Art Review Fails to Praise Positives

Regarding Cathy Curtis’ review of “California Style: 1930s and ‘40s” at the Orange County Museum of Art (“Impressions of Depression,” Dec. 23): A more positive view of this exhibit should have been taken along with some deserved criticism. After all, this movement is our California art history; it is not the same as the Midwest or the East. Maybe it’s time we become more self-aware of our past rather than only looking toward the cutting-edge future. If we do not value our own unique qualities of that period, why would the East or Midwest take us seriously? We have some giants of that era who are still working, with little or no recognition from the Los Angeles Times.

“The Canyon” by Milford Zornes was not even commented on, perhaps because it was hard to find fault with this masterpiece. So if you can’t say something bad, why say anything at all? The comparison of Millard Sheets “Beer for Prosperity” with Edward Hopper’s “Night Hawks” is unfair, considering Hopper had the advantage of copying the basic idea from Sheets. It’s clear he saw that image before doing his great painting.

What is the point of criticizing the obscure venue of the Sebastapol Center for the Arts [where “California Style” originated] when Curtis covers the Huntington Beach Art Center as though it is a major art venue? Why not credit them for putting this exhibit together, since no other major venue had the foresight, including the Huntington Beach Art Center.

How about discussing the art rather than the venue, the art rather than who loaned it, the art in the context of the time and place? How about trying to be unbiased, accentuating the positive while noticing the negative? How about being honest enough to say, “The work in this exhibit is very good, but I must admit, I don’t like it.”

BILL ANDERSON

Anderson Art Gallery

Sunset Beach