Replies: 79 Comments
on Monday, January 22nd, Bill said
Hey Walt. Actually I have no idea. I have not been there since June. Probably will not get there again for many years. Great city, great people, great food, great wine and great art. A big city where culture still comes first.
on Saturday, January 20th, walt said
Bill, how is the weather in BA?
on Friday, January 19th, Brad said
Thanks Ron. Robert was understanding as well. I think Michael makes a good topic of this, "I Don't Get It," muse - it has brought out a lot of comments. Even better, ideas that have bloomed from this blog have carried over into the next 3 blogs as well - so a long string has evolved, and folks are listening, thinking, rethinking, and continuing the conversation going at least through, "Doubts, Questions & Certainties […continued…]" by Jose Freitas Cruz. Thanks for looking back, Ron - I often reread these blogs and gleam something new each time I do.
on Friday, January 19th, Ron Massey said
Brad,
I imagine that you'll be forgiven your small transgression,.. most of the quoting was Rilke anyway.A pity no one responded to it because it answers most of the questions here clearly ,deeply and is probably as close to truth as one is going to find. Unfortunatly Warhol won the celebrity points of the day,... and the chatter went on.So for those who somehow missed it, go back and read the words of Rilke in Brad's blog.
on Friday, January 19th, Brad said
Robert,
A note of apology.
---
I was just thinking, after several discussions on DKos & other blog sites over quoting text, with attributes and hyperlinks. It made me realize I recently got lazy about quoting too much from your newsletter, "Letters to an Artist,"
January 12, 2007. I attributed and linked, but the blog site (at absolutearts) didn't allow HTML within it's comment box. However, I was able to link to your Home Page through my posted name (linkable).
Still, I over-reached...
The Blog: 12/28/2006: was titled "I DON'T GET IT!" by Michael Corbin, and it got 74 responses - which is pretty good on the interest scale over at AA.
---
I felt that if an artist focused him, or herself, more upon the attributes contained in your piece retreating Rilke's ideas, then the issue of concern over someone else, "Not Getting your work," really becomes irrelevant.
So I quoted, attributed and linked to your homepage in the discussion. Today, I read my original newsletter and scrolled down to the bottom:
---
(c) Copyright 2007 Robert Genn. If you wish to copy this material to other publications or mail lists, please ask for permission by writing rgenn at saraphina dot com Thanks for your friendship.
---
I feel like I made a foul and wish to apologize. Funny enough, it was through someone else quoting you some 18 months ago that I found your site to begin with. I have often found comfort and energy & questions through your Twice-Weekly Newsletters. So sheriff, I'm turning myself in. I do promise not to repeat this behavior again. Next time, I'll just suggest one should visit your link.
Sincerely, Brad Michael Moore
Forwarded note to AA...
on Wednesday, January 17th, Bill said
Andrew, I have thinking about your situation. Here is what you should do next: Take your video of destroying our sculpture and get it in galleries. Set up a TV and loop it all day long. You could call it "Dismantling Art". That would be a great way to educate, get a different kind of publicity, while making more art. I think it would be be great.
on Tuesday, January 16th, olivier said
did he destroy them? appart from the beer model you're right Bill
on Tuesday, January 16th, walt said
see...I knew you guys would fall in love with each other eventually.
on Tuesday, January 16th, Bill said
Andrew, I would love to hear your views on Paul's new blog. I think it is taking our discussion on to a new level. See you over there...
on Tuesday, January 16th, Andrew said
Bill, I do the things I do because I love doing them, just like you. And, if my choices are different than yours, we both may draw each other's criticism. The Rockefellers and the Duponts absolutely hate it when their names appear in the press. It's such bad form, don't you know. This attitude about press coverage comes from a level of society somewhat different than my own. What prep school did you go to?
on Monday, January 15th, Bill said
Andrew, I have no idea what you are trying to say. But, please do not take my point of view personally. I have no problem with artists destroying their work if they want to. It's a free world and there are no rules. I do not personally agree with using it as a means to get publicity. If you do not agree then all the more power to you. Adelante. I think that art and artists should not be so pretentious. I think it hurts the art world. I paint because I love it. I write because I love it. I read because I love it. I drink India Pale Ale because I love it. I am passionate about these things, but understand that not all share my view and tastes. I do not believe it has anything to do with nobility. (If that is what you trying to say. I really don't know.) I do not take it personally. If I can a make a living on any one of these things, great. If I can not, I will not stop doing any one of them. In fact, I may even enjoy them more...
on Monday, January 15th, Andrew said
Bill, if you won't deign to comment on my blog, but want to, so you do it here, then I'll answer you here. I made that piece for the wrong reasons...kind of like the reasons all those artists who are authors of bad public work did. Some say I'm courageous to admit it, you apparently don't think so. You don't think second rate work that's out in public is worth making a statement about? I do. So I'm making one. In public, where it'll be heard. Not in private, in my studio, where my selling out won't be seen or heard by anyone. I, unlike you, think nobility that has no effect on anyone is self absorbtion, selfish egoism, a painter who paints not to send any worthwile message, but so he can see himself painting in a mirror, and claim, as he sets his beret to the right angle, that he's noble. Like you, Bill.
on Saturday, January 13th, Walt said
Bill, while I don't disagree with everything you've said ( the cultuer as a whole is numb and skeptical of advertising in general) I could argue about Andy Warhol all day long. ( Duchamp too. But that is another discussion) I don't think his work was honest at all. Two things: He didn't do much of his own work for a starter. And unlike Bob Dylan who gives credit to everyone on the stage or album he gave credit to no one when he put his brand on a piece. And in the end all you really got was the Warhol Brand from Warhol Inc. rather than Andy Warhol. Warhol's work was as cold and distant from the man as any advertisement is from the person who creates the product. Well I suppose even in advertising there are exceptions. But I don't think Warhol wis one of them.
To the second point his work commented on consumer society and cult of personality. That he intended to do this is clear watching his early work before he began repeating Coke bottles and letting his assistants innacurately smear the red lips of Marylin Monroe (the smearing was also a comment on abstract expressionism). His work at the time was assumed to be a subtle sarcastic critique of that mass culture and cult of personality (there were a lot of naive and psuedo Marxists around back then) yet he rarely countered this view while continuing to build his own cult, and use the cult of other personalities like Monroe and Elvis. It wasn't until the die was cast that he finally owned up to his enjoyment of fame.
And he used the very Fordist production line method of mass production for his own work creating products made, as mentioned before, mostly by others. You know, "a chicken in every pot, a Ford in every driveway and a Warhol in every living room." So while I credit him with being a good business man I don't give the work much artistic credit. It was simply good advertising for Andy Warhol as long as he could create controversy and the critics paid attention. I don't doubt however that he was anything but a guy who wanted to do good things at one level. But his art is another story.
Refering to Andrew's destruction of a piece that he admitted was not his best work? All I can say is that Rauschenburg erased one of de Kooning's drawings also as a statement for which he got a lot of attention in the art magazines. Tinguely made sculptures that self destructed. He made grand theatre of one in the Museum of Modern Art that almost started a fire. Of course these artist's were already fairly well known when they did these things. I don't have a problem one with getting attention. But I think a question that maybe Andrew asked is poigniant. Is it ok if we're famous to do famous things but not if we aren't famous yet? While it may or not mean he is great I don't think Andrew is pretending. He believes in himself. Oh and they called Warhol pretentious as well you know.
We don't make this stuff to stack in a closet. It wants to get out there into the public view to enter the dialog. If Warhol is right in his marketing of mass produced works and Rauschenburg and Tinguely are right in the destruction of a work then Andrew can't be wrong either. It is after all his work. He can do whatever he wants with it. He has a legitimate right to make headlines, if he can, so people will know what he's doing. You don't have to like it or the events surrounding it. I'm not crazy about the shenanigans an artist must perform to get some attention these days either.
But unlike that person in the gallery who will not venture an opinion about anything at least you had one. So again, Andrew has succeeded at least in lifting someones apathy. And I have expressed support for Andrew's right to do with his art what he likes. If he can get some recognition then more power to him.
I'm all for artistic integrity. CF Payne illustrates the back of Reader's Digest. He makes images about everyday life...a life inwhich he is integrally woven. He uses his family, his friends as models and he believes in his work and he's quite good at it. One may say "but he is only an illustrator not a fine artist." But I disagree. If honesty and integrity are important then what he does is art--maybe great art. It's certainly well crafted.
I also think the life an artist lives is often counter to the art they make because art is sometimes about what one wants and wishes rather than what is. And then sometimes it is about what one doesn't want or wish for themselves or society in general ( a warning or morality tale of sorts) and so its content doesn't jive with their personal lives either. I've mentioned Ruben's the Rape of the Sabines before. He isn't suggesting we should rape and pillage by showing two men on horseback kidnapping the Sabine women. Rubens work in general doesn not lead to that conclusion. The story was more complex than that.
I certainly don't think Warhol was any more honest than Andrew. Just watch how Warhol played interviewers and the media to get attention. He often pretended to intend things he didn't intend and played the contrarian. Meanwhile what he did do has added to the indecision of the audience in that what they first thought the work was about later was learned to be untrue.
In fact there is an entire philosophy about challenging the viewer with something as far from their notion of art as possible. It is a kind of intent to confuse and mock the poor dears that has become not so much one aspect of the dialog but the discussion itself. I find that mindset rather convoluted. Challenging the popular concept of art is yet one more attempt to stand out from the croud and be noticed, not particularly the sole intent of art. Art is more complex than that.
And one could assume that since this idea that art should challenge or confound (unlike Picasso's intent to seduce which is another thing altogether)in an attempt to move the culture along in a forward direction then one must also assume the failure of that concept everytime someone asks (or refrains from asking out of fear of humiliation) "but what does it mean?"
Art is communication if it is at all cultural as I've said before. If it disregards too often the culture it pretends to be part of by using a language that no one understands then it weakens its ability to dialog with that culture.
on Saturday, January 13th, Michael Fornadley said
The concept of Andy's factory is really nothing new, past study generally shows most creative people in arts, music, poetry, visual and literature likes community to a point. Case in point study Picasso's band of like minded artists. These creative associations or partnerships do not last, human nature being as it is. At a point artists because of ego have to separate themselves from the pack and create their own voice. Know a little about the factory years primarily from listening to and studying Lou Reed/Velet Underground music. They were a pretty strung out bunch during those years and really not healthy personalities to begin with. They basically feed off each other like ticks till they killed the host. The whole factory concept is still going with the arts today, the sicker you are the better accepted you become to get in with the inner circle. It is one big "Leech" party. That is why the young, beautiful and smart are recruited for these happenings, god forbid if they show any weaknesses if so they are thrown out of the pack without mercy. Have no problem just considering myself just the "normal joe" do not have the inclination or energy to be put on the act required with the art market today. You dance to the music you are comfortable with.
on Saturday, January 13th, Bill said
Karl, what you say reminds me of what Bob Geldolf said once. When they accepted to play on Britain's Top of the Pops, everyone said he was selling out. He replied that if he had the choice to ride in a VW Beatle or a Rolls Royce, he would take the later. It's more comfortable. If more people could hear his music, then why not. The fact of the matter is that The *** Pistols were dying to play top of the pops, but would not, for fear of being labeled as "sell-outs". They finally did do the show later on. Who had more artistic integrity? I say Bob Geldolf. You refer to itunes. Pretty much all the bands that held out to sell on itunes because of "artistic integrity" have now caved in and there they are on itunes. They are the real "sell-outs". Artistic integrity is about honesty. Many artists are not honest about themselves or how they promote themselves. Current case in point is the artist who has being planning for some time to destroy a piece of art. The effort he has put into this staged publicity stunt would have better served making more art or reading a good book. If he wanted to destroy his art, then he would have been better off to do so silently. The public is smarter these days and do not like staged publicity events. Let's not cast a shadow on artistic integrity by stooping to such cheap tricks. I will not even post a comment on that artists blog as it deserves no attention. Notice, that the only comments are other artists who want to pat each other on the back. What good does that do? Sorry, it be such a downer, but someone has to say what a few had guts to allude to.
Walt, don't forget, that Andy Warhol lived the life behind his brilliant promotional stunts. That is why he was shot. He refused to change the open door policy of the Factory. He was as strange and eccentric as was his art. He was honest and that is why people were drawn to his art even in the face of extreme critical negativity.
Artists must be humble and admit failure at times. Do so graciously and the public will love you for it. Bob Dylan is a classic example. He has played some of the worst performances ever witnessed by the general public. But he is a genius. When he is great, he is pure genius. When he is bad, he is bad. He even laughs about it later. That is people flock to see him. Inconsistency is a great thing. Great art cannot always be great. There is allot of filler. We can't fool the public. They know what is great and what is not. The best thing we can do artist's is be honest and not so pretentious as is the tone far to often on these pages.
on Friday, January 12th, Brad said
I forgot to link to the Robert Geen article (Clickback) in my last post, and html is not allowed in these posts - I don't think – So, to get to Robert Genn’s Twice Weekly Letter, I attached his link to my name (above) so you can click Brad to navigate to Geen's pages...
on Friday, January 12th, Brad Michael Moore said
I got my,
Robert Genn's Twice Weekly Letter(C)
Link to it here:
robert at theodigitalgallery dot com
It came to me today (12th) – link to it, or read it here, I think it adds to this discussion...
"Letters to an Artist"
January 12, 2007
Dear Brad,
In 1903, the poet Rainer Maria Rilke responded by letter to a young man seeking his advice. Rilke eventually wrote ten letters now collectively known and much published as "Letters to a Young Poet." They are heartfelt advice from a successful (but still struggling) artist to another who was deeply mired in self-doubt. The classic language of these letters soars in beauty as well as lofty good sense. His idealism is applicable today to all who might pursue any sort of creative activity.
Yesterday, on a pathside bench deep in a blustery, storm-destroyed forest, I reread the letters. Here, partly in direct quotation and partly in condensed summation, are some of Rilke's ideas:
Your work needs to be independent of others' work.
You must not compare yourself to others.
No one can help you. You have to help yourself.
Criticism leads to misunderstandings and defeatism.
Work from necessity and your compulsion to do it.
Work on what you know and what you are sure you love.
Don't observe yourself too closely, just let it happen.
Don't let yourself be controlled by too much irony.
Live in and love the activity of your work.
Be free of thoughts of sin, guilt and misgiving.
Be touched by the beautiful anxiety of life.
Be patient with the unresolved in your heart.
Try to be in love with the questions themselves.
Love your solitude and try to sing with its pain.
Be gentle to all of those who stay behind.
Your inner self is worth your entire concentration.
Allow your art to make extraordinary demands on you.
Bear your sadness with greater trust than your joy.
Do not persecute yourself with how things are going.
It's good to be solitary, because solitude is difficult.
It's good to love, because love is difficult.
You are not a prisoner of anything or anyone.
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926) was born in Czechoslovakia and died in Switzerland. Dogged by fragile health and the constant search for inexpensive and healthful accommodation, he anxiously moved from one climate to another. Considered the greatest modern poet in the German language, Rilke counseled the young poet, known only as Mr. Kappus, over a five-year period. No evidence exists that they ever met.
Best regards,
Robert Genn
PS: "Being an artist means not numbering or counting, but ripening like a tree, which doesn't force its sap, standing confidently in storms, not afraid that summer may not come."
(Rainer Maria Rilke)
on Thursday, January 11th, Walt said
Karl,
yes. To pimp ones art or anything else is the business model. But the best do it in a way that doesn't seem like pimping. While Andy Worhal was pimping his art he played a very sly game of pretending not to care. While he was making art that made fun of consummerism and Fordist mass marketing he was acting as a grand capitalist mass marketing consumer items himself. Few really talk about his aspect of his hypocrisy or note the grand game he played on us all.
Some worship him for it.
The rest of us have to deal with the society he helped create. Yes, he had a serious effect and changed the way we think about art. I don't think it was a positive contribution personally. But here we are in our post modern society having to deal with the marketing of our work when we'd rather be making it. At least Andrew has an attitude and a personality that allows him to enjoy that game. In fact I find this blog and Andrew's to be a very nice one two punch in that they both deal with the indifference towards visual arts other than the entertainment industry. The reality is if we do not begin to think of our work in a way that becomes entertainment we most likely won't get very far.
on Thursday, January 11th, Michael Fornadley said
Never considered myself a professional artist, meaning the ability to make a decent living at it. Networking and marketing is something that I could probadly learn, but for what purpose. The ability to "know the right people" would not work for me, most of the "right" people are not right in the head in the first place. The most fun that I every had with any art function is meeting fellow artists on my level, we have things in common. What would I have in common with the financial elite. Never put on airs, though it is tempting to upgrade your social status. Really you see how silly we artists become with climbing that ladder, it has nothing to do with vision or talent, it has to do with getting noticed and titles.
Most individuals on this site have still not gotten to the level of considering themselves as artists. Believing the only way to get that classification is to be accepted by the people who count. Guess what, those people do not know anything more than you do (probadly less), why should their opinion weight more than yours. Once you obtain that way of thinking expect to be considered a malcontent and be casted out of the circle, in the long run does it matter. The arts has always flourished with a little anarchy. Artists need to get a little angry not more passive, serve your master?
on Thursday, January 11th, Karl said
I hope you'll forgive me my shoot from the hip.
While we all might benefit if art became more of a commodity (but isn't it to some degree already?), wouldn't we all hate it if it did?
I would submit that music has hit the commodity threshold. Bless the internet. Yes, there are more opportunities at getting "heard." But even at $.99/track, I can't sell enough. I have had a glimmer of some financial hope by producing music for commercial purposes. Is it a sell-out? As the artist, I don't feel I have sold out. You may feel differently.
Are we all destined to pimp our art?
on Thursday, January 11th, Andrew said
Walt, a very talented person can spend a lot of time working hard, but that's not going to do it these days as you well point out. It's becoming ever more important to channel one's efforts in the right, productive directions, which most artists can't seem to do, largely because they believe the Hollywood myth, that talent and hard work will win in the end. Mickey Rooney stories. So what's the answer? Where do you learn what you can do?
On the street. You have to learn what your power is, for we all have our strengths and weaknesses. There, apart from assessing what your art can do, you can see what YOU can do. These are two seperate entities, after all, and it's good to keep them distinct. I like to think of it as closing your eyes and bouncing on a trampoline. If there's a hole in it, sooner or later, your feet are going to find it. The reason why I like that analogy is because blindness to an excessive burden of information sometimes heightens your other senses. For us fifty year olds on this site, the clock is ticking, and we don't seem to have that enthusiasm and faith in ourselves that we did as teenagers. We tend to think we know our limits, and those of society in general, and thus don't even try a lot of avenues that are open to us, seeing failure around the next bend. It would be wise to close our eyes to our past, and try to develop our other senses, to open new doors in our future. Faith in yourself is never misplaced, it's usually better than faith in someone else. If this is a game, and it should be, so we can enjoy the challenge, then think of how shrewd you have become with all this experience, and play the game like a Bobby Fischer or a Kasparov.
on Thursday, January 11th, jose said
Bingo, Walt! The flowery discourses on how 'lovely' it is to be an artist and how we excell in our own little niches pale in comparison to the honesty you've just shown. I'll take honesty any day rather than kid myself of the bounty I believe to have reaped. Thanks for the wake-up call.
on Thursday, January 11th, walt said
Thank you Matt. But it isn't ahappy conclusion even if it is an honest one. Like everyone else I wan't to allow for all the possiblities. But it is a mtter of statistics.
on Thursday, January 11th, matt said
Bravo Walt!
on Wednesday, January 10th, walt said
Karl,
Indignation is something I gave up years ago. It just doesn't pay you back-- although for a short moment it does feel pretty good. Then you still haven't sold anything and the rent is still due and you have quite likely pissed off someone who may have been interested in your work enough to buy at least a small drawing. I think the biggest problem most artists have is that ultimately they are not reaching the market that does take the time to think and buy. It is such a very very small market. And there are really only a very few galleries where those people go to buy art. Most of us cannot get into them for any number of reasons not least of which has to do with both the quality of craft and relevance. Oh, yeah, and who you know. The circle is quite small. And very discriminating.
So really much of this discussion is based on a kind of popular market where framing a jersey with your favorite football or basketball players number or maybe your favorite beer logo is considered every bit as aesthetically important as the art in the gallery next door.
It's really not worth getting upset over. Most of us really don't have the chops either artistically or socially for the big tent. Wish I didn't have to say that. But I'm being disingenous if I don't.
Now that isn't to say that there arent' a few on this and many other sites who could hold their own in a major New York or London gallery...but again there are so many of us and so few of them.
Most of us should be looking for ways of selling our work via corporate collections...and here I don't mean the really serious ones that collect major works by major artists but ones like McDonalds or Burger King who simply want some kind of inexpensive art on a theme for this or that store location.
Or popular print galleries that sell mostly landscapes, still life, or thematic subjects whether as commerciallly printed silkscreens or offset lithography or possibly quickly dashed off originals in a slick mechanical style. I've noticed several of these have openend recently in our own little gallery district here in Columbus having bumped out the more original galleries that started it all with local art that never sold. Most of the stuff comes from very enterprizing if not terribly significant artists from somewhere else. And most of it looks like somebody we've seen in an art book or magazine only slicker and more decorative with a lot less talent.
Oh I know someone will counter that art is in the eye of the beholder and who am I to sit in judgement. And someone else will say "If it is selling then it must be better than that stuff that doesn't sell." To which I will counter that there is no accounting for taste.
But it is hard to hear the tone in which I say this cause it is not said out of indignation but with a very tired inflection because I've been around long enough to know that these are things that will never change from one generation to another.
Meanwhile if you have the dream I guess you gotta go for it no matter what anybody says. But my advice is that you learn the computer and become a commercial artist. You have about 10 times as much chance to make enough to live on that way. Especially if you can do web design and motion graphics. (But beware! You'll remain anonymous. Not even commercial illustration is prospering these days. I just learned that a major text book publisher who used to pay a standard $75 for a quarter page b+w line illustration has recently reduced its standard to $15 for the same work. There you have it.
The problem really is that there are too many of us out here trying to make a living at it (just look at the list here on aa) and not enough reasons for others to hire or pay us a living wage let alone a serious value for originality. The result is that it is extremely (to the nth degree) competitive. So if you really want...no...if you really need to be an artist be prepared to work ten times harder than you might in any other profession, to remain at what most would consider entry level for 5 times longer, expect to live below the poverty line most of your life and don't quit your day job.
Or...maybe you are that one in 20,000 who really have genious talent and know all the right people. (I can see all of your hands going up saying "that'll be me!") This is what I tell my students every day of the week. That only 2 or 3 out overy 20 who pass through will be making their living making art in 10 years. Then I treat them all as if they were in that 20,000 because you simply don't know who will blossom, make or catch a break and rise to the cream level.
I've only had a few students who have passed through my classes over the years who have made it in New York as a painter. As opposed to the hundreds who have made it in the commercial fields. Yet many more have found a niche selling their artistic and creative skills in some peripheral fashion as teachers (like me)art directors, studio techs or assistants to other artists, gallery managers, color consultants etc. But only a few get to actually make art. And nearly 75 percent of them have been fairly talented individuals. Truly above average.
Honetly, most of the contemporary artwork I've seen in my life cannot hold up to the gathering collections in museums around the world. And much of it cannot even hold up to the level of good commercial artists. This is why I seldom give crits on the forum. It's so depressing. I'd be lying for the most part. It's just my opinion but I believe a lot of art theory for the last 50 yeasrs has been developed to convince people that really bad art is really good art. And that's another reason that folks just don't get it.
on Wednesday, January 10th, Andrew said
Karl, the way you put it, the viewer sitting on his ass and not making the effort to 'get it' is the only reason why anyone doesn't get it. How 'bout if the artists doesn't put anything in there worth getting?
Walt good points about how the work should stand on its own. Before the artist talks about it before we read anything, and after they've left or we've put the book down as well.
And very old work has magnificence sometimes ONLY because it's old, antique, not from our time, and hopefully opens a window of perception into another time.
on Wednesday, January 10th, karl said
I believe that the "I don't get it" response/mentality is borne out of sitting on one's ass and having everything handed to them. Instant gratification without putting forth mental effort. I applaud artists such as you and stand with you in your indignance.
Karl
on Wednesday, January 10th, Brad said
14 days and counting? This is the gift that keeps on giving. Michael, I think you hit a responsive chord.
on Tuesday, January 9th, walt said
Jose, I'm sure you have more to say on the subject than my little thought. And I'm sure we'll expand on it as we have here. I was a little late getting my dates in so I won't be up again until early in February. Lookin forward to your ideas as always.
on Tuesday, January 9th, jose said
Bill, the crazy prices some works of art fetch these days are the fault of rampant commercialism, I agree. But we also both agree that the value of art is not merely monetary. It is impossible to foretell how humans will respond to art 2000 years from now nor what will make them tick – will a Van Gogh, or a Rembrandt that emerges miraculously unscathed from the rubble of an ancient Skyscraper where it was held hostage, still provoke the oohs and aahs it would today? I think it would, and I think that it’s preciousness would quickly give rise to people wanting it and thus to pricing. Maybe not as immorally high a price as today, but I think people would still want to preserve it or possess it [these choices of artist are, of course, my subjective view at this point]. And this brings us back to a theme we talked about a few blogs ago: which ones will, and which ones will not withstand the test of time. Which ones, as you put it, will still be capable of living on their own, as do the Sphinx or Petra, as did until recently the regrettably lost statues of Bamyan or will, no doubt, future archaeological findings? An impossible question to answer, I would say. But I would like to think that the initial reason for the renewed interest in something lost is not purely mercantile, though eventually those forces will take over.
on Tuesday, January 9th, Bill said
Walt and Jose, I think your last two posts sum up everything nicely. I agree wholeheartedly, except I am not sure how I feel Jose about a piece of art that is keep locked away increasing in value. It is true in a financial way, but that is simply rampant commercialism and does not necessarily speak of artistic value. I propose that if no one is or can view a piece of art then it loses it's artistic value and may not even deserve the title of art until it is appreciated once again. Again we cannot remove the artist from the equation anymore then the public. I love your statement Walt about the two places where one can enjoy art, and how the first impression should be without interference. Art can stay attached to the artist or it can live on it's own. I prefer to see it live in it's own.
on Tuesday, January 9th, jose said
Although, Andrew, in the case of what I hope you are currently undertaking, the artist’s presence and perhaps even a little flamboyance might be called for. I’m curious to find out how things went, hope your blog comes up soon.
on Tuesday, January 9th, jose said
Bill, the ‘beauty’ and the imprints are still there in a great artistic achievement regardless if we know who put them there or not, that is for sure, but they acquire a different importance for the viewer when we learn more about what moves the artist, whenever this is possible. I think Walt’s approach seems like a healthy one, that second paragraph just about sums it up. After the way you describe things in the first paragraph, Walt, I’m pretty much left with a redundant blog for the 18th, I doubt I’ll be able to match the beauty of that description. Music was, by the way, the starting point… somehow we seem to follow along parallel tracks.
Andrew I think we have to be cautious. Knowledge and information about who the artist is should be available or made known with discretion. I agree that flamboyance can sometimes affect the experience in a negative way. The work of art should do the job on its own – provoke thoughts and feelings, arouse our curiosity – that’s how the ‘worm’ of a change of perception/attitude wiggles in. Then, if curiosity moves us we may want to learn more about who created the work and what moved them.
To answer Bill again, on that last question you raised, I think that yes, a priceless work of art maintains its value, perhaps even rises in value, if it is kept from view. Just think of the many priceless works kept in private collections, sometimes even in vaults. But first, of course, it must have acquired some value or at least the artist must have made a name for himself with other works. Though I would go as far as accepting that there might be work out there no one has ever heard of or seen, that if ever revealed, may cause a stir in whoever finds it… it will have value if only in that. If it goes on to acquire financial value it would most likely depend on who comes upon it.
on Tuesday, January 9th, Walt said
Andrew, I don't disagree. An artist can either enhance or flatten the understanding someone has about their work but only if that audience is not sure to begin with. Of course I'm an artist so I am a bit more committed to what I feel. But I've rarely had an artist ruin my comprehension of the work they have done that I admire. On the other hand I've never had an artist (or critic or gallerist, or curator) convince me of something I already discounted. But I think the general audience is not so solid. The only problem I have with all of this is that if it wasn't the work that caught them then it is more about the artist's personality than their work. Savidore Dali fits this profile in my mind.
on Tuesday, January 9th, Andrew said
Walt, I take it you don't agree that the artist can participate after the fact of creation.
on Tuesday, January 9th, walt said
Jose. i suppose I was hinting at those abstract works in which the form is so poeticly rhymed that to subjectively find the miriad relationships is like listening to a bach cello piece which may only have emotional significance and to which the scratching of the strings beneath the bow is as musical as the feathering of the fingers. I am patient and will wait for your blog. Bill. I have, after my 54 years on this planet, come to conclude that there are two places where a person can finally have enough peace and quiet to really contemplate a work of art and have half a chance of grasping its significance. One is in the quiet of one's own home and the other is in a museum on one of those midweek afternoons when there are few others lurking about.
One can never really see art at a gallery opening or a crowded museum or hanging in rowdy bars or restaurants. And one doesn't need a docent, a statement, a recorded lecture or gallery salesman speaking into ones ear. I rarely read about any given art until I've come to know it if I possibly can. To let a work speak to you personally is the idea. But not just to let it speak but to have a conversation with the work once it has spoken enough to begin such a two way dialog. In that quiet conversation one will not only hear the artist speaking about what he felt and meant as he worked but feel his senses and maybe even hear the bird in the tree outside his studio window as he worked. Especially, if one is himself an artist, to simply stand at arms length, add 12 inches for the brush, from the Rembrandt self portrait in the Frick in NYC and sense the same things Rembrandt saw as he painted each stroke, drawing with his brush the contour of his turban, the bulb of his own nose, the tub of his belly and the saddened but proud look in his eye...I've spoken with the man. I've bought him a Guinness more times than I can remember.
on Monday, January 8th, Andrew said
This one hot off the frying pan...if the artist intervenes and changes the perception of his own work, does he not become an extension of the process that brought his work into being? And, is it important or not, the way he promotes and therefore brings his work before a public that can then judge it? If the process is the artist's role, but not the channeling of the appropriation of the message he delivers, then he subjugates himself to others, and limits the span of the ways in which his work can be perceived. I find the creation of the ambiance in which work is shown, can be, though it doesn't have to be, an element of the composition itself. The viewer can be helped to have a fuller appreciation of the artist's intent, that is, of his work.
on Monday, January 8th, Bill said
Walt, I agree that finding the rock in the wilderness does not make you the creator of it. But to see it as art and present it as art is no different then a artist painting a still life or a landscape. I am glad you agree that the brillo box and the BMW were made by artists. The fact that we do not know who were the artists does not change that fact or limit our appreciation of those things as art. We also do not know who designed the Tower of Pisa which many feel is the most beautiful bell tower ever made and to which thousands of people flock to each year. Please don't misunderstand me when I say that artists should limit their contact with their audience. It has a place (as I said before, the artist is half the equation, what is art without people who view it, is it still art?), but my point is that it can be abused and misused. Two great examples: communist countries crush the creative spirit because the artist is not held to be important. But the other extreme is hollywood where the artist (actor)is king. I think Ireland has the best view and understanding or artists. They pay no taxes and are considered almost heroes, yet at the same time they are just another bloke with whom you have a pint with at the pub. But here in Canada and also the USA, most art galleries are pretentious, scary, cold and uninviting. Or the other extreme is that they are more like used car salesman. We should focus more on the medium and creativity and less on us as individual artists. But here is a question I would like to get your (especially Walt and Josh) viewpoints on: Can we say a priceless work of work still has value if it is locked away and never appreciated? I hopefully will publish a blog on these question sometime soon... love your viewpoints and passion, artist integrity is alive and well we just have to look a little harder...
on Monday, January 8th, jose said
Precisely, Walt. And yet you hinted at it already when you mentioned its role in free-association, [and I agree with you that this is a useful way to move around within your subjective bubble], though you loose me when you say that if liberation of the spirit was one of the objectives the work was meant to bring about, subjectivism may last a bit longer. Surely, the ‘subject’ that comes out of that experience will be a different one, and its capacity to look at and understand other ideas will equally be different – and so we could say that you have escaped that particular bubble and started to create the next. In a certain way, Subjectivism, sure! We’ll never be able escape that condition entirely in this carcass of ours, but by acceding to a new ‘subject’ through whatever experience Art (music, literature, etc…) provides you with, you advance and become able to understand and also to envision and create new things. But let’s talk of these things next week.
on Monday, January 8th, Walt said
Jose,
I hadn't thought to put to work the idea that subjectivism can be a hinderance or interference to grasping and understanding a work. So, like many tools, subjectivity can have both a positive and negative effect. Positive if it is a doorway to understanding, negative if it makes a wrong turn down the corridor causing the real understanding to get lost. But even here there is sometimes a small positive in that if one does figure out that the wrong reading was taken then one knows more once they follow the hints and cues to the proper or more proper reading. Again, I do believe some amount of subjectivity is required. Just as one must be inductive prior to being deductive.
Nice one Jose. Looking forward to your next blog in Jan.
on Monday, January 8th, jose said
I hesitate to agree with you, Bill, that knowing the artist – who he is, what he may look like, what he thinks, etc – constitutes a hindrance or interferes with the enjoyment and understanding of a work of art. If this were so I doubt Taschen Artbooks would be the success they are (at least on this side of the Atlantic).
On the contrary, I think the information enhances them and reduces in some measure our subjective interference in the appreciation of the work of art in question. Unless of course the aim is to encapsulate and enjoy someone else’s creation within the safe boundaries of our personal bubble of perception and of what we hold to be the truth. But then, Art [especially for artists] is meant to help us go beyond the boundaries we are familiar with.
I have a hard time agreeing with the notion that the artist is merely the vehicle through which certain ideas or ‘visions’ materialise, and that the less he is present the purer they flow. The artist’s ‘presence’ gives colour and meaning to a new facet of the ‘Thing’ we are all attempting to capture.
I don’t see Art as an aesthetic exercise performed [by others or by myself] for the sole purpose of procuring enjoyment and reassurance in the ideas and values I already know and believe in – but I’ll leave this train of thought for Jan. 18.
on Monday, January 8th, walt said
most typos can be read through. However the following could really confuse someone so I felt I should fix it. It was 2/3rd of the way into paragraph 3 of my last post.
"to claim that a reasonable effort had been made to find the owner or (should say 'of'instead of or) a so called orphaned work"
on Monday, January 8th, Walt said
Bill, I find it interesting that both the brillo box and the BMW were designed by artists other than Warhol or Jobs. Don't you? Much of what Andy get's credit for is someone elses work. According to your take on it I suppose simply being the person who finds that interesting rock in the wilderness makes you the creator.
It all sounds good when you read it in an art magazine, very high minded and liberating. But I have a hard time with the facts. Being the decider of art is not exactly the same as being the artist. Next thing you know members of the audience who have listened to your response will come to the opening and say "because I deem these works of art they are mine by right of emminent domain"... but then we've already had a generation of artists and politicians who have done just that.
But your view of it all is winning out I think. You know there was a bill in Congress trying to change copyright law so that corporations will be able to use your images without paying you (it is called the Orphan Works bill). I'm hoping that the change in party will kill the bill. It sounded innocent enough in that it intended to make it easy to use work that is considered "orphaned" or "unclaimed". They got the librarians behind it. Who can dislike librarians? But the reality was that it made it so easy to claim that a reasonable effort had been made to find the owner or a so called orphaned work that in effect it gave everyone permission to use the work with little or no effort and unless caught no fee. Then it capped the costs of the use if the owner showed up. Let's hope the bill disapears.
But again, I do not disagree that some subjective free association when first connecting with a new unfamiliar piece of art is important. But at some point the work itself will begin to do what it was meant to do (if it was ever any good) and understanding will come more into line with what the artist intended. If liberation of spirit was one of those intentions then subjectivism may last a bit longer. But absolute subjectivism...or think of it in reverse: subjective absolutism. Either way its a scarry thought.
on Sunday, January 7th, Bill said
Walt, you make some good points, but the fact that art is purely subjective is what makes it the perfect form of communication. It does not take the artist out of the equation. Andy Warhol showed us that art was inseparable from style. As Lou Reed and John Cale pointed out in the song, “Style It Takes” from the album, Songs For Drella (a good-by to Andy) where the average person saw simply a Brillo box, Andy saw art. Warhol had the style it took to dictate what art was (and is to this day). I heard once that Steve Jobs had a BMW motorcycle in his living room as a piece of art. Art IS completely subjective. Who made the brillo box or the BMW art? The designers of the products or the people who had the style and guts to present it as art? Or the people who accepted it as art? The artists role ends when he puts on the last brush stroke. Then the art itself speaks for itself and stimulates communication. He is important but only half of the equation. When the artist dies, does communication end? Of course not. I think that artists should try to avoid having too much contact with the people who buy their art. I am horribly disappointed when I see a picture of the artist plasted on his/her website or on the back of their paintings. Let the art speak and communicate. Did not some famous visual artist from Buenos Aires say that its not about whether one has good or bad taste, the real crime is to have no taste at all. If someone does not get it but at least tried to get it, I mean they went to see it (right?), then I think that's good. If they really meant to say: "I don't get what the artist says this is about", then that's great too. If they just say that because they don't want to try to take it in, then that's bad. But it's still better to have even those people looking at your art, for if know one does, then is it art?
on Sunday, January 7th, olivier said
Walt.As a box builder, a kind of so called artist working arround them I do agree on much you said. Now what? I don't give up so easily since I know my best achievement in life was to get out. Yes you can claim I was rebuilbuiding a new one but still. To use it as a bridge you will have to walk out of the so call box; kind of on it; or it will be like a jail in my view. My point is whatever box you live in the goal is to escape it. To do so you will need to be able to know you own.
Ye it is quite simple but it is the sense of my work and customers who bought my art did not care about me olivier, they just feel attract by this simple view who can help to break more borders and " prejudices". Now that what I like to think, perhaps they just like the colors or think I will be more recognize than Andrew? who knows?
Excercise: replace subjective by objective in your speach..it work the same. So? The flat world is watching you
on Sunday, January 7th, walt said
Thanks Andrew. I like you too. By the way I finally managed to take a peek at your site on aa. Very nice stuff. We should talk about it sometime.
on Sunday, January 7th, Andrew said
I never like to admit this, but Walt, I can't find much wrong with anything you've said.
on Sunday, January 7th, walt said
Bill, I would agree that subjectivity is part of any artistic process of expression and part of any viewers process of grasping the connection to the energy and meaning in a work of art. But if all art is completely subjective then there is no communication...not cultural connection whatsoever...just a lot of visualy metaphysical junk. As Picasso said..."an empty bag anyone can throw anything into." What then is the difference between an interesting piece of driftwood or stone found lying on the ground and a sculpture crafted and modified by a human incentive? I may value each but for different reasons. The first is a natural phenomenon from which I may draw personal meaning. The second is an expression and translation of that meaning I may find in the world. One might call it the difference between nature's apriori(or God's) art and human art.
To say all art is completely subjective is to take the artist out of the picture. And that is a problem that has horrendous implications. Here is the first implication: If the artist isn't important then why do we make art at all? In fact why are we having this discussion? Secondly: Why do people choose to buy art as opposed to simply finding interesting natural objects. But of course this belies the intitial issue about why people don't get it. They don't get it because they assume first that an artist had a purpose in making the object of their affection, objection or indecision. The audience is tryin gto decide if it is worth even considering. So to be completley subjective is an error.
Olivier: As to the boxes we put in place...these are always temporary limitations. To think of them in any other way is rediculous and self defeating. And to blame someone else for our own limitations is most often childish. We build our own. When we build our world view we are creating a box or set of borders defining what we know and feel and therefore understand. As our knowledge increases we build a bigger box. Hence the term thinking outside the box. If your box is too small build a bigger one. When that box becomes too small build another. But I'm afraid we will always build boxes no matter how much we demand they be smashed. It's how we grow and progress. You can think of your box (world view) as a prison or a bridge...your choice. But I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't build them.
on Sunday, January 7th, olivier said
Ok, I don't get it either. +1 if you want to keep track of your math. By the way what is it about? I really don't get it! I'm trying to read the smart one here..still. I dont know if I am an artist but I think I do not like rules. Boxes are for me just a support for candid smiley girls and/or dead bodies. I hope you did not forget smiling while you writted here? It is important when there is nothing to get. Niet! nothing no penny, no ***, no recognition. Niet niet. As a painter I am all poor, hugly, and self satisfied. Smile . As they said the world is flat today but it is not a reason to loose humor. Enjoy what your like it will be OK. Isn't it fantastic to writte and be published for free like here? We do the same with many things: including paintings, it's great. For some it is still too much expensive. I don't take free subsciption to local newspaper deliver for free to my house...it cost garbage. Whaaouu..do you get it?
on Sunday, January 7th, Michael Fornadley said
Maybe it is the artist who "does not get it", just really how revelant are we to our culture or society anymore. Subjective was brought one as means of judging one piece of art from another. Just study the current crop of TV reality competition shows where you have skilled participants being judged by a rule of standards. Can you subject a visual artist to the same kind of selection to prove one artist is more skilled than the other. Would be fun to do, have everybody starting on a level playing field none of this self proclaimed labeling that is running amuck in aritistic circles now a days. Just how well would those superstars on the coasts do against some talented midwesterns. Agree artist statements are primary set up to keep the undesirables out of the pack. Hate them with a passion, just another hoop to jump through to be accepted. The problem I see in the arts today is too many stinking words to explain something that fails in the visual arena, just how clever are we.
on Sunday, January 7th, Bill said
"I don't get it" is more of a response to how pretentious art and artists have become. They are saying they don't get what we artists say the art is about or who we are about. We do NOT have an artist statement on our website or anywhere else. It is not because we could not think of some lofty, pretentious things to say
about nothing, or babble about some metaphysical junk, but rather because we feel the whole idea of an artist statement is… well, to be honest, is just down right SILLY. Do you really care what some artist has to say about what his work is about or what it SHOULD be about? Can you not tell these things from simply viewing his work? Why is art so pretentious? Why are artists so pretentious?
Art is completely subjective and is one of the purest forms of expression that eliminates the need for explanations or commentaries. If you like a painting then that's great, if you don’t then that’s great to. If you can’t decide, then that’s not great, and you should be forced to read endless artists statements until you have an opinion.
on Saturday, January 6th, walt said
This is an old topic but one that will not fully run its course for some time I think. We "don't get it" for a variety of reasons.
1. Art can be very deep or very high. It might be above us or too deep to follow intellectually.
2. The artist may not be working within the culture therefore the culture cannot comprehend the meaning.
3. The artist may have failed to communicate. In fact all of the above are failures on the artists part to understand and communicate with their audience. It means the artist has cut the cultural tether and is floating out there in isolation shouting into the vaccum of deep space.
4. The fear of not being smart enough or sensitive enough causes the audience to get caught in a double bind where they feel it is a catch 22 to even make an effort. The idea that it may mean something far deeper or higher than they can get or that it may be that it means nothing and they fear looking like a sucker causing indecision (a kind of intellectual and emotional indigestion). There are in fact many artists who are not really capable of operating in the realm they are trying to operate in creating very shallow work that only pretends to be something poignant or important.
If art is cultural, then communication within the bounderies of the culture should be the basis for understanding. The idea that art should push the envelope is an interesting one but often misunderstood. And unlike science there are few operating principles one can apply to cutting edge work (if in fact the work is truly cutting edge*). Does this mean art should never push the envelope? No. It only means that there will, by neccessity be few who really do push the edges of culture further in a meaningful way and that it happens historically at a slow pace or in fits and starts with long spaces in between where the culture expands to accept and understand or reject the outcomes. This second aspect is one we artists do not like to discuss.
Essentially I believe that if art is part of the culture then it should be inherently understandable within that culture. So...who is the audience? Other artists from ones small circle of believers? Then no on else is gonna get it. If you're gonna play games like Duchamp and Warhol (two players who really began this dilemma) then you'd better develop a very thick and cynical skin towards the general viewer. I personally think Duchamp liked to play with the critics and intellectuals of their day. Why do you think Duchamp came to the states? The critics were not nearly as prepaired for his form of art cynicism here.
*There is a newer term that has, within the last 10-15 years, begun to appear in avant garde circles. That term is that this or that artists work is "dodgy". To say someones work is dodgy sounds like they mean "edgy" (which was a precursor to dodgy) once suggesting that the work was on the edge or pushing the edge. But once the term "edgy" took hold it took on new meaning. It began to suggest that the work made the audience feel edgy about it. Dodgy seems, in a similar way, to suggest work that dodges the current trends, standards or accepted explanations... as in Dickens' famous Artful Dodger.
on Friday, January 5th, Don W Murphy said
Michael, you have opened the door to many of the problems and important points about creating art which have been bouncing around in my head for years, (and apparently in at least 26 other artists heads!)
Trying to get this discussion down to a bottom line of positive help to artists, and viewers, is difficult but I will try (if you can spare the space and time).
First, I firmly believe that an artist should help viewers to understand and enjoy his art. This takes a great amount of tact and patience because there are serveral types of viewers, ranging from the timid, to the eager but confused, to the intelligent who will listen, to the stupid and extremely obnoxious.(We have examples in one comment here)
The best chance you have is like the girl who I was not patient enough with, who was looking at a print of a semi-abstract nude. She said " Well what is it?" I should have tried to explain, even though what I was trying to say in the picture should have been obvious. Then there was a "fellow artist" (She was a mother of a 12 year old.) who screamed "Why!" The picture was "Puberty" (You can find it in my Premier Portfolio. It is the most awarded of any of my works.) It shows four mostly naked, could-be-12, girls. I didn't try to explain to her. She should have known what the picture was trying to say and I was trying to keep my temper. Maybe she did know.
The "Chicago Picasso" mentioned in my earlier comment had reactions from the lowest and most difficult and stupid observers who not only "Didn''t Get It!" but believe it should not exist, and is an insult to humanity, God, their time and the taxpayers money.
I have been called a "pervert" more than once. (You can see some of these pictures in my Premier Portfolio) The only answer to these viewers is to ignore them, turn and walk away, don't answer. Don't punch them (even Steve). It just gives them an excuse to punch you back and won't change their so-called minds.
Thank you. I have used enough of your time and space, except that I looked up the "Chicago Picasso" on Google and found out the sculpture is still there. And still unnamed. Still looks like a 50 foot high fat monkey with batwings, and several other things, 40 years after it was built and I took pictures of it. But now it has become a meeting place, and social center, with little tables sheltlered by embrellas underneath. Quite a drawing card for tourists. The sculpture has not changed just the attitude. Don
on Friday, January 5th, lmcreber66@msn.com">Lori said
Hello, I was shopping at the Container Store and found a card on the floor for one of your artist with the website attached(when I say 'on the floor' do not read too much into this...someone probably just accidently dropped it). I glanced at this blog, and the comments and I felt I must respond. NOT EVERYONE IS INSTANTLY INSIGHTFUL. I am talking for myself and many others who are not artists, writers or poets. Back in the day I LOVED my literature classes, with a teacher who helped to guide us to become insightful (recently I came upon my college notes with a passion to relive the days when I had time to myself to think). I am a mom of two active boys who keep us on the go from city to city with their activites, I am a preschool teacher (boss, teacher, curriculm creater, maintenance crew, shopper of supplies, account), a wife (yes, happy), active in my church, plus I have a large out of town family that I am in constant communitcation with daily. So if I say, "I don't get it" do not be angry...maybe I just need time to go home and think. Note to artists (for us who are slow): maybe someone could provide literature to let us know your mind set when creating your piece...as a guide only...not as an answer sheet. Congrats on having a beautiful gift. Smile! Love, Lori
on Thursday, January 4th, steve said
this site sucks i dont care who you are it sucks i mean sucks butt
on Tuesday, January 2nd, Olga said
Hi everybody! Too much to read here. I will - later:). I just want to say Happy New Year to all of you.
Cheers!
on Tuesday, January 2nd, Margaret Stone said
The performing and visual arts tell us stories that inform us, that we can relate to, that touch our emotions. Literature as in writing and poetry, music, dance, performance, and as should the visual arts, share with all who are interested a view into another world, another place expressed through the voice of its creators. As to “I don’t get it” as a response to a given art work, it did have to engage the person at some level to elicit that response. People have preferences. I love ballet. I do not care for opera. Regarding my own artwork, I can’t remember anyone saying “I don’t get it” in my presence, but I have watched people pass right on by my work at a show with only a sliding glance, not engaged at all. I prefer not to fall apart when that happens. There are other people who relate to a particular work and see even more in it. I am often surprised. I am not talented with the written word, but it seems to me that if an artist has something to say, to share in their own way, with integrity, there will be people who relate to the work. And occasionally there will be people who don’t get it. That’s just the way of it.
on Monday, January 1st, Andrew said
Art, it seems you, as many other artists will, are pushing the idea of art communicating to the viewer to the back burner. If peotry sends a message, why not art? And I don't mean just what the viewer is able to take away, but rather what the artist is able to transmit. Why, if in all the other arts, like music, dance, literature, etc., the quality of art depends so heavily on the artists skill in communicating effectively, yet in the visual arts, do some feel the license to wallow in being self absorbed?
on Sunday, December 31st, artimus28822@yahoo.com">Art said
Michael has provided all of us with an opportunity to express our dismay at those who "don't get it" and our admiration or kiship to those who "do get it". My concern is that in reading through some of the responses, there is an argument for "shock art". If you can stop the viewer in their tracks, then that is good art. It seems to me that as with all things, abstract art is an acquired taste. Matter of fact, many of us artists have fluctuated in our own levels of embracing art representing a variety of periods. I find it interesting that artists, and abstract artists in particular would want to achieve a general consensus by the masses determining whether one's individual creativity
has worth or not. I would rather think that as the individual artist experiences and engages in his or her own personal creative jouney, that they give less credence to outside voices and more to their own internal voice. In contrast to those who think that "shock art" is the path to mass acceptance and validation, I believe that it is one of many shortcuts to gaining attention and notoriety and that such art has it's short-comings, just as the author proposed for non-objective abstract works. Michael, I humbly suggest that personal bliss and success lay with embracing and enjoying one's own journey of art-making and let the viwers of your art take away from it in accordance with their own capacity.
on Sunday, December 31st, Alice said
Art is in the mind, body, and soul. Not all get it, and the artist may be the only one that does get it most times. Michael you mentioned buying five pieces of art work made out of wire hanger and saw within each one the message that was there. Any one else could have looked at it and thought, hmmmm looks like I should hang my coat on it. But you saw the meaning, these pieces of work were made with you in mind, they speak to you and you alone. Sometimes that is art it may only speak to certain people, while others look and don't get it. I went to the museum of modern art a decade ago and seen artist whose work was white on white, I didn't get it, and a lot of others didn't get it either. But as I passed through one room a man remarked about how wonderful the work was, the work was speaking to him, and probably others as well, but not to me. Its like life, some people you can get along with famously and others you don't want anything to do with, so is art. What a wonderful thing as artist we are all different and only speak the same language as another one understands. If you spoke to me in French I wouldn't know what you were talking about, so is the same for art.
on Sunday, December 31st, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said
Brad, THANKS! Not an appeal exactly, more like a press release. You know the subject. Here's the address;
webninjas@naplesnews.com">webninjas@naplesnews.com
Unity certainly produces ten times the strength I'd have on my own. 3x1 in this case = 10
Another Absart comenteer has written one to CNN and to the BBC, and I'm not sure if anonymity is their desire or not, so I'm going to be discreet.
DISCREET? ME? Michael, I hope you are being amused by the way I used your blog as a stage and not distressed. I believe you probably are amused, but nevertheless I owe you a big one for invading your space. This blog got a lot of comments on its own, as do many of yours, and that's a testament to the quality of what you write. The polarizing issue seems to be how aware artists are of what they're doing while they work. There's another blog posted by Vick about yours drawing comments on it's own. Take a look!
on Sunday, December 31st, Brad said
Andrew,
Send me some email addr's and I post some appeals - hell, I've done that sort of thing for Not-for-Profits over 30 years...
I think also, if one is any kind of artist - abstract, sculpture, video, if you can't explain what was in your head that moved you to create a work to give it meaning to you - then it means nothing and your probably not an artist.
on Saturday, December 30th, Gabriella Morrison said
It is not always important "to get it", but it is important to have one's sense of wonder stopped dead in its tracks, arrested into attention. For something to give rise to questions rather than answers is to stimulate engagement. Once a dialogue is opened with a viewer by an artwork, never a passive process, a "conversation" rich in possibilities occurs. This requires letting go of the idea that complete understanding happens - sometimes it is far richer to arrive at hints and glimmers that lead to open-ended exploration.
on Saturday, December 30th, Michael Fornadley said
Problem is that if you do work that people "do not it" you better have a good paying day job. It is a common practice to dumb down for an artist to advance their careers, human nature to be liked and admired let alone awarded financially. Generally it is true that other peers or artists will get where you are going with your work, but they are not the ones who buy works. The higher up the artistic food chain the less willing to leave the standards of procedures or thought. Questions should be: "Just how brainwashed are we?" and What ever happened to "Questioning Authority"?
on Friday, December 29th, Cecil Herring said
Your blog is one of the best, Michael. You have stimulated so many wonderful ideas and 14 amazing comments (so far) my head is swirling with thoughts, ideas and questions about everything I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT! ha ha. All I can remember of a succinct nature is a quote by the wonderful and one of my favorite painters Francis Bacon - "The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery." Cecil
on Friday, December 29th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said
Forgive me Michael, but I want to use this comment space to send out an appeal to my fellow artists. For my blog, 'Destroying Art Part 2" I want to try an experiment which is time constrained. I want to get press coverage. If what I propose works for me, then maybe it will work for others in the future. One of my views on the promotion of art is that by teaming together, artists become more powerful. Speaking with a journalist, I was told that newspapers, television stations, and others almost never write about things suggested to them by those participating first hand in events. The suggestion has to come from an outsider to be considered. And so, I appeal to you all, to contact the Naples News newspaper sites, or CNN and any others, to suggest they cover my destruction event. You might get some satisfaction for having been a key player in an artistic endeavor, but beyond that I want to try to demonstrate how collaboration can become power. I'm certainly going to try to do it without you, but I have this feeling that if what I'm suggesting works, we can use it in a more refined way in the future, and reap even bigger benefits for someone else besides me. Help me out! And Michael, I know you love art and artists, and so hope you'll forgive me for using your space. Time is pushing me. January fifth isn't that far away.
on Friday, December 29th, Thomas Taylor/Sabo said
ALOHA FROM MAUI,
NOBODY GETS IT! I AM CONVINCED THAT THE HERD MENTALITY ONLY ACCEPTS APPROVED IMAGES THAT CONCIDE WITH THEIR ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS. I AM OUTSIDE THE BOX. ALL MY WORK GETS THAT EXPRESSION. I AM HAPPILY CREATIVE AT UPSETING THE NORM AND EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO CREATE TEXTURES WITH UNUSUAL INSTUMENTS. I'VE USED KNIVES, COMBS, AFRO PIKS, SAMURI SWORDS, 9in. NAILS, AND BRUSHES USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
MY LATEST PIECE IS AN ALTAR WITH A MAN DOING EXTREME YOGA AND LICKING HIS OWN "BUTT", IN FRONT OF SOME STUDENTS WITH PRAYER BOOKS. A STATEMENT IS PAINTED ON THE SURFACE THAT SAYS, "WORSHIP AT THE ALTAR OF YOUR OWN CHOICE". IT IS RADICALLY UNACCEPTABLE, BUT ENJOYABLY CONTROVERSIAL.
on Friday, December 29th, Michele Dupas said
I agree with Mark's comment that an artist needs to be two people. It takes bravery to make something that comes from within but that many others may not understand. It took my entire art school experience to let my imagination go and make what I saw in my head. I think it is a compliment, it means that the artwork takes some time to acknowledge and understand.
So if people decide to dismiss artwork because they don't get it, then unfortunately it is their loss. I congratulate the artists who choose to make work that baffles.
on Friday, December 29th, jose said
A great blog as always, Michael.
I’d like to try to ‘dissect’ this thing a bit. Aside from the fact Vick rightly points out that very often artists hide behind abstraction to deliver very little content leaving us with little ‘to get’, when it is coherent and well executed a great abstract is successful in that, as Don mentions, it ‘raises in the viewer some important reaction’. Beyond ‘understanding’ and ‘transmitting a message’ I think this is what Art is meant to do: provide food for thought – not bring the viewer certainties and the artist the pat on the back of the encounter with a like-minded fellow.
Who can say for sure that we today understand what Leonardo wanted to bring across with his ‘Mona Lisa’? Critics, scholars, perhaps? But who really ever has access to the artist’s mind – and indeed, as Cecil has said, is the artist even aware of the fullness of the dimension he is revealing in his work? Therefore, to ‘get it’ is a useless pursuit in my opinion. What you want to look out for in a work of Art is whether it stirs something in you – makes you want to stop and ponder the thoughts and feelings it provokes in you - or simply leaves you indifferent and walking away.
There is a harsh reality out there: you ‘get’ whatever it is you are meant ‘to get’ by following the thread of curiosity you feel in the face of something. Some need to satisfy basic wants and so follow and pursue those impressions that bring them closer to them. Others may not fancy those and be moved by other impressions – I won’t use the words ‘more elevated’ because they sound elitist and the need to satisfy such needs has absolutely nothing to do with elitism. And so we move on until we encounter the impressions of Art and other cultural manifestations, and within these there will be differences, inevitably.
You ‘get’ what you are looking for, and if coming across a particular painting doesn’t provoke that tingling feeling within that makes you look deep inside you for possible connections or wish to ask questions, no words the artist may tell you will ever manage to convey the feeling you are meant to get.
Moving on to what Mark has said, I’d say it is an important aspect of our job not to allow arrogance to keep us shielded from those who come to see our work. For my part I feel an artist’s work always comes out winning when we approach them and they make the effort to satisfy our curiosity or debate our thoughts – and if they choose not to I am quite often assured that, as Vick mentioned, abstraction was merely a mask, and a very superficial one at that.
On the other hand, from my side of things I have learnt to incorporate others’ opinions and the things they see in ‘my painted world’ in our discussion of it, and, if and when I am faced with that most basic and awkward response, ‘I don’t get it’ [and because the formulation of such a statement is in itself a ‘closing of the door’, so to speak], I try to explain that it is a map of a different world – a world where the intellect has to step aside for a few minutes and allow feeling and higher emotion [if it is felt] to build the new connections that will ‘open the door’ and lead to Understanding sometime in the future.
Sorry this got so long folks.
on Friday, December 29th, Ellen Fisch said
I think that art is a lonely and thankless life with the best and most exhilarating experiences possible. There seems to be no middle ground. I do representational work; therefore, very few people tell me that they don't get my work. However, it is just as daunting not to be appreciated on any level for the art that I create. I participated in two shows this year. In the first, I had a large oil painting that a family member told me was "not my best work" several days before the show. I had spent a year developing the piece and that comment really made me anxious about showing what I had considered to be a good piece. The second show exhibited 13 of my photographs, which everone told me were "beautiful." Yet, sales were not what I had hoped for. As I looked at my work hanging in the shows, I realized two essential things: I did the work to the best of my ability and I will improve on the work. I guess that that is all the validation that an artist can really expect. I recently went out to shoot some pohotographs on a lovely day and said to myself, "What a way to spend my life!" So I guess that I "get it." By the way, I really enjoyed your book, Michael.
on Friday, December 29th, mark said
I think an artist needs to be two people. One is the public artist, the "Art Embassador" (that was discussed a few blogs back) where you can talk to the viewer to help them understand and to not be afraid of thier own ideas about art and what they are viewing. The artist has to be careful here because you still want to be honest, to be you, if you try to fake it, it will be known, you will only strengthen the misconception of what people think artists are. If you talk honestly, not talk down to them, they will in time "Get it".
The second person an artist must be (and this is the most important persona) is the private artist, the studio artist, where you work without the thought of what others will think, or will they "Get it". Here you find your center, you create to the best of your ability to say what ever it is you wish to say. This persona must also be very honest, not just in what you are creating but also with yourself (to understand that not every one will "get it") so as not to become upset when you are the "public artist" are the viewer says "I don't get it".
I have no trouble being the "studio artist" I do have trouble being the "public artist" as I hate being the center of attention, but I am myself when I am the "public artist". If some one comes to me and says "I don't get it" and they have, I do as Don sugested and try to help them find thier own meaning from the work.
on Friday, December 29th, Matt said
Mark and Vick I think you've hit the nail on the head.
on Friday, December 29th, Don W Murphy said
The "I don't get it!" comment is one of the oldest in art. Probably Mrs. Caveman said it to Mr. Caveman in their cave which he just decorated, if she could get the words together. In order to make this comment shorter I will state my two best comments (and don't say you don't get it. )
One of my first experiences with abstract art was a show put on by a teacher of mine. I looked at one of his paintings and said sarcastically "Well, what's it supposed to be"" He got angry. He said if he wanted to express it in words he would have written a book! I better answer would be one borrowed from a psychiatrist."What does it mean to you?" This of course won't work with many dense people. What the viewer takes away from a work of art is the most important thing.
Second part of comment: Many years ago Picasso had put up a steel sculpture many stories high in a Chicago civic plaza. It must have cost the city a fortune. It may still be there. We just called it "The Chicago Picasso" I was a writer-photographer for a suburban newspaper and took a whole roll of pictures from many different angles showing the statue could be many things. I got a batwing creature out of it, a woman, and several other things. It caused an uproar and many pages of pictures and comment in Chicago publications for weeks. Interviews with Chicago citizens (some of which are not too bright) "Picasso is cheating us!" "Picasso is making jokes at government expense: etc. The whole point of this comment is that a great abstract raises in the viewer, call them views, emotions, some important reaction. These reactions may change the viewer or just make a fool of him. The article in my paper (a whole page of pictures) ended with the comment "Go to Chicago and make up your own mind what the "Chicago Picasso" is. Why don't you? If you do please contact me. Don w Murphy donruth@acsalaska.net">donruth@acsalaska.net
on Friday, December 29th, Don W Murphy said
The "I don't get it!" comment is one of the oldest in art. Probably Mrs. Caveman said it to Mr. Caveman in their cave which he just decorated, if she could get the words together. In order to make this comment shorter I will state my two best comments (and don't say you don't get it. )
One of my first experiences with abstract art was a show put on by a teacher of mine. I looked at one of his paintings and said sarcastically "Well, what's it supposed to be"" He got angry. He said if he wanted to express it in words he would have written a book! I better answer would be one borrowed from a psychiatrist."What does it mean to you?" This of course won't work with many dense people. What the viewer takes away from a work of art is the most important thing.
Second part of comment: Many years ago Picasso had put up a steel sculpture many stories high in a Chicago civic plaza. It must have cost the city a fortune. It may still be there. We just called it "The Chicago Picasso" I was a writer-photographer for a suburban newspaper and took a whole roll of pictures from many different angles showing the statue could be many things. I got a batwing creature out of it, a woman, and several other things. It caused an uproar and many pages of pictures and comment in Chicago publications for weeks. Interviews with Chicago citizens (some of which are not too bright) "Picasso is cheating us!" "Picasso is making jokes at government expense: etc. The whole point of this comment is that a great abstract raises in the viewer, call them views, emotions, some important reaction. These reactions may change the viewer or just make a fool of him. The article in my paper (a whole page of pictures) ended with the comment "Go to Chicago and make up your own mind what the "Chicago Picasso" is. Why don't you? If you do please contact me. Don w Murphy donruth@acsalaska.net">donruth@acsalaska.net
on Thursday, December 28th, Brad said
If I want to be humbled, all I have to do is show my work to my mom - she doesn't 'get it.' She doesn't get abstract at all. "Well, do you like the color?" I ask. "Yes," she says - and that's good enough for me. I don't trust my friends to tell me the truth - they always like all my work. Other Artists who make observations, or ask questions, provide me the real gristle to chew on, and I'm satisfied with that.
on Thursday, December 28th, Vick said
I'm with Mark on this one. Too many artists write big pompous meaningless art statements trying to make their work sound deep. The longer their essay, the worse the work is, usually.
My work means something to me, sometimes something very particular, but that doesn't mean I expect the viewer to get the same thing out of it. We all project our own experiences on to a piece, whether it's abstraction or realism. Artists and galleries do a disservice to viewers and especially novice art patrons when they get snobby about "getting it". I am an artist and I see lots of work where there is absolutely nothing to get, it's a piece of crap. Gently coax out a viewers sensations and validate them, meet them halfway and they will meet the artist halfway and a dialogue can happen.
on Thursday, December 28th, Andrew said
It's easy to fake being an abstract expressionist. It's easy to fake being a simply abstract artist. It's easy to fake being childlike. Perhaps because there are so many artists out there today who are faking putting in content that really isn't there, when viewers see these pieces and try to find that content, they can't. Mediocrity sucks, but finding artwork that isn't takes a lot more energy than most people, collectors included Michael, are willing to spend.
on Thursday, December 28th, mark said
When it comes to math I still don't get it.
I do not think "I don't get it" is new. They, (people) didn't get the immpressionist at first, or the abstrsct expressionists, but in time they did or more likely pretended they did. I think part of the issue is that most people do not think in a creative way so it is hard for them to "Get it". They feel they must "get" what the artists is trying to say, they do not realise that they can walk away with thier own idea of what the work means. They need some one to tell them what it means, and that is sad.
I have specific ideas and emotions that I pour into my work, but it doesn't matter to me if the viewer walks away with my meaning so long as they have some feeling. But again I think the trouble is people are afraid to think independently, and I am ashamed to say that a lot of that is because of the attitude of many artists, now and in the past, as well as critics.
I think artists need to assure the viewer that they can have thier own idea of what the artwork means and not be scolded if they don't. I have known a few artists who got upset when the viewer didn't "Get it". With that attitude the artist looses out as much as the viewer.
on Thursday, December 28th, Cecil Herring said
Hi Michael: My first reaction to your blog is my most honest I guess so I'll say it straightaway! Usually I DON'T GET IT! Often I don't even get my own works until many years after I paint them. I have some kind of dylexsia of the brain and have two sides - one rational thinking and a subsconcious mind that may understand fleetingly. Often none of it makes any sense in a verbal sense - meaning there are no words to convey what I feel. Often I feel nothing. Is it awful to not care? It all reminds me of an essay by S.I. Hayakaya called the Language of Vision - all about semantics. Maybe for me getting it is not essential. And maybe it depends on what you mean by 'getting it.' Last week I saw a Rembrandt masterpiece in a museum. I got it for sure! It is an almost 400 year old portrait of a young woman. Easy. Then I saw a Basquiat, a Cezanne and a Kiefer and 'got those too.' Then I saw an amazing group of faded stained children's photographs behind screens, with diffuser bulbs that made them glow in a mystical way based on missing children of the holocaust. I really got that! Then I came home and saw my newest work Firebird Five and got that too. But in between there were dozens I didn't get. It's a kind of percentage thing. Maybe I get it more than I realize now that you bring it up! Cecil
