A few years ago when I visited the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, I saw Matisse’s Tea in the Garden, which I consider a really bad painting, and I called it such in my review.
On Wednesday at the Milwaukee Museum of Art, I had a similar experience.
Here is Milton Avery’s Two Figures (1963). There are a number of Avery paintings in that museum, but this one struck me as the worst. It’s a large painting and I consider it spectacularly bad.
Look at the drawing. The pencil outlines are clearly visible. They are crude and the artist made no attempt to make them realistic or abstract. They are just sloppy and sketchy. Then he quickly colored in the main fields. He used six colors, no mixing, and no effort to cover evenly even to make it at least look clean.
I swear, I could do this painting in 20 minutes and it would look more pleasing than this does.
I have a lot of paintings that are much better than this that are stacked in my garage, never to be seen – sometimes to be painted over to at least reuse the canvas. But Milton Avery’s Two Figures in prominently displayed in the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Somebody explain that to me!
Norbert, my friend, I learned to love Milton Avery from reading about his life after getting to know six or seven of his paintings at the Phillips Gallery in Washington, DC.
I am not trying to change your opinion in any direct way, and I cannot say that I am drawn to this picture, or many of Avery’s figure paintings (though I like the surprising colors here–always a sign of mastery). But he made a point of completing paintings from his sketch book in a day, and aimed above all for spontaneity, simplicity, atmosphere. He stayed with real images and was not drawn to abstraction, though like the abstract expressionists and others he wanted to capture a complex mood).
I won’t write a sermon. But I like almost every example of his work at the Phillips, especially “Winter Riders,” “Black Sea” and “Harbor at Night” (one of my all time favorite paintings by an American). Read about his purpose. I know he was inspired by Van Gogh, who completed most of his paintings in a day. He aspired to a simplicity, intensity and complexity that could be accomplished like Japanese silk paintings in a single sitting.
That’s the best I can do. And like Van Gogh, Avery would be the first to admit that not every painting was a success. In fact, like Van Gogh, he may well have thought that his life’s work was an apprenticeship.
Thank you for the insight. I get that part. Clearly Milton Avery’s paintings are in the best galleries in the country. He is a revered painter. I am just an amateur. But I stand behind my statement: The painting I showed is not enough for me to be considered worthy hanging on a wall, let alone in a gallery. I have at least 50 or more paintings of this level or detail, most of them more refined, stacked in my garage. But I do not feel they are worthy to be presented to others. They are, what I call, failed paintings.
I did not mean to put down Avery – not in the least – and perhaps I met my goal, because your response here prompted me to research the artist further, and Harbor at Night is a wonderful work.
Now I am going to let “Two Figures” go!
I will try to paste his “Harbor at Night”:
Avery-HarboratNight.jpg
Looks like it didn’t work, so here is the url from the Phillips:
https://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/artwork/Avery-Harbor_Night.htm
That is a beautiful painting. I agree with you!
Oh boy where to start on your commentary. I was googling Milton Avery after falling in love again w his work today and ran across this. I can only speak from my experience after about 45 years of painting (and Pratt Master’s in painting etc) but for the first 30 years of my being a serious painter I like you would’ve thought this was just sloppy. However sometimes it takes a lifetime to suddenly be able to see the divine balance in every sketchy countour and errant Bridgette in a Matisse, it’s almost mathematical, like a proof, of perfect balance and resonance of line almost like waveform relationships in math/physics. It’s EXTREMELY subtle and esoteric, including color harmony and a love of the “accident” often seen in Zen or eastern art why Averys work is amazing in it’s reduction. Pointing out that a pencil mark being visible is a drawback made me suddenly realize this is an amateur blog because I think advanced eyes know and love to see the traces of history left intentionally visible in a work. All I can say is stick with it and maybe one day you can be able to “see” the genius in this work. Like w other difficult artists (eg Guston, Cezanne) it may take a lifetime, but it’s worth the effort. This is no emperor’s new clothes. The quality IS visible to some of us if I may say humbly. Is this Avery’s best? Probably not. But it’s better I think than 99.9% of the output out there. Good luck to you
Hi “K” – thanks for your comments. YES, this is an amateur blog. I am not an art critic, dealer, scholar or expert. I am just an amateur painter who travels a lot (pre-pandemic) and likes to make a point of visiting galleries when on the road. Yep – I don’t see it. I stand by my comments, but I value yours. I stated that I can do a painting like this in 20 minutes myself, but of course I didn’t actually do that. You have inspired me to do an Avery. It’ll probably be a Weird Al Yankovik-esque parody, but I’ll try it. Perhaps you can check in here in a month or so and find what I came up with. Maybe there is a master in me too!
Thanks for taking the time to write this comment. It’s inspiring.
I completely agree. It’s rubbish. What is wrong with it is not it’s lack of polish. I don’t care about that at all. Or even the faux naivety, the clumsiness of the figures, dull coloration and terrible composition. I can live with that too. It’s the fact it’s boring. It is dead, flat and dull. It is the product of an attitude which accords the only authoritative way of viewing it is through the perspective of the artist and the select few who ‘get it’. Most people will glance at it and move on.We live in a world where we are bombarded with images almost all of which are of far greater interest than this and the rest of the unimaginative, lifeless dross Avery produced.
Hi Jon – it’s been almost three years since I did this post, and as you can see, I get comments on both sides of the spectrum. You call it rubbish. Some call it genius. I am an amateur painter, and I know I could do one of these genius paintings every day. I don’t do it because I’d be embarrassed about having it in my house. I have 50 such genius paintings stacked in my garage. Your comment enticed me to go through my stack and find one that I might post next to this, just for the viewer’s enjoyment. So here’s another project for me….