The Trouble With Easy Questions

I have been actively painting for more than a decade, and by that I mean more than four hours a day every day, often up to ten hours.  Over time one would expect a certain degree of growth, and looking back I can see where ideas expressed as a naïve painter were often clumsy in thought and execution.  But by growth, what am I really looking for? 

My efforts to answer this question have led me back to the purpose of painting.  What has it meant over the centuries?  What does it mean today?  What does the public look for now in fine art? And what aspects that go into a successful painting do I need to strengthen in my own?

Painting is a visual communication - this is an obvious observation.  Its power emanates from the artist’s ability to engage the viewer in a visual conversation that is both intriguing and fresh in viewpoint – while creating a rich and aesthetically pleasing experience for the viewer.  But lately I’ve been wondering how the idea of growth might be caught between two competing ideas, one based upon the artist’s unique expression and the other focused upon the larger realm of accepted popular taste.

That might seem obvious too, since dealing with popular taste is not new for artists.  But what has changed in the last decade is the immediacy of this aesthetic experience. With a few clicks you can access work created by artists around the world, and the consequence of this loss of artistic isolation has yet to be explored.  How does visual immediacy affect the way an artist paints?  Or the way the public responds?  And how does the contemporary artist evaluate his or her own concept when compared to such an encompassing body of work, including all of Art History?  Again, simple questions with complicated answers.  How can we compete when the focus is too broad, the forces of popularity too mercurial?  The artist too caught up in this homogenous stew of visual expression might find himself in a large and competent company, but to what end? Good ideas cast aside because they lacked the time to mature?  Potential discarded because of market pressures?

Edward, on his blog FutureModern: thoughts on painting, has written extensively on this subject.  In 2006 he initiated a conversation with a series of posts about painting, including this statement:

What becomes important again is how the artist relates to the world and his art in a personal way. The stylistic means are all out there and up for grabs, one can just look at the kinds of work you like or take inspiration from. If the "new" becomes less relevant, more of a marketing factor than anything else, then new painting must compete with all other paintings in history. Placed in a contemporary context, who becomes more interesting Caravaggio or Katz?

So how do we marry the intention of meaningful work with current marketability, which can easily be identified through influences from Art History, styles of paint application, and specific subject matter?  How do we create work that is, as Edward says, “universal and personal at the same time?”

This is the question I ask myself each time I step up to the easel. 

And while the question seems easy, the answers are not.

 

Comments

[sue smith]

Kathy - I can see the influence of art history in your work, the way you capture the unique expressions of the horses you love (I also loved Buttermilk more than Trigger). Two images - I want To Play and Sugar - remind me of the importance of painting what YOU see and not what you think others want to see - these are wonderful, thank you!

[Kathy Roeth]

As I work to improve my skills, I find it difficult not to gravitate towards the styles of artists who have developed their market. Sometimes I feel like my own style has gotten lost somewhere in the midst of this search for excellence and income. Your comments about looking at the long history of art for continuity of appeal, brought me back to my roots. I changed my major from painting and drawing to art history when I was in college, because I learned more about studio art from the study of art history. Time to go back to those roots! Thanks for your insightful comments and thanks also to those who have posted.

[sue smith]

Your point is well taken, Phil - but I think the intended advice was to identify artistic principles - from color relationships to compositional ideas to paint application - and to apply those ideas to our own work. As you say so eloquently on your site... "Music is perhaps the poetry of sound...imagination is the poetry of an artist...colour is but its expression...Realism I leave for those who fail to see that all art is an impression. © PK2011 " Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for reminding us that our own creativity is more powerful than we think.

[Phil Kendall]

From Above..."We look to other artists for ideas we can use in our own painting. What we like in others' paintings we can strive to include in our own, and this is part, I think, of every artist's growth".Err? look up plagiarism perhaps?? Just be original, you might just surprise yourself?

[sue smith]

Another good point, Patrice, about recognizing the duality that exists between our own vision and a universality that comes from the long artistic traditions to which we all belong. Your Palm Frond series expresses this idea so beautifully - I feel your personal connection and I also recognize your unique vision.

If these qualities are the hallmark of the "mature" artist, how would we mentor the emerging artist toward finding this balance of believing in the strength of personal vision while incorporating popular trends?

[Patrice Federspiel]

As professional artists, we need our work to sell. Our personal involvement in our art is the seed needed for it to grow. I find that if I take the "if you build it they will come" approach to my paintings and follow my inspiration, the people who resonate with my art do come along and buy it.

We are all individuals AND we all have a bit of universality within us too. When we feel the most connected to our paintings, they flow out of from within us. Others can feel that connection. Even if all they long for is their own inner connection, our art can help them achieve it.

[sue smith]

Sound advice, Decker. I particularly liked your discussion about Matisse and Cezanne. You brought up the importance of balancing outside artistic influences with our personal vision, and provided excellent ways for artists to maintain this balance through self-evaluation.

I see this personal expressive power in your figures, by the way, especially in Sadness of Youth - a painting that remains as emotionally effective to me now as it did when I first saw it. This is something we all strive for in our work.

I think the question in this post has everything to do with how do we keep ideas in balance in this age of instant access, taking from outside influences but maintaining that creative space that allows our own voice the necessary time to emerge. Thank you.

[Decker Walker]

We look to other artists for ideas we can use in our own painting. What we like in others' paintings we can strive to include in our own, and this is part, I think, of every artist's growth. It is also important to look at your own work, individual pieces and in toto, to find things (techniques, qualities, color combinations,...) that evoke a response. Things you like, things that make you cringe. Note them, think about them, write about them. Experiment. Take them further. Build on them. Ask yourself what you can do with them. If your results seem promising, make the thing a more central part of your painting. Matisse liked to draw continuous outlines, so he built on this technique in his paintings. Cezanne's drawn and painted figures were awkward and ill proportioned. He could have looked at classic paintings and 'perfected' his figures. Instead, he built on his own awkward figure notations, creating a distinctive style that has its own expressive power.