Technique Can’t Replace Passion in Making Art

I would like to express my appreciation for an article by William Goldstein (“Making Art Passionately,” Counterpunch, Dec. 30).

Historically, the artist has been a chronicler of the age in which he lived and used his creativity to express and encapsulate what his fellow human beings experienced. As a self-taught artist, I firmly believe that artists have allowed themselves to be controlled by two many “isms” and that each must learn to communicate in their own inimitable way. We are all individuals and must express ourselves visually in our individual fashion.

It seems to be that technique most often substitutes for a real passion for art and that much of the art produced is a matter of perfect execution (at best) but is often lacking in soul. This lack of soul in art seems to have been embraced by the local galleries and museums, something I confess I do not experience in New York (where I am represented) or by the museum I exhibit my work with in France. It seems to me to be primarily in Los Angeles where artists are encouraged to “detach” themselves from art, to allow gimmicks and the current kitsch to take over. As I live in the Los Angeles area, I find it very discouraging that any work of substance is simply discarded as “not our style.”

It is my belief that the art world (the galleries, the museums, etc.) need to reassess their commitment to the field of art itself. Most contemporary artists paint what these people will show--this is a sad truth. Shouldn’t the challenge come from the other side as well?

LEE EVANS

Lakewood