THINGS SEEN

The present exhibition has been organized to focus attention on one of the most flourishing aspects of contemporary American painting, the revival of representational art in the traditional formats of the landscape, the figure and the still life. For the past ten years it has become evident that more and more artists are having second thoughts about the abstract style which had come to dominate the artistic scene within the several previous decades. There are instances of renunciation, a sudden yet deliberate turning away from abstraction toward some form of traditional representation. There are also numerous instances of artists beginning their professional efforts with a very conscious demonstration of allegiance to the figurative tradition against which their predecessors rebelled. Today, one of the principal problems in the organization of this exhibition is to accommodate the breadth and variety of this new involvement with realism. Several considerations were operative in the final selection. First of all, it is of considerable interest to note that, far from being a mere revival of past concerns, the contemporary realist has a very different eye, an eye that has been profoundly affected by the abstract experience of half a century; but an eye that views today\u27s experience with insights that are peculiarly representative of today. To underline this difference and, at the same time, to demonstrate the fact that today\u27s realism is indeed no revival but part of a continuity, we have attempted to suggest something of the history of the realist point of view since the turn of the century. There is ample evidence in the work of some of the younger painters that they are seeing for the first time the work of such American realists as Thomas Eakins and Edward Hopper, to say nothing of such European realists as Ingres and Courbet. Other considerations, each of them affecting the final selection, have to do with the varying definition of realism, reality and the real. This is a semantic jungle, the density of which scarcely permits an exhaustive demonstration in an exhibition of fifty paintings, but one qualification is necessary to answer those who will look at the exhibition with artists in mind who are not included, all of whom are intrinsically realists: Ivan Albright, Paul Cadmus, Alice Neel, Fairfield Porter, and, among the younger generation, Jack Beal, Alfred Leslie, Neil Welliver, to name only a few. Theirs is a realistic point of view but their method as painters is dominated by an attitudinal bias in some and, in others, by a painterly emphasis on light, color or texture which precludes dispassionate observation. For this occasion we have limited the operative definition of realism to an objective and precise observation of experience. The title of the exhibition has been chosen to contain as succinctly as possible the essence of the idea represented in the paintings. It suggests that one of the simplest and most direct approaches to reality is through a fundamental acceptance of the evidence provided in the act of seeing. To see simply and fully, without undue emotion or reflection requires an exercise of intelligence that puts a considerable demand on the artist who chooses to record this experience as well as on the viewer who looks at the finished work. Such an experience of seeing is more ideal than commonplace, and in the exhibition it is demonstrated in fifty varying forms

Contemporary Handweaving IV

A note of introduction CONTEMPORARY HAND WEAVING IV departs from the pattern established in its predecessors in being invitational rather than competitive in format. It concentrates on the work of ten of the nation\u27s best artists in the medium and shows each in a group of examples, This change was dictated in part by local circumstances but it was also motivated by the wish to assume a somewhat different point of view with regard to the present status of the craft of hand weaving in the United States. Our previous exhibitions have demonstrated that the art o[ hand weaving has its skilled practitioners everywhere and that there arc many unknown craftsmen who are achieving work of a notably high order. However, in these exhibitions we have had little or no contact with the ranking professionals in the art, for, as is usually the case, these artists have so many demises on their production that competitions such as ours cannot claim their attention. In the present exhibition we have chosen to combine the work of several of the weavers who have distinguished themselves in the earlier shows with the work of a number of the outstanding weavers who have not previously exhibited here. The result, we hope, will be gratifying to all who see it. As in most areas of contemporary American art there is a considerable range o[ style in this exhibition from the traditional to the avowedly experimental. It is in this last category that the visitor will find the challenge which may make his visit memorable. Here he will find a parallel to the attempts of the potter to attain the independent plasticity of sculpture, the attempts of the print maker to attain the textural atmosphere of painting, the attempts of the painter to be three-dimensional, or no-dimensional, the attempts oi the sculptor to encompass a total environment. In these instances of experiment the concepts of materials, technique, and use are pushed toward new definitions, possibly incompatible with previous understanding but certainly full of the excitement of fresh thinking

The Art of Printmaking: Part 4. American Prints from the Eighteenth Century to the Present

PEALE, CHARLES WILSONPELHAM, PETERSAVAGE, EDWARDCASSATT, MARYCATLIN, GEORGEDUVENECK, FRANKHOMER, WINSLOWHUNT, WILLIAM MORRISWHISTLER, JAMES McNEILWEIR, J. ALDENBELLOWS, GEORGE W.CORNELL, THOMASCRAWFORD, RALSTONFEININGER, LYONELHASSAM, CHILDEHOPPER, EDWARDJONES, JOHN PAULKUNIYOSHI, YASUOLANDECK, ARMINLASANSKY, MAURICIOSISTER MARY CORITA, I.H.M.McGARRELL, JAMESOROZCO, JOSE CLEMENTEPEARSON, HENRYPETERDI, GABORPONCE DE LEON, MICHAELPOSADA, JOSE GUADALUPESLOAN, JOHNSUMMERS, CAROLWALD, SYLVI

Ronald Slowinski

This exhibition is the result of a visit to the studio of Ron Slowinski in 1981. Such a visit is the surest test of one\u27s reaction to the artist\u27s work seen on previous occasions only in isolated examples. Such partial contacts are frequently inconclusive, but in the instance of Slowinski the impression made was sufficient to create an appetite for more. The several hours spent looking at the accumulated work of four or five years was exciting to say the least and impressive to the degree that I came away from the experience convinced that here was an artist who could and should be seen in the demanding context of a large exhibition. Fortunately I made this visit in the company of Doriald Doe whose enthusiasm for what we had seen matched my own and, fortunately as well, he is eminently qualified to enter into the critical dialogue with the artist which is the necessary context for the organization of such an exhibition. The result is, in every respect, the confirmation of our original impression. Here is an artist whose commitment to the business of art is total, an artist whose activity in our midst establishes a qualitative standard of a high order. The exhibition in itself represents the Sheldon Gallery\u27s commitment to the critical appraisal and endorsement of the best work being done in our region, which is part of the best from anywhere

The Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery, University of Nebraska- Lincoln

A number of years ago I had an opportunity to express myself in anticipation of the completion of the Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery. Planning was largely completed at that time and construction was well under way. My thoughts had adjusted themselves to the compromises which are inevitable in such a situation and I was encouraged to believe that all was well with the job at hand. Lest I be guilty of creating the impression that the story has another ending, let me say that the completed building has surpassed our expectations. In the months of the first year following the Galleries\u27 dedication we have been convinced over and over again of the rightness of Mr. Johnson\u27s decisions in every part of the design. The anticipations of 1961 have turned into realities and although some of the hopes expressed are still short of realization the excitement of possibility is still in them. Let me rephrase these earlier thoughts, representing as they still do, the ideas which best fulfill the function of this remarkable building. The Sheldon Art Gallery is not a large building. It is compactly planned to accommodate all the standard functions of administration, display, preparation, conservation, audio-visual education, and last but not least in this togetherness world, sociability. The building does not provide for an all out exhibition of the University\u27s art collections. This is not the result of oversight, but of decisions taken with regard to the exact character and purpose of the institution as a whole. The gallery is a memorial to the donors. As such it is properly conceived as an important work of contemporary art in its own right. Independent of its contents it speaks for architecture as an art, but taken with them and with the functions intrinsic to the institution it speaks in another larger sense, which has but rarely reached expression in the art museums of our time

Ronald Slowinski

This exhibition is the result of a visit to the studio of Ron Slowinski in 1981. Such a visit is the surest test of one\u27s reaction to the artist\u27s work seen on previous occasions only in isolated examples. Such partial contacts are frequently inconclusive, but in the instance of Slowinski the impression made was sufficient to create an appetite for more. The several hours spent looking at the accumulated work of four or five years was exciting to say the least and impressive to the degree that I came away from the experience convinced that here was an artist who could and should be seen in the demanding context of a large exhibition. Fortunately I made this visit in the company of Doriald Doe whose enthusiasm for what we had seen matched my own and, fortunately as well, he is eminently qualified to enter into the critical dialogue with the artist which is the necessary context for the organization of such an exhibition. The result is, in every respect, the confirmation of our original impression. Here is an artist whose commitment to the business of art is total, an artist whose activity in our midst establishes a qualitative standard of a high order. The exhibition in itself represents the Sheldon Gallery\u27s commitment to the critical appraisal and endorsement of the best work being done in our region, which is part of the best from anywhere

The Art of Printmaking: Part 2. Master Prints from the Fifteenth Through the Eighteenth Centuries

SCHONGAUER, MARTINALDEGREVER, HEINRICHALTDORFER, ALBRECHTBALDUNG-GRIEN, HANSBEHAM, BARTHELCRANACH, LUCASDURER, ALBRECHTDUVET, JEANHOLBEIN, HANSLAUTENSACK, HANS SEBALDVAN LEYDEN, LUCASMANTEGNA, ANDREABOSSE, ABRAHAMCALLOT, JACQUESCARRACCI, AGOSTINOGELLEE, CLAUDE (called Lorrain)GOLTZIUS, HENDRIKNANTEUIL, ROBERTVAN RIJN, REMBRANDT HARMENSZCANAL, ANTONIO (called Canaletto)HOGARTH, WILLIAMMOREAU, JEAN-MICHEL (known as Moreau Ie Jeune)PIRANESI, GIOVANNI BATTIST

A Sense of Place: The Artist and the American Land

One-fifth of the meals Americans eat, they eat in automobiles. Drive-in funeral homes make death more comfortable if not less dignified. Crispy apples disappear in the wake of improved applesauce technology. High rise ranch houses smell of artificial mountain air. People move around so much and have so little lingering connection with the land that even the tombstone makers complain. Walt Disney fashions an east coast world populated with faceless pansies in a thousand acres of computerized fun. Russell Baker observes that America is vanishing. America is not vanishing. It is being homogenized This exhibition moves against that trend. The paintings gathered here have one overriding characteristic; they find, in L. E. Sissman\u27s words, universality in specificity. They are not based on what we find everywhere, since things everywhere are increasingly the same. Rather they are prompted by what we see less and less of - real places, landscapes with resonance, places where the marks of man either do not show or where the imprint is restrained and loving. These are not paintings of the plastic, extruded landscape, though we have included a few to remind us of that omnipresent world. These paintings are responses to places , those parts of the environment which give rise to our experiences and which provide locations for our daydreams

The Art of Printmaking: Part 3. Master Prints From the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

BONNARD, PIERREBOYS, THOMAS SHOTTERCEZANNE, PAULDAUMIER, HONOREDEGAS, EDGARDELACROIX, EUGENEDORE, GUSTAVEFANTIN~LATOUR, HENRIGAUGUIN, PAULGOYA, FRANCISCO JOSEGROS, BARON ANTOINE JEANISABEY, EUGENEMANET, EDOUARDMILLET, JEAN-FRANCOISMERYON, CHARLESPISSARRO, CAMILLEREDON,ODILONTOULOUSE-LAUTREC, HENRI DETURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAMBECKMANN, MAXBRAQUE, GEORGESKANDINSKY, WASSILIKIRCHNER, ERNST LUDWIGKOLLWITZ, KATHELIEBERMANN, MAXMUNCH, EDVARDMATISSE, HENRIPECHSTEIN, MAXPICASSO, PABLO RUIZROUAULT, GEORGE

Arts Institutions on The Great Plains: An Inroduction

T he papers in this issue of Great Plains Quarterly were presented at the symposium The Arts on the Plains: The Role of Institutions, held 16-18 March 1988. The Nebraska Art Association, celebrating its one hundredth anniversary, collaborated in hosting the conference. The conference focused the Association\u27s review of its own scope and impact by establishing a context of comparable efforts by other organizations, institutions, and individuals in the Great Plains and adjacent states. The six papers that follow illustrate the breadth of that comparison