Replies: 28 Comments
on Tuesday, May 31st, jose said
Elaniii; the force of Amore is the only true eternal force
on Monday, May 23rd, elaniii said
Jose; amore means a mors, or, without death, eternal.
on Friday, May 20th, Donna said
Ugh! "Networking"----"Marketing"! Are you supposed to use dirty words in these blogs? :) Just like "schmoozing" with the people who make you or break you as an artist, these are some of the words that keep many people, including myself "closet artists". Guess that means the more forward creative people always have the edge over others.
on Thursday, May 19th, jose said
John,
the one who said something about a half-wit was me not Walt, and it wasn't directed at you personaly, it was directed at whoever limits himself to one sole pursuit in his life and insists on shutting himself off from all the possibilities that are open to an artist. Listening to you I can't help but feel claustrophobic!
But then again as you've just informed us in your last post you are the only true 100% fine-artist in the world and I have to admit I never met one either so I cannot be the judge of what is right and what is wrong. I've only ever come across artists who struggle to make ends meet and nevertheless invest superhuman reserves of energy into moving ahead with their project and with their work. They have impressed me especially for their vigor, their resoluteness and sometimes even [if they are generous enough to share a few words] their bluntness in their comments about my own work.
You say one big problem has occured for you. You're work is not in the mainstream. Sincerely, I fail to see the problem, especially if, as you say, you are truly at the forefront of creation and do indeed dedicate so much time and energy to your life-project. I fail to see the problem because it is something that I believe I have come to understand and accept even though I have been forced to take different jobs at different points in my life. I take it as a blessing that my work is not mainstream and that it sometimes takes years for peolpe to register what i have been up to and accept it - it allows me the freedom that the mainstream would kill. I would have thought that you, of all people, would have fathomed that.
Sure it takes time to develop. But time is a relative concept and the quality of the energy you put in modifies the time you manage to salvage for yourself. I know people who have all the time in the world and come out with nothing at the end of the day.
Time is definitely not the issue here.
on Wednesday, May 18th, . said
I have never met another full time fine artist, not a commercial artist, but one who makes paintings and sculpture (and not stupid little pretty pictures and dumb figurines either). So for me to exemplify the life of a full time artist here on this site, is received as though I am speaking Mayan.
One big problem has occurred for me, my work has never fit the mainstream. Instead of selling out and making crap, I have dug in. I chose to develop even further away from the mainstream. Stupid in terms of the pocket book, but hopefully not the history books!
Another big problem is undeveloped work entering the market stifling advanced work from recognition. Because people resent intellectualism and work they are unfamiliar with these days, the undeveloped work reigns supreme in the galleries.
It takes time to develop. The more time one has, the further they can develop! Not many are cut out for this. That's why I'm going to shut up! Someone has to push the envelope! Someone has to give it their all to push us all forward! Heck, my work has been copied already. And those people are making much more money than I.
Maybe my writing will inspire another to take that envelope, open it, and push it even farther than I.
on Wednesday, May 18th, Paul said
Jose really said it all in his post about proffesional artist being a contradiction in terms,and quite rightly who does give a hoot,John sounds like one of the nutters we so frequently get on this site,and Walt some interesting and lucid points,and a lot of wisdom,although Id like to talk to you about old pablo at some other post probably.
on Wednesday, May 18th, walt said
John, Do really mean you've never actually met another full time artist? I find that hard to believe. Sometimes the things you say cause me to believe that you're just full of it. Really, you need to get out more. Anyway, you've said before you were done but you always come back. Actually I think you like our company.
on Wednesday, May 18th, John said
I'm probably going to bow out of this conversation unless Walt comes up with a new tactic. It is getting silly. I have never met another full time fine artist, not a commercial artist, but one who makes paintings and sculpture (and not stupid little pretty pictures and dumb figurines either). So for me to exemplify the life here on this site, is pretty much like speaking Mayan.
You all or right, keep your jobs. One big problem has occurred for me, my work has never fit the mainstream. Instead of selling out and making crap, I have dug in. I chose to develop even further away from the mainstream. Stupid in terms of the pocket book, but hopefully not the history books!
Another big problem is undeveloped work entering the market stifling advanced work from recognition. Because people resent intellectualism and work they are unfamiliar with these days, the undeveloped work reigns supreme in the galleries.
As much as y'all hate me for saying this:
It takes time to develop. The more time one has, the further they can develop! Not many are cut out for this. That's why I'm going to shut up! Someone has to push the envelope! Someone has to give it their all to push us all forward! Heck, my work has been copied already. And those people are making much more money than I.
Maybe my writing will inspire another to take that envelope, open it, and push it even farther than I.
on Wednesday, May 18th, John said
The more time devoted to their art the further the artist can develop. Case closed. No one can argue that.
To call me a nitwit for being one of the extremely few who had the guts and determination to give it (art) everything, then the caller is merly and purely, jeaulous!! Should I say I'm sorry you did not give it your all?
Damn Walter, find some new tricks! The pot shot and show mw your work routine is getting quite, quite old!
on Wednesday, May 18th, Paul said
The chat here saddens me somewhat,but I'd like to say that I regard Pablo Piccasso as the greatest artist of all time,although I dont mind if someone prefers Rembrandt or Titian.
on Wednesday, May 18th, walt said
John,
The reason I'm asking to see your work is because your words have no context. You've given no references, no criteria, nothing to guage them by or tie them to. They are just insults floating out there in cyber space. Without something to attach them to they are just irresolute abstractions. The minute I see where you are coming from I'll understand what you are talking about. Meanwhile I really havent't got a clue. I don't know who your teachers were so I don't know which variation of art history they are coming from. Can't discuss it unless you give me something more to go on. I'm honestly tying but really can't get a grip on what it is you are actually saying. And everytime I just try to present facts you pull a 180 on me and go in some other direction. Hence the need to see where you're coming from. We're visual artists 1st. That is a language I undestand much more than the verbal one that we depend on in most of society. I sense you are also more visual than verbal. Until then we're just taking pot shots at each other and it isn't really worth the effort.
on Wednesday, May 18th, jose said
Amateur, professional, who gives a hoot? If the work stands out, the time you are allotted in life to dedicate yourself to your passion should not be the issue. I have a few friends who take pride in differentiating themselves from others by claiming they are professionals. Amateur stems from the root word amare – to love: art is a passion, a labour of love, something unstoppable when possessed by it. Only a half-wit would insist on spoiling it all for himself by enslaving himself to Art and elevating it to a profession to the exclusion of all other possibilities open to him [free as he is].
The professional artist – a contradiction in terms. If you are an artist you know better than most that it is something that absorbs your attention at every possible moment and consumes every inkling of your energy well beyond what you may have been forced to use-up in facing the humdrum of everydayness. What counts is discipline and focus, not time. Art is beyond any amount of time you may claim to be able to set aside by stating that you are a professional or, for that matter, that that is all you limit yourself to do.
on Tuesday, May 17th, John said
Sorry, I posted as Walt by mistake on my last comment.
Michael, you have me completely wrong! Also, your definition of a professional artist is wrong for me also!
Man, you guys take the cake. I was just about to say that I am actually jealous of Walter's teaching profession, just to find myself in defense of the full time artist once again. Just like anything, if you've never been there or done it, you don't have a clue!
If y'all want to know the truth, I didn't choose this damn life! My degrees were stripped away and I'm freakin unemployable! Most of my work is beyond the mainstream. My inventory is so high that making new work is often un-enjoyable! I was born an artist, and I'll die an artist, not a teacher, or a doctor, or anything freakin else!
Because I had the balls to sacrifice secure income, comfort, kids, etc. you have the nerve to call me a professional artist producing lame art? EAT ME!
I have developed as an artist more than most because I have had the fricken time! No lame job, or rug rats, to set me back! I have given EVERTHING to my art....and you?
The only fricken reason I live is for art! Damn teachers get all the breaks 'cause they ride the coattails of their school. Yeah, damn right I'm jealous of that cushy life! I'm also jealous of anyone that owns a fricken home!
Fricken hobbyists muddling up the market with crap!!!!!!!!!!!
on Tuesday, May 17th, Michael Fornadley said
Reality check here, most of us are as you call us part time artists. If I had to do this professional bit full time I would probadly be in the looney bin. Not the art making itself, but the rest of the marketing and networking, not made for it, just made to do art. Another thing that grieves me is this professional artist concept, frankly speaking most professional artists generally produce lame work, always catering to the product that sells. Rather do art part time and work a full time job elsewhere than be forced into being a lap dog, just too many teeth, if you get my point. Not that working full time and supporting yourself or family doesn't cramp most of your work, but if there is a will there is a way. Believe me there are alot of positives in having outside income, like having a life, the ability to buy materials and a enpowerment to not be forced in the professional art rat race.
Really "John" you are sounding more and more like somebody who just got out of art school, and it left a real bad taste in your mouth. "GET OVER IT", life is too short and there is so much art to do.
on Tuesday, May 17th, Walt said
Walt, some of what you have to say has merit, some does not. It's not really what you say, but how you say it. You come off as touting yourself as an all mighty know it all god. Seldom do you accept anothers opinion or knowledge. This, unfortunetly, is a typical behaviour of a teacher!
Call it a cliche, sure, that is your defense. The fact remains however, that you are not in the studio when teaching. This, as much as you try to deny it, makes you a part time artist.
The asking for referances makes no sense. One, you are eluding my original call for referances. And two, I already told you my contacts are lost and that by you being employed by an academy, still have access. This tactic proves to me that you have no basis for your so called "facts".
I remain amazed at your continual requests for me to show my work. As if our work will change or give merit to our words? To me, this silly request is more insulting than anything I've said.
A job is the artist's worst enemy! Does your academy teach that?
You are a nice guy Walt, and a good teacher. But my oh my how aggravating it is for a professional to be treated as a student!
Teachers.....AAARRRGGGHHH!
on Tuesday, May 17th, walt said
John,
As to Picasso, you can think what you want. I really don't have to defend him. I'm fully aware of much of the myth and he is no god. But an entire generation of painters in the 40's and 50's spent the first part of their careers trying to get beyond cubism and especially Picasso because he'd so dominated the field. Gorky, deKooning, Pollack, all mention this in their writing. One could say he drove them to abstraction.
Yes he plundered style. But every artist builds on the style of the preceding generation. Find me one who hasn't. In fact so did Braque and Gris. Name me an artist who did something that was completely original with no reference to anything previous and I'll show you an alien being from another planet. It is the nature of the beast.
Cliches are cute. And always incomplete. I teach because I can do. On the other hand we still don't know what you do. We only have what you say about yourself. We know you had a university education and you say you are a professional painter making your living from what you do. So we know you are not completely self taught if being self taught is even truly possible. Beyond that we have nothing concrete to guage what you are speaking of. We don't know to which school of art or thought you actually belong. (I suppose this is to suggest that you a a completely original artist with no connections or references to others. If so I'm truly interested.)
But I must admit this series of responses are the most indepth responses you've given... well, until they petered out into name calling and cliched insults.
Let's do this. You give references and I'll give references. But as you well know this will add a lot of time to our little discourse. (shall we do footnotes as well?) Are you sure you're up for it? By the way, since history works on the basis of evidence about the only way to know who actually developed an idea is through their notes, other's notes and the dates and places first things happened. Just about everything else is conjecture and opinion based on that evidence. Philosophy has little place in art history unless it is the subject of study. But only evidence defines the history and its direction of study. So far I've seen nothing that changes the basic evidence of the history of the developement of cubism that centers Picasso and Braque as the 'originators'. There are many who would like to rewrite that history but haven't really been able to come up with the evidence. So you first. Cite me something to the contrary. You've noted that I'm defending the status quo so it is your burdon of proof to present the contrary position.
By the way, where did Picasso teach? You mentioned
that "He simply applied the rules of Cubism to his academic teaching." Francois Gillot mentions that he gave her a few little assignments. He had her do a design with a match box and a few matches, then took away a few matches and had her do it again. Said that it is easier to work with more elements than fewer elements. But I've never read anywhere that he taught formally. Or did you mean to say his 'academic training'? I won't hold a typo against you. Actually I have little against you. You could still challenge what I have to say without all the negative personal and pejorative conotations. John, you must realize by now that I'm used to these kinds of responses from students. It really is what I do when I'm not in the studio.
on Tuesday, May 17th, testing said
testing ignore this post...
on Monday, May 16th, John said
Make that 5 comments! All I have done Walt, is fuel your ego. Oh how I dread your pompous bombastic replies!
But... I still have one on ya!....
Those that can, do! Those that can't, teach!
Ha ha ha ahhahaha ha ha!
on Monday, May 16th, John said
Walt,
4 comments later, and I am still riled by your pomposity. 20 years as a drawing instructor does not alone, make one a valid art historian. You constantly post all over this site, posing as an expert. Frankly, I'm tired of it!
1. Since you claim specific facts. Back them up with referances.
2. Discuss how portrayal of Cubism by still life and portraiture is anything BUT academic.
3. Discuss imagination. Is derivation imaginative? Is jumping on bandwagons imaginative?
4. Why did Picasso's work not stray in his career from the early precepts of Cubism?
5. Why did Picasso experiment with so many styles? Is this not a sign of a lack of imagination? Doesn't this show his lack of originality? He jumped styles, excuse me, copied styles, until he found a good one. More proof of a lack of imagination!
6. Expound on this Iberian sculpture theory. I say it was thrown in to throw off art historians. Besides, it's just something else he copied!
7. Try to write as if you are not god.
on Monday, May 16th, John said
Walt,
Oops! One key sign of a weak defense is name calling. I'm guilty! I can't remenber my referances. I just remember how much multiple art history professors cut Picasso to shreds.
The element of the masks (iberian sculpture you call it) is a valid argument. So is his lack of advancing the precepts of Cubism a sign of a lack of imagination.
But... I can surely referance past blog comments to find you guilty of name calling as well. I won't repeat them.
Of course a teacher at an art academy would defend their brethren. The art academy defending one from an art academy...gee...go figure!
on Monday, May 16th, John said
Walt,
Lets take a look at Picasso's work. Find a work of Picasso's that DOES NOT encompass traditional academic aspects such as still lifes and portraiture. He was NOT imaginative. He simply applied the rules of Cubism to his academic teaching. Perhaps you will say that the others did not venture from tradition as well. Sure, I am struggling at finding an example myself. But this is a point well taken. He became the father of Cubism through marketing, stopped with merly applying the cubism to tradition, and did not take it farther! Why? A lack of imagination!
Picasso was stripped and laid bare in my university art history classes. I kick myself in the butt right now for not remembering my referances. Your art school / academy of distortion, is too afraid to offend anyone and lose their precious students. Universities can speak truth for students can always transfer out, never jeopardizing enrollment.
I have trouble with the notion of Picasso "discovering" Cubism from Iberian sculpture. Yes, his early paintings were of the nature of African masks. But this does not prove discovery, just another realm of his copying. If anything, I give him credit for his ability to write his own legacy, which you are sapping up, to convince some future historians that he did indeed have a hand in the discovery. I didn't say the man was not smart. He sure confused you by throwing in the mask (iberian sculptures).
on Monday, May 16th, John said
Walt,
As you say, finding a good drawing instructor is essential to acquiring traditional skills, so too is finding good art history teachers. You said in an earlier post that the universities are cutting back on basic drawing classes. It would be nice if you could back that up with examples.
A wonderful thing about universities is the extent of art history taught. Some have very extensive programs. Does your art academy have degrees specializing in art history?
I say this because you have rendered a very academic defense and a stilted history of Picasso. Here, my disdain of art schools is prevalent. They suck! I strongly suggest that to obtain academic art skills, one should attend a university. Sure some universities may have stripped drawing classes, so find one that hasn't. For you will obtain a much rounder, fuller education than the narrow teachings of an art school!
Cite your references for Picasso not entering the academy until age 14. What the hell, cite your referances for the rest of your jibberish as well. My best art history teacher has died. You still have your academy of distortion to consult.
on Monday, May 16th, walter king said
Essentially Picasso learned to draw by watching his father while a child in his studio. While he took a few classes early on he didn't actually enter the Academy in Barcelona until he was 14 when his father took the position and moved the family there. But he was so far advanced that he only stayed for two years before leaving.
He then went through a fairly long period of experimenting with a variety of styles until around 1907 when he began studying Iberian sculptures. Braque was experimenting with planer simplification at the same time.
I'm having a little trouble with the idea that Picasso was an unimaginative academic draughtsman. The artwork just doesn't bear it out. He does share credit with Braque for the invention of cubism. Braque came to it via Cezanne and his planer brush strokes. Picasso came to it via primitive sculpture and the simplifications of planer form they used. Braque was quite linear in his approach reducing landscape to simpler planer forms He'd been a Fauvist and they were playing with the simplification of the broken color strokes of the Impressionists and Pointalists. But Picasso's early cubist experiments were much mre aggressive and imaginative in a non-linear way. Frankly I think they both benefited each other during the time they shared a studio. Braque's more linear discipline gave Picasso a structure to work with while Picasso's rich imagination opened up possibilities for Braque. I admire Braque for his strength of character. Picasso was a thief. He had a penchant for seeing more in the work of others and couldn't help but show them up because of his machismo. But he had no problems with being creative on his own either. And it has been well documented that Picasso was not a nice person. He all but single handedly ruined Gris' career. And he wasn't particularly kind to women.
But to call him unimaginative and academic is a bit over the top.
on Sunday, May 15th, John said
An interesting twist to this conversation is that of Picasso. He was a highly trained draftsman being sent to the academy at age six. Many of course, find Picasso a brilliant, one of a kind artist. When in fact, to say it undiplomatically, he stole Cubism, and copied it. The likes of Georges Braque and Juan Gris were more the originators of Cubism.
This highly trained, unimaginative artist, Picasso, with his ranpant ego, absconded Cubism, making it primarily his own throughout history. Picasso's strong ego fueled marketing actually prohibited further developement of the theory, meaning, and depth of Cubism.
So training can have it's evil side, however, as Walter eloquently stated, classical training is an important tool. Just as any artist has many brushes and physical tools, It is up to the artist to choose the tools he/she wishes to use. The more available tools to choose from, the better.
on Sunday, May 15th, Jose said
Laura,
I agree with you that too much focus on technique can [definitely does] overshadow the work. I have always been quite surprised by the fact that even artists with amazing technique could produce work that is somehow lacking - technically well executed but empty of soul. However I think the trouble isn’t so much possessing and mastering technique, or not, but the employment the artist makes of what he possesses and masters at a particular stage of his development [the correct dosage of technique and inspiration], and the stance he assumes in relation to learning and mastering more.
The fine balance that goes into the making of a work of art is probably that most essential aspect which cannot be taught in academies, and the mistake of many ‘non-art-people’ like myself who go to the classes that tend to be after hours [and many art-people who believe they are beyond all that] is to believe that by being initiated in some technique one automatically becomes an artist.
Art is more than technique and it is more than mere inspiration. But without a solid foundation in technique inspiration will never get off the ground. The more tools the artist is able to call to his aid [and drawing is one of the basics he should possess] the further he will be able to reach beyond his initial idea and inspiration… the trick is to master technique so profoundly as to be able to forget it.
on Saturday, May 14th, Paul said
Ausra,I too couldnt disagree more strongly,and I am the most unacedemic of artists,even been called an outsider by a collecter,not that such terms are helpfull,but in art college the life classes were for me the best time,drawing the human figure is the tops,I absoloutley loved it,in fact one could probably spend ones entire life drawing the figure,and still be learning at the end of it.
on Friday, May 13th, John, said
BRAVO !!! BRAVO !!!! WALTER !!!!! BRAVO !!!!
Walter, that was an incredible well said defense of classical training !!!!!!
Wery well put!! My my !!! SO TRUE !!!!! SO TRUE !!!
BRAVO BRAVO
on Friday, May 13th, walter king said
Laura,
I teach drawing. Have for more that 20 years. In art school I never doubted the reason for drawing classes. In fact I found them to be among the most exciting classes because it was so visually and intellectually and emotionally challenging. I also realized that just learning the academic rules of drawing was not the end of the process. The process was about 'drawing through' the academic issues (which are only there to teach certain skills and ideas)until you have educated that hand and eye (and yes heart and mind) to do what is in your soul to do. I never tell a student their drawing is wrong, or that their anatomy is incorrect...I do ask them to look harder at what they have in front of them because eventually they wil see the poetry.
Today a lot of artists skip the old school issues and jump right in to whatever hip new style or trend is happening. Matisse warned us that this would begin to happen. He said they would assume that what he did was easy and they could skip what he learned that got him to those drawings. University programs stopped teaching drawing years ago. At least they de-emphasized it in the vary same way you have mentioned. They have always argued that they are about philosophy and research. (yet serious drawing is research of the deepest level) Besides it is both hard and unpopular to teach serious drawing ideas today. No one has the patience. They see it as busy work rather than the soul of visual art. Photographs are too easy, however unsatisfying in the long run. It is afterall machine made. I find it rather numbing emotionally-- often aloof and distsant as there is always that machine between the artist and the product. the best photographers find ways of getting past the machine, around the machine and through the machine. It is often about their technique. You hear them talk about it all the time, f-stops, lighting, what kind of film until digital. Now what software programs do you use to dodge and burn (shading is also taught in drawing classes) Whereas a drawing, no matter how bad, always seems to carry the mark of the maker.
In fact Van Gogh did have teachers, as did Picasso, Pollack, di Kooning, Warhol, Rauschenberg, Mathew Barney etc. Few of the biggest names in the various pantheons of art did skipped their educations. They either went to art schools or apprentices with or at least studied with other quote un quote masters. They may well have also studied philosophy but along the way they studied drawing. Drawing isn't about the technique. Technique is icing on the cake. When you are drawing you are learning to think visually and abstractly. Drawing is about conversions and transcendance. First converting the temporal world into a two dimensional abstraction. Then to have something to say about that temporal world visually. The truth is that there aren't many artists who have ever done that well. That's why we celebrate those who did.
Today we have all sorts of convoluted ideas about art. Most of them myths. The idea that artists who have no training or education in the arts somehow makes the best art is a myth. A self serving myth that makes us feel better about ourselves as artists. It comes from the French controversy about the work done in the academy as opposed to work done by artists like Delaqroix (who by the way was a product of the academy), Corbet and later the Impressionists (who desperately wanted acceptance by the Salon).
In relation to a letter from Pizarro about his son studying with an English drawing teacher Degas answered and said something like this "Yes the teacher will teach your son to draw well. But his student's work is wooden and stiff. To avoid this have your son go to his drawing sessions during the day. Then at night at home draw the same poses from memory. It will keep both his drawings and his imagination alive.
The trick is to have good drawing teachers.
