Mike and I went to hear a noon-time concert in a church here in Berlin, and as an unexpected plus there was a painting exhibit by Amnon David Ar in the nave.

My first thoughts were something like, “This artist is doing everything perfectly: composition, color, drawing, handling the figure. But, why I do I not find this work engaging?”

I woke up the morning after seeing the show, which is titled “Light Years,” thinking about what this exhibit is saying and not saying.

Ar’s work is an example of “Contemporary Realism,” a genre that pays tribute to traditional painting materials and techniques, and is representational - sometimes with an anti-abstraction stance. Contemporary Realism is mostly not surrealist, and depicts the world as it more or less appears. I know people who feel Contemporary Realism is schlock art, and I know people who feel that abstract/conceptual art is a huge scam. As my brother Dave has said - and I agree with him, “You can find some great stuff in every genre - even in genres that you don’t like.” He was reflecting on the music world, but it applies to visual art as well.

So far as the Ar show, his handling of paint and his ability to draw is top of the line. His portrait work and figurative painting is really good. So, the question comes back: Why did I not feel engaged by this show?

I read that Ar does not work from photographs, but works from life, sometimes setting up elaborate scenes in his studio. That surprised me. I assumed he works from photos because his paintings have a flattened, “captured” look. One advantage painting has over photography is that painting contains and “radiates” back the human imprint. His painting of a corpse in the studio/hospital room is fittingly, a dead-feeling painting. But, his painting of a naked, young man playing the harp also feels “dead.” The man-at-the-harp painting is done in the same, flattened, drained style as the morgue scene. Ar’s style or “brand” is consistent but doesn’t always serve the subject. It feels like artist'’s priority is to show that he is highly skilled (which he certainly is) and that he has a tremendous work ethic (which he certainly must). Maybe that is the reason his art is lacking the final push that would move it into more interesting territory. What would that “more interesting territory” look like? Well, there are many options, and each option would carrying its own emphasis. I would never want to suggest that an artist become a different person. Ar probably has no interest in changing anything - why would he, if it’s working for him and his audience? But, when I look at art, and definitely when I look at my own art, I always think about what could possibly make it better. But, I wonder, if I could paint as well as Ar, would I be doing Realism? I mean, if you have the talent, why not flaunt it?

Artists have a right to make their own decisions about the direction of their work - and the art audience has a right to seek out the kind of art that gives them satisfaction.

But, the question is still is an interesting one: What engages you? And why?