One of the best art reviews that I have ever read in the Washington Post is in today's Sunday Arts.

It is by Pulitzer prize winning writer Henry Allen and he does a masterful job of reviewing Jim Dine at the NGA.

Here's the sheer elegance in words of the first paragraph:

"The drawing of a line is one of the thrilling gestures in art, like a Charlie Parker solo in jazz or a Nureyev leap in ballet, full of surprise and inevitability at the same time, a miracle that had to happen. (Watching it done is like watching magic -- think about documentary footage of Picasso or R. Crumb, and their confidence as they pull rabbits out of a hat that's nothing more than a piece of paper.) "

By the way, I submit that if Jim Dine had to hide his technical virtuosity in the 60's --- that hasn't changed! Technical virtuosity, with a handful of very rare exceptions, is generally still something that has to be "hidden."

Theory - rather than technique or skill - is what schools want to teach (mostly because a lot of academics couldn't draw a line to save their lives).

And thus if we look at some of our own area schools, such as GMU, we find a school that once had an art department that included both theory pushers and also professors able to actually teach a student how to stretch watercolor paper and how to mix two colors to get a third one.

But now, as seen from afar, it appears that since Margarida Kendall retired from GMU, the theory pushers have slowly but surely re-directed that art school focus to the theory agenda of art professors who can neither paint nor draw.

GMU is lucky to have two of the best painters in the nation in its staff. They are Chawky Frenn (represented by us) and Erik Sandberg (represented by Conner Contemporary).

While Frenn (the last DC area artist in years to have been reviewed by the New York Times - at least in my memory) does teach some painting classes, one would assume that a painter of Sandberg's reputation and technical virtuosity would also be teaching painting.

But he is not, and I would bet money that Sandberg would just love to teach painting.

And because (with some rare exceptions) the theory pushers are teaching painting, and with Frenn's exception, dominate the curriculum, GMU art students are the losers. Visit their MFA exhibits and the proof is in the work.

Nobody asked me.... but my opinion nonetheless.