Warbird Information Exchange

Hi Rob--

Ah! the endless avart debate again: Is It Serious Art Or Not? Well, some is, some isn't; some is done really solely with an eye to the print market, making the images a kind of "collectible", but even most of those are executed with a great deal of skill and attention to accuracy and atmosphere--and if the print looks nice, the original looks wonderful. Other avart pieces are done for other reasons: nostalgia; experimentation; emotion...Those usually do not become prints, ever, but can be wonderful to view, and many are, in a well-known phrase, "beautiful paintings that happen to have an aircraft in them". The artists themselves have various reasons for doing what they do. In the Canadian Aviation Artists Association to which I belong, there are guys like me who just flat-out like old airplanes; guys who were/are professional illustrators for whom this is a hobby/sideline; and former servicemen as well, documenting their own past efforts. One of those is a former 6 Group air gunner, now in his late 70s, who just began painting aircraft subjects recently--and has already won several awards for his work. Good to hear you're an avart fan. I am as well, but I admit I don't really collect paintings, since I produce them myself...and haven't even got room for all those.

As to the "hoi polloi" criticisms of avart, that is a longstanding issue among people who paint aviation-themed images. It's an odd objection, really, given that galleries these days have to show what piques the general public's interest or they'll eventually go under. It's especially curious in view of the general acceptance of marine art (ie. paintings with ships in them, rather than aircraft) as Serious; so many of the techniques are similar. (BTW I did recently buy a somewhat dilapidated small canvas of a sailing ship, for $8 in an antique store. I just liked the way it looked. It was painted in 1937 by a G.F.Crabb, whoever that might be...any ideas?)

Living not terribly far from Ottawa you may be aware of this already, but every other year (next one goes up in spring 05) there is an avart show/competition at CAvM Rockcliffe, called "Artflight". That exhibit offers a nice cross-section of the many styles and subjects that fall under the avart umbrella. Nice that there's such a gallery in our national air museum(...but then there almost had to be: one of the early directors of what is now CAvM was aviation artist Robert W. Bradford, for whom the present gallery is named).

Cheers, and thanks from a brush-wielder for the show of support!

Steve T

I have about 20-25 lithographs from Robert Taylor mostly, with one or two from Heinz Krebs and Nicolas Trudgian.

Stan Stokes' stuff is too blue tinged for my liking, as are Bob Pond's paint schemes (which Stokes designed).

Make me an offer, it's all for sale. Will trade anything/everything towards T-6 prop blades!

If you are trying to get the people in charge of the museums etc to accept aviation artworks as art then good luck.

I can't remember the dates exactly but I think that for some 70 or 80 years or so the "new technology" of cameras and photography was not truly described as art. now given that and how long we have had powered flight then I reckon by now some of the WW1 stuff might just maybe possibly be elligible to be called art.

unfortunately though now that we are in a "transitional" period within art circles with the " post modern " art era being thought to be dead, but no true idea yet as to what has replaced it, then your ideas are as good as mine. For all any of us know paintings done of images imagined to be seen from mars or pluto might well be the next avant garde movement ( even though that is thought to be dead or as close to it as possible too.) which might mean that aviation art might well be jumped over entirely.

I certainly hope I am wrong though.

_________________
Jeff