Proper nowadays artists - day 363: Adam Miller

Adam Miller (1979, America)

You see the same certain words used to describe contemporary figurative art very frequently. When someone wants to be dismissive you see it being called Classical - used with its connotations of datedness or irrelevance. Or it’s called illustration - used to denote the work as being somehow lesser. Or else it’s called photographic - which can be fair sometimes, but even this term is most often used incorrectly. There are lots of others too.

These words do mean things though and the Classical descriptor is the one I want to talk about here. When it’s used to talk about contemporary figurative art, it’s almost always in a derisive way. For example if your modernist art critic sees something figurative that’s been created with observational accountability, the question becomes - how do they safely dismiss it? One way is if they can call it Classical, or a variety of this term, and then the work can be safely set aside. We immediately know this means the work is anachronistic, affected somehow, out of touch, maybe even reactionary, and, most unforgivably of all, very unfashionable. It also implies the work is merely an attempt at Classicism, i.e. a failure. The problem is that the real meaning of what Classicism itself truly is (i.e. the subjects, ideals, motifs, principles, etc. based in antiquity) doesn’t actually come into it. It’s the connotations of the term that matter.

Elsewhere, we see it used positively, as in the term Classical-Realist. Personally, when I first heard the name “Classical-Realism” I immediately thought of Thomas Couture’s “La Peinture Réaliste” (1865) which is in the National Gallery of Ireland. It perfectly illustrates the inherent contradiction in the name. It also shows the antipathy towards Realism that was felt by real Classicists at the time. In the case of Classical-Realism the two words are apparently put together to describe a revivalist movement that doesn’t really have much of a connection to Classicism or Realism.

Thomas Couture, French, 1815-1879, La Peinture Réaliste, 1865

The Classical Realist term is a contradiction as Rob Zeller points out in his book…

“I will not use the popular term Classical Realism, as it’s an oxymoron by definition. The Greek Classical and French Realist movements were antithetical to each other.” (p.14, The Figurative Artist’s Handbook)

He explains his own meaningful term instead:

Instead, I’m going to use the following: figurative art and Figurative Realism. Figurative art is pretty straightforward-it’s any art that uses the figure in a narrative context. Figurative Realism is a bit more specific. By my definition, it’s the use of a figure that displays an understanding of anatomy and form. (p.14, The Figurative Artist’s Handbook)

That certain Irish critics don’t know the clear difference between Classicism and Realism (nor apparently any other descriptors of responsibly observed artwork for that matter) - especially when we have the Couture master painting hanging in our national collection brilliantly illustrating this - is a sad state of affairs. This is to be expected in our highly politicised yet shallow art world I suppose, but this doesn’t make it any less forgivable. Artists of course can call themselves whatever they like I suppose whether it be meaningless or not. But, its not these high-status critics’ job to be as confused as artists when it comes to these things.

Anyway, all of this brings me to Adam Miller: a figurative artist who genuinely uses Classical ideas in his work. One of the few nowadays. For example if we look at Poussin’s “The Triumph of Pan” we can see the design in Miller’s painting.

It’s in his other work too.

But, these parallels still doesn’t make his work Classical-Realism necessarily and it still doesn’t mean it can be described as Classical in a rhetorical or dismissive sense by critics who don’t understand or even want to try to understand. The words still do mean real things.