A Painter's Musings on the Visual World

Can something funny be taken seriously in the art world? In most cases the answer is “No” but not in every case.

In filmmaking, the movie industry very seldom awards its highest honors to a comedy or a comedic actor, opting instead for the dramatic and even the most depressing or violent subjects. When forced to choose “best” anything such as the Best Picture category where we compare “The Hurt Locker” to “Up” as the Oscars did in 2010, serious usually wins. Yet in most people’s opinion it is much easier to make people cry than it is to make them laugh. Shouldn't laughter get a little more respect?

In art we usually don’t call a painting a comedy – we substitute “satirical”, “whimsical” or “off-beat” among other words. But it is just as hard to have it taken seriously. You need look no further than most national awards and museums to see the genre bias that is evident. Serious subjects are less open to interpretation while light-hearted work is risky if it slightly misses the mark and is labeled kitschy or saccharine.

Norman Rockwell "Bottom Drawer"  25 x 25

Art critic Clement Greenberg famously said that Norman Rockwell’s paintings should not be taken seriously: “you have to put Rockwell down, down below the rank of minor artist. He chose not to be serious.” Critics of Rockwell’s era did just that, decrying his appeal to the commoner class. Rockwell had the last laugh.

Red Grooms’ busy and comical street scenes are one of the best modern examples of humorous art that is seriously valuable. His influences being Daumier and the Marx Brothers, we should not be surprised that the result is a witty, chaotic and sarcastic depiction of the city and its colorful characters. He often met with criticism for the “insensitivity “of his portrayals, yet the public looked at his work with the intended humor and enthusiasm.

 Red Grooms " The Big Top".  90 x 120

Satire is equally difficult to pull off successfully, the audience often failing to read it correctly. It is clear in Boris Kustodiev’s “Portrait of Fyodor Chaliapin” that there is an element of satire in his emphasis on the fur coat in the painting. As it turns out, the coat was given to opera singer Chaliapin by the theater because there was no money to pay him. The fur coat, confiscated from the wealthy during the revolution, is symbolic of the upheaval in Russia at the time. Chaliapin was a fairground singer and his audience was the common man. The confiscated fur coat and hat make quite a statement against the backdrop of the fairground atmosphere.

 Boris Kustodiev “Portrait of Fyodor Chaliapin”

Nancy Seamons Crookston’s paintings go from light-hearted caricatures to sensitive beauty. Perhaps my favorite place is the middle ground she strikes in “Mister Gepetto” where sensitivity and humor combine. It is in the best spirit of Rockwell and if Saturday Evening Post were still around it would fit right in as a uniquely American subject.

 Nancy Seamons Crookston "Mister Gepetto" 36 x 24

There is always a need for lightness and humor in the world and the art world is no different.  My own favorites are those figurative pieces that capture a moment that has some humor to it. I like to catch people in the act of just being human, where perhaps we can smile at ourselves just a little. 

Jane Chapin "Praca do Bocage" 24 x 18