The PleinAir Salon has its next deadline on September 30, and artists — often slightly prone to procrastination — are entering the competition in increasing numbers. A previous winner talks about why painters should throw their hats in the ring for these types of things.
“For me, the primary reason to enter is to see how a respected artist/judge thinks my work stacks up to that of my peers,” says Kim Casebeer, winner of the January/February edition of the PleinAir Salon competition. “The spirit of competition forces me to take a critical look at my work when deciding what to submit.”
There are many reasons to enter online competitions. It can increase your exposure among collectors and arts writers. It helps build your resume. It is one of the pieces some gallery owners look for in artists. It forces you to critically examine your work. It can evoke an honest appraisal from an astute judge. (The August/September contest for the PleinAir Salon has Skip Whitcomb as the juror.)
And, at least in the PleinAir Salon, you can be among the winners of a total of $21,000 in prizes.
(Due to the age of this post, some images may be missing from this article)
I’ve done my share of studio work in the past. Now, most of my work is plein air, single session, and small. (12 x 16″ max.) If this means I’m not an artist in Mr. Stern’s eyes then so be it. I’ve never been more productive in my art life than I am now.
To each his own.
Both forms and path ways to Creating art work are viable in my opinion. I love the instantaneous marks and feel of small plein air works.
For me, my art done outdoors looks out of place next to the work I do in the studio and so most of my plein air paintings are considered a great time and a fantastic way to learn and do not leave my studio once finished.
I’m with you tkelly. Anyone who doesn’t paint large paintings isn’t an artist? That’ll be big news to miniaturists. Can you spell a-r-t s-n-o-b? Sniff…
I think that the various points of view being expressed in this discussion should be treated with suitable degrees of respect, appreciation and open-mindedness; given their potential to refine, expand or add to our own views on the matter. However, I would caution that we not lose sight of the fact that these kinds of “debates” rarely yield universally-accepted, DEFINITIVE answers, no matter how’persuasive’ or ‘compelling’ a proponent’s arguments might be. “Personal preference” is the ‘wild card’ in the deck and it typically trumps other considerations when determining the “appeal” that a particular artwork might hold for the artist, the gallery owner or the collector. Some prefer plein air studies to “finished” studio pieces simply because the study might better reflect the “magic,” spontaneity, or “soul” of the moment! Yet others would not be caught dead with a plein air piece. As an earlier commentor said, “To each his own.”
For anyone feeling umbrage at Mr. Stern’s observations, please take his comments not as an insult, but as a challenge. While it is certainly not easy to create a fine painting in any size, painting large does require a different approach, mostly in the way of intent, that is immediately apparent once one begins the work. Painting large may also offer more breadth of expression for some and as a painter, that is always welcome.
Quite frankly , and on a personal note I’m growing tired of this debate. It doesn’t matter if you paint outside ,inside, upside down right side up. I know some painters who work strictly outside and have trouble in the studio ,and some studio painters who have trouble working plein air . A lot has to do with your background and comfort zone . I work in my studio about 70% of the time and 30 out most of that is to teach and do small works to take to the studio to do larger paintings ,mostly because I have a Gallery to run. For me working out is a luxury . There are many variables to this dialogue, but for all intents and purposes this is Plein Air mag so Rave On everyone!!or should I say paint on! Best to all painters, David Grafton
It would seem that Jean Stern is blundering his way through the plein-air debate; his comments do not belie any real understanding of landscape painting, and I’m left wondering what real qualifications he has for his presumption and obvious fault on far too many points.
Maybe Plein Air Magazine needs to vet more carefully the individuals it would promote to ‘knowledgeable and informed status on landscape painting’, as this individual’s comments have no clarity, historical reference or further merit..
It would seem that Jean Stern is blundering his way through the plein-air debate; his comments do not belie any real understanding of landscape painting, and I’m left wondering what real qualifications he has for his presumption and obvious fault on far too many points.
Maybe Plein Air Magazine needs to vet more carefully the individuals it would promote to ‘knowledgeable and informed status on landscape painting’, as this individual’s comments have no clarity, historical reference or further merit..
mr stern has once again nicely sidestepped the relevant point within the issue, as have others comments. no one has questioned the viability or legitimacy of either path of painting expression (although in his previous remarks mr stern does attempt to make a much needed distinction between what is obviously amateur works and those of the professional painter), nor is there debate as to which is superior to the other (there are both good and bad works produced in all processes and procedures), but what has been questioned is mr stern’s as well as others remarks who wish to label or insinuate studio painting as plein air because it may have been derived from outdoor materials. which is to any rational thinking person an out and out lie to label it as such, just as to make the opposite claim would be. This has led to the “studio plein air” deception which is of course made for the sake of commercial sales and for no other purpose.
and one can agree that there is never a definitive conclusion to be found in these discussions, but that is because the actual problem is never addressed, just as with mr stern people want to make their personal opinion known whether its relevant to the point of the actual problem or not. dishonest labeling and self promotion through false characterizations of ones work wherein artists also use questionable “expert” opinions such as mr sterns to legitimize the deceptions, that is the problem and has of course been completely ignored in the wake of all the specious and over personalized outrage over his point about legitimacy and standards in art. His attempt to draw a line which separates the amateur or hobbyist from the professional painter should have been welcomed and would have been a well received point had he not opted to embrace the one sided academic p.o.v. even if one disagrees with that p.o.v. one can still appreciate his stance which questions the lax or nonexistent standards within much of contemporary pleinairism.
Anyone who thinks that Mr. Stern isn’t qualified to comment on this debate should probably set aside some time for reading.