."

Now, I really can't think of another profession where in polite conversation one focuses immediately on that persons imminent demise; even someone that has a dangerous job, like a stunt person, sword swallower, or drug dealer. It is just not good form to bring up the fact that they are going to die- unless of course you could prevent it by saying something like, "Hey, don't drink that deadly poison- you might die!" Then it's OK.

Unfortunately for me it is apparently bad form to give them a good swift kick in the groin. So I just give a polite chuckle and explain to them how much I would like to kick them in the groin.

I do believe people mean well when they bring up my post death worth as an artist, and honestly, they are just employing the terrible art education that they’ve received in our public school system. The only artists they can name are Van Gogh and Picasso. They know Picasso was good because an art teacher told them so, and everyone loves the romantic story of Van Gogh dying poor and crazy, as his paintings today sell for wildly over-priced amounts to rich people- also impressed with the romantic ideas of the guy they are now treating as an investment.

I show my work in galleries with artists that have the great benefit of having already died. This growing group is treated with special reverence. Some art collectors only buy work of dead Cincinnati artists. It is such a special group, everyone is dying to get into it- sorry about that one.

Since we all can agree that I am going to be "A Dead Artist", why don't we all get ready for it. Here is a count down.....



So, you are wondering how I came up with this date? I just have a feeling. I am planning to live to be about 96 years old. . I have substantial reason to believe this since my family is fairly long lived even though as a whole they are not at all health conscious. At functions we have desert before and after dinner. We eat tons of nasty food. Seriously, we are not the lean picture of health, but we live to ripe old ages anyway. (We complain and bitch about aches and pains, but we do it for a long time.)
Now, I am a vegetarian. I am pretty active. I am a safe driver. I don't smoke. Most dangerous sports and hobbies frighten me. So, 96 sounds about right don’t you think?. I am also a Virgo with control issues and like to keep things tidy, so to keep it simple I will just die on my birthday- September 22.

What is the point of all of this? Well, if people want so badly to talk about how I am going to be worth more when I’m dead then it follows that… Now is the best time to buy my work! In this economy you must ask yourself... "What should I invest the little bit of money I have left after the government takes their cut?" Ask your investment broker. I’m sure he will agree that "An Investment in the paintings of Richard Joseph Luschek II is a wise decision." Choose a Luschek painting and I guarantee that I will eventually die........ in roughly 56 years. Don’t forget: after my death the number of paintings I will be producing will be significantly fewer!
Less supply = more demand = big money!
Furthermore, along the way to September 22, 2065, it is a certainty that my painting’s prices will be steadily increasing (Promise and hope to die!). The longer you wait to buy one of my paintings the more you will have to shell out for one of them in the future. This is one investment you can enjoy the whole time it “hangs around” appreciating!

please note- that the more great art I create the higher your investment is likely to climb, and as I am continually improving, it is not in your best interest as an investor to kill me. So, don't get any stupid ideas.

What Is Worth Painting?

I have a tendency to paint pictures of odd things. I have a weird and obscure sense of humor. I enjoy sarcasm, humor, and a biting wit. Most of my immediate family is quite funny. My friends are pretty funny- or at least they find me funny. If they don't, I generally do not want to be around them, because they must not be very smart- as I am freaking hilarious.

Now let me ask, is there room in painting for a sense of humor? Can art be funny? Of course a painting can be funny, but should it be? Should art aspire to something higher? Does a subject have to be serious to have a timeless weight to it? A painting of a monkey giving a clown a wedgie would be hilarious, but most could agree it is not worthy of being painted on canvas- black velvet maybe, but not canvas.
A lot of art by the Modernist is tongue in cheek or shocking; a sophomoric attempt at being clever.
Contrast is an important concept in painting, being a requirement to creating a composition. You need a contrast of two different values- a dark and a light, to set things off and emphasize the subject. You can have contrast of values, colors, edges and sizes. When arranged and used in their proper relation you are designing.


Old Frying Pan (16x12) oil on linen, 2004

I also enjoy contrast in subject matter. Arranging things that don't necessarily go together into a pleasing arrangement. Contrast of subject can be funny or defined as 'weird'.
I am trying to control my urge to set up weird stuff- for a few reasons. For one thing it sort of fits in that category of cutesy cleverness I criticize the 'moderns' for. Other than an odd arrangement of stuff, is it saying anything other than, 'hey look at how cute I am?' Also these paintings have been hard for me to sell. They are often attract attention, but never enough for someone to put down some money to own. If I do a painting that is a quiet and beautiful arrangement, it eventually sells. Why is that?
I think it has to do with timelessness of subject. Something which is weird has that initial shock value. It attracts at first, but does it maintain interest?

If the attached paintings do in your opinion, Why in the hell haven't you bought them!


1, 2, Red, Yellow, Blue, 9x7, oil on canvas, 2005

In a previous post I talked about a Surrealism show I saw at the museum. It was a bunch of 'weird', silly and juvenile stuff. I suggest you read the post.
Some other people posted some good comments under that post- including a quote by Ingres- "Woe to the artist who does not take his work seriously."
Someone else talked about how not all art is about beauty, and that "pretty" pictures can be boring. He also mentioned that while Geurnica is not pretty, it is honest.
I will post my response here as I thought it was pretty good and it adds more to the topic of 'What is worth painting':

"You could say that graffiti artists are being honest. You could say terrorists are being honest as well. They are expressing their intention.
I am not a fan of terrorism and I think most graffiti artists should have there right hand cut off if they are caught defacing property (that may be harsh, maybe just a few fingers).

I never said pretty. Beauty is something that can be separated from prettiness. I believe it is greater, a higher ideal than mere prettiness.
You mention Guernica- the most over rated painting in the history of the arts in my opinion. Yes it has intent, but what else? It is illustration of a terrible event. Other than to document misery, what is the point? Blood and guts says little more than your typical B-movie slasher film.
I will offer a contemporary example, and as I can't find a lot of success in fine arts, I will go to the movies. Two movies, both by Spielberg, document horrible events in human history: The Holocaust and WWII.
Ugly subjects in which he manages to show moments of beauty. Guernica ends after the opening bloody sequence of the beach landing. Leaving you with little to no faith in humanity.
This movie goes on to show the human spirit prevailing over the horrible events. A Guernica-like take on the holocaust would just show a stack of bodies, while Schindler's List goes on to show someone doing great deeds of heroism despite these events.
An art example is the Pietà by Michelangelo. Sorry I have to go back so far, but it is the highest example I could think of.
What is worse than the representation of the death of ones son? Yet there is beauty here, it shows pure love, even in ultimate loss. We do not even have to know the story of Christ to get the point. It is about something 'Greater'.

A great artist can paint an ugly rock and still manage to show it's beauty. Or you could just make it float over the ground so people ignore the poor craftsmanship and lack of any great idea other than the 'intent' to shock.

"Ooooh, that rock is floating over the ocean. Crazy man. But I still wish it had some boobies."

For the record, I often find Pissaro boring as well."

Finally, a friend of mine sent a very well put letter on the subject. It deserves to be shared here:

"May I suggest that weirdness is a cop out? That which is weird is so at the expense of a more true, more honest, more powerful effect. Weirdness may amuse a fellow weirdo (one who shares ones eccentricities in taste or humor) but can it do so and nourish the soul? Call to arms those timeless convictions that bid poets write, and mothers weep? Men fight and minstrels play, and children build with awkward blocks and clay?

Weirdness speaks of you first (the painter), and by so doing, is woefully limited. Consider; is weirdness not a dis-unity? a lack of harmony? A state of oddness that bears testimony to its incompetence? Is the effect of weirdness not produced by parts that do not cooperate with the whole of truth, with the concept, with the painting itself? To say one is weird with a grin, is to glorify ones isolation and estrangement from the pulse of mankind. From the pursuit of order and harmony, and therefore from the possibility of contributing to either.

So weirdness is employed by those who prefer to make cheap effects. To evoke in a viewer some reaction that would otherwise not be. Why? Is it that the effect and power of harmony and order employed by the creative mind and eye would require too daunting a task? Or is it just beyond the sense and sensitivities of our weird friend?

Whatever the reason may be, for one to be satisfied with weirdness is to trade ones grand inheritance for a bowl of luke warm soup, satisfying some temporal hunger in lue of pursuing that which is eternally satisfying and effective.

Off course, like most things, this phenomenon could easily apply to the other end of the spectrum. Paintings that are so ordered and lacking in ingenuity or courage that they cease to have any effect or harmony worth mentioning, they too are an offense to truth and the greater human project.

It just occurred to me that interest that might be categorized as weird, but exists within the context of a persuasively beautiful and powerful painting, ceases to be called weird. The assignment of weird is reserved for that which stands out and alone as off putting or odd. I think of numerous large paintings by Tintoretto or Varanasi . One can find countless "weird" stuff going on, but the overall effect is anything but.

I suppose it all boils down to that illusive balance between unity and interest. Effect and fact. Self and neighbor.

Would be worth while to explore what exactly those people found weird about your work. One might be pleasantly surprised to find how it could be remedied.
Take Care
Alastair Dacey"

But it looks cool.

Wine and Beer (The Couple), each panel 11 x 6, oil on linen

WARNING: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, and Emphysema. Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. Cigar Smoking Can Cause Cancers Of The Mouth And Throat, Even If You Do Not Inhale. Cigars Are Not A Safe Alternative To Cigarettes.
But, even the Surgeon General will admit, while unhealthy, it looks totally bad ass.

Alright, I got that out of the way. I really don't smoke that often, but I have been smoking a lot of cigars for the above paintings. The paintings are done, and I think I will lay off the smokes for a while.

This is a set of paintings that I mentioned in a previous post. I will not bore you with the details again, but I thought I would talk about the process of painting something that moves. The tendency here, if one were to paint a moving and active thing like smoke would be to use a photo for reference. Now, if you are painting something that is living and breathing, are you getting the complete picture by copying a flat photo of an instant? Be it a person, an object or outdoor scene, if you work from photos, you are not going to get a healthy and full concept of what you want to represent. If you copy a photo of a person, you miss the life of that person. You miss the possibility for the happenstance. You miss the form.

As I have said before, drawing and painting is the interpretation of form. You need to be looking at your subject with two eyes, to see, understand, and eventually render that form. A photo, is taken by a single lens, often with equal focus. So you get a photo that flat- not form.
We understand form because we have two eyes- there are other reasons involving our sense of touch, but I will not get into that here. I am speaking visually now. We see two images, from two locations: A left eye and a right eye, usually separated by a nose- unless you are some sort of freak or one-eyed pirate.
You really only get the whole picture if you are working from life.

One more argument for working from life is the possibility that your picture will improve with some random event. Let's say you are painting a picture of a beautiful woman. You work on setting up the pose, and feel it is just what you want. How could it get any better?
A few days later, 10 hours into this painting, the model moves a bit, as they occasionally do. A lock of hair falls slightly and she glances up with her eyes. Suddenly the scene has greatly improved. In a way you would have never imagined on your own. What can you do, but shout for the model to hold still, and rework the painting to these improvements on your original idea. You miss these events working from photos. Working from life you get the vibration of life- the dither.
Working with a model you get a chance to get to know the person, the mannerisms, the various looks. I have had some great experiences talking, laughing with the model while I work.

In landscape, I paint the scene and sort of let it live and breath, chasing effects. On a sunny day, the shadows move with the sun. I paint what I see at one moment. If it moves and I don't like it as much, I leave it, if it gets better as a design, I will change the painting to match the improvement in nature.

In this picture I was painting smoke. I had some idea how I wanted it to go. I had drawn some thumbnail sketches with the generalized smoke sketched in. Of course smoke can not be arranged. Lit a cigar- a cheaper cigar than the one in the painting, and held it close to the still life to see the color, value, shape and movement of the smoke. I basically had to memorize the trends that happened. Get an idea of what the smoke looked like in front of a dark object, I would puff on the cigar and hold it up, get a concept of what I wanted and then paint.
It took 4 cigars to get what I wanted. The nice thing was that I could do anything I wanted. I had painted it in, and realized that the design had some issues -some of the smoke lined up with other compositional elements in an odd way, so I just changed it.
I also had some incense burning that I set in that area, as I was getting a bit light headed from all the smoking. Unfortunately for me the smoke was not quite right. So, I returned to the cigar itself.
I started with the big movements and added detail as needed. I was not painting smoke as much as I was painting my impression of smoke. Interestingly, I started to notice that smoke looked like a series of transparent cylinders, with a sharp edge and a soft one. In my scene, the smoke was a warm yellow- gray color near the cigar and got more violet as it moved away. All stuff that would have been hard to get from a photo.

If you are painting a picture of cigar smoke, and if you are doing it right, painting should be bad for your health.

I have the power!

Unfortunately this power is an evil curse.
When I started painting this picture, the Cincinnati Reds were fighting for contention in the division. There was a lot of talk about how good they were doing- talk about winning the division, talk about playoffs. Big excitement for our team. A few days into the painting, someone gave me tickets to see a game. It was the first game I had seen in the new stadium. I was looking forward to it. I am not a big sports guy. I thought it would be fun to watch the team score some goal units.

They lost 1-10.
These were box seats, so even though the game was not the most exciting I had seen, I was able to eat my weight in free pizza and ice cream bars.

I finally finished the painting this week. I just checked and the Reds are not doing so well. They just lost their sixth straight game. They are not in last place, but close.

Coincidence? Seems pretty unlikely.



After the Game, 15 x 19, Oil on linen

Now, you are probably thinking that I must be extremely ego centric and completely crazy for thinking this.
Well, I am not crazy.

Let me offer more proof:
I started to suspect something last year when I painted another picture. Again, I am not sure that I am completely to blame for the economic collapse (there may have been a few other factors), but things really started to go badly after I did this painting with the Money and Investing section of the paper.


Morning News, 9 x 12, oil on linen

I am really going to have think long are hard about what my next painting is going to be. Should I even think about doing portraits anymore? Someone could get hurt.

Wait, what if the way to break this evil spell is for someone out there to buy these paintings?

That seems completely logical!

If you buy these paintings, you will help the Reds season turn around. We will see them in the playoffs. I can't promise the World Series, once they get to Playoffs they are on their own.
If you buy the coffee and newspaper picture, we will have complete economic recovery.

Contact me about purchasing the above paintings. Just think of the good you will be doing.

Quick sketch and a Contest

Here is a fairly adequate figure sketch I did this week at our Tuesday night figure drawing group. I only had about 40 minutes on this one, and while it needs a lot of work, I thought it was fairly successful for the time spent.


12 x 9, graphite on paper

Now, I would like to mention a few points about sketching and drawing. In a quick sketch like this, one hopes to get a solid representation of gesture and proportion. There is a living, breathing model posing for this. She gets tired and needs breaks, and then has to try to get back into the pose. Rarely is it exactly like it was the first 20 minutes. Standing poses with both feet planted are easier to get back, but often the more lovely, graceful poses with movement are hard to hold and hard to get back. It is even harder if you haven't any important points mapped out on your paper from the first session.
The above drawing definitely has some issues- the arm is not very well represented and has weak form- but I like the pose and the movement. With more time these problems could have been fixed.

I once heard a local 'artist' proclaim that if you can't draw the figure well in the first 15 minutes, then you probably don't know what you are doing. That is of course complete nonsense.

Now, I will agree that the better the artist, the better the chance that the image put down in the first 15 minutes is going to be, but this is not what was meant. It was part of the glorification of the sketch. The acceptance that the initial ideas and marks are the best.

Nothing hides errors more than a sketch. This is true in both painting and drawing. You can get away with murder in the quick sketch. The bravura and flowing lines of a fast sketch have a life of their own. It is fresh, but it is rarely very truthful. The 'life' it has, can over-ride some hideous drawing. People today love the sketch. For one thing it is way easier to complete. Most artists working today haven't a clue what to do with a drawing after the first few hours. If you have been to college for art, you can fill a dumpster with bad sketches after you graduate.
In college we wasted a lot of time doing 20 second gesture drawings of a model. If you don't know how to draw, doing it fast is not going to help. Long, studied drawings are the only way to learn how to draw. If you have not spent 20 to 40 hours on one figure drawing or one cast drawing, chances are you really have no idea what drawing is, or really any idea of what I am even talking about.
Now, you have to know what I mean by 'drawing'. I talked about this a bit in a previous post.
I will quote from it here:
First I defined drawing as 'the interpretation of form'. We are often told that drawing is 'mark making', or something touchy feely having to do with self expression. While that can be true, it is basically about representing the 3D on a 2D surface. By that logic, if you are not interpreting form, you are not drawing.
A monkey with a crayon is not drawing. Squealing your tires at a stop sign is not drawing. It's mark making, but not drawing.
Again, teaching someone to faithfully interpret form can not be taught in 4 days. It probably takes closer to a year of full time study under someone that has already mastered this skill.

I will now add that 20 second gesture drawings are tough to put in the drawing category. It is mark making. If you have ever sat in a class with a bunch of punk art students flailing around on newsprint paper with a hunk of compressed charcoal, the image of a monkey with a crayon might be more fitting.

If you have spent any time on drawing, and spent some considerable time on single drawing, you should know that your first marks, your first attempts to learn the drawing were naive. The sketch is a start. Over time you learn the subject. You refine and give form to the flat surface. Your initial marks may have life, and be exciting, but the more you look you see that it is ill proportioned, and lacking in any breadth or feeling of form. So, your job now is to take those initial impressions of the big gesture and movement, and keep then as you refine and improve your drawing.

To quote Degas, "It is not difficult to get life into a six hour study. The Difficulty is to retain it there in sixty."

Go Team

I am exhausted today. I tried to write something clever, but it sounded like it was written by someone on drugs- and not the totally awesome kind, but the bad kind of drugs. So I deleted the post.
I am going to keep this short and sweet.

I finished this painting today. Here are a few process shots, showing the first day lay-in (one of the best I have done), followed by a shot a few days later, and the final photo taken today.

Sorry the text is so boring, but give me a break! Writing this blog is tough. A man can only give so much, and I am constantly giving. I give, and you want more, day after day. I can't handle it! I am a giver, that is what I do.

Just enjoy the painting, offer your comments and more blog entries will be coming. I am going to bed.








After the Game, 15 x 19, Oil on linen