Your work is lovely. It does have that Leffel feel to it, so I’m glad that you are clear that the world only needs one of him. I’m sure that, over time, you’ll find your own independent voice.

Best wishes,

David

You may be right. In my defense, I can note that I didn’t buy it—I only perused it in a book store.

You are correct in saying that a follower of a particular teacher should not merely turn out carbon copies of the instructor. Hopefully, an instructor imparts principles, concepts, and in their own work, some technique to assist the student on their path as a painter. If a teacher says something isn’t ‘good’ or real unless it reflects the work of that teacher, or, that it must reinforce the teacher’s own ideas, that teacher does a disservice to the student. Second rate ‘copyists’ remain just that. My own work has been associated with my one instructor (Leffel.) That doesn’t disturb me as it was merely a beginning point in my journey. Eventually, the teacher’s voice fades, and the journey begins in earnest.

I suspect that my work will deepen and evolve, just as I do as a person. I ‘ve also begun to work in other media which lets me find conclusions and the solving of problems I might not find in working with oil only. I didn’t begin to paint only to paint like someone else. I take from Leffel’s work what I can and try to move to my own conclusions. I am influenced by other painters, living and dead. To be open to other forces and experiences is to live one’s own life.

No one can take away Leffel’s rightful place as a good painter. But, we only need one Leffel. Eventually, you have to take your first attempts and guidance from others, to become your own painter, just as you would want to live your own life, and not the life of another person. This is what it means to be original and authentic. If I were only in this world to recreate Leffel’s palette, still life arrangements, etc., I would be a poor imitation of someone else.

Thanks.

M Kathryn Massey, OPA, AA

An interesting note is that Milt and Malcolm are friends and former room mates of a sort. Check around on Wet Canvas for Bruin70’s posts. That is Milt’s forum name and he has addressed their similarities in the past…is worth reading if one is even a passive admirer of either.

What surprises me is how these clone artists get the recognition they do. Even if they are good, they are still copying someone else’s style, and more than a few don’t even try to put a personal stamp on it. I don’t begrudge anyone making a living, but I think I would rather not paint at all than copy someone else. There is no pride in it, it defeats the whole purpose of wanting to be an artist. Now, i WAS formally trained, starting at the age of 8, but I believe I would feel this way even if I were a bored housewife, sunday painter, retired hobbyist, whatever.

Finding your own style does not come easy for every artist, perhaps that is why that even when one has talent, it is no guarantee that you will become successful. You need something different to set you apart from the rest.

Glad to hear someone else finally express this, because it really has bugged me for a while. Great blog!

Do you believe “formal training” excludes Illustration?

I do not if that somehow has been misunderstood.

The artists mentioned conduct informal workshops. I was comparing trained artists to hobbyists……….”formal training” can mean many things but it does not mean reading a few books, watching DVDs and taking a few classes and workshops.

There are varying qualities of formal training. Most however follow some sort of structure beginning with basic and working up to more advanced concepts. The hobbyists, on the other hand, is inclined to pick and choose what to spend time on.

The motivation is different and they are more inclined to avoid that which is uncomfortable and tedious however beneficial the activity. They are also inclined to gravitate to people who have already done the footwork and ironed out their own wrinkles. They will easily accept a single point of view as gospel and not have the motivation to seek rounded knowledge that enables them to make independent choices.

I’m not sure formal training is all you seem to think its cracked up to be. I know quite a few artists who have had “formal training” and they think their time might have been better served… it seems to me formal training can actually lock an artist into a mindset…but methinks I’m just opening up another whole can of worms.

I myself prefer artists who knowingly and openly work in someone else’s style to those who cluelessly imitate without really knowing what they are doing.

That’s an issue in much of 20th century art, now that I think of it.