Artists - Choose your weapons

[Mephisto]

It's an interesting and sticky subject, but I'll throw this out as at least a partial response: the part I've bolded is what I have trouble with. Not only do I not know at what point the artist should be held responsible for all this, I'm not even sure I agree the artist should be held responsible. The idea that the artist (in any medium - visual or otherwise) should be able to understand and justify everything s/he does is only one view of how the creative process works. And I'm pretty sure that it's a very limiting one, in fact.

I think the artist is responsible for certain choices, unique to each work (or maybe each moment of each stage of each work?), and there are other things that arise unexpectedly out of the context of those choices. Joyce famously said, late in his life "I may have over-systematized Ulysses". Alain Robbe-Grillet writes about this as well, in his collection of essays For a New Novel.

But I think the best and most interesting discussion of the interplay between conscious will, unconscious influence, chance and context in art is the set of Interviews With Francis Bacon by David Sylvester. Fascinating, and really useful for any artist, I would think. (I'm a composer, and I always have my copy close to hand.)

Well thought out and well written, Orpheus.

I'm also glad to find someone else who has read Joyce's Ulysseus.

I'll have to find Sylvester's book - especially if you consider it useful to any artist. Thanks.

 

[Mephisto]

I'll give you a case in point. I just finished this painting last week (yes, it was done in Photoshop and yes, it IS a painting). There's no hidden message in the picture. I just wanted to paint a hand and try to paint water on an object. Besides, I went on a night boat trip back in 2003 off the coast of Cape Canaveral. We went a couple miles out and when you looked east, all you saw was stars, the rail you're holding on to and endless black--no horizon, nothing. That always stuck with me. I mean, how did navigators feel years ago when they had nothing but the stars to guide them? That's bravery.

Michael

Absolutely beautiful, Coalesce!

I think your painting has the added advantage of allowing the viewer to interject his own feelings/experience into the meaning (reaching for impossible goals, abandonment, reaching for the heavens against impossible odds, etc.).

I'm working on a website now to showcase some of my art - it will hopefully be up and running soon.

 

[Mephisto]

I like to carve wood. A friend is an electric guitar maker who uses choice wood for the bodies. I have two cutoffs of chestnut that he used for a guitar for Keith Richards. I carved and sanded them and now have something titled "Not Keith Richard's Guitar".
Just tried to add a pic, but failed.

I'm an amateur woodworker and I've always been in awe of finish carpenters, especially anyone working with musical instruments. There are so many things to consider when making an instrument that it's almost impossible for anyone not familiar with woodworking (or music) to comprehend.

I hope that you can sometime post a photo of "Not Keith Richard's Guitar."

 

[Mephisto]

Art in everything.

You're absolutely right, Overman!

I think that the people who can potentially appreciate life the most are those who can see "art in everything." It certainly makes life (IMHO) worthwhile and definitely less tedious. Thanks for your simple, yet thought-provoking comment.

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks. A very cool site.

I don't have any merit for it, I just wrote George Bellows+Fight Club on Google image search and voilà!

If anyone wants some "manly" art that is it!

 

[coalesce]

Absolutely beautiful, Coalesce!

I think your painting has the added advantage of allowing the viewer to interject his own feelings/experience into the meaning (reaching for impossible goals, abandonment, reaching for the heavens against impossible odds, etc.).

I'm working on a website now to showcase some of my art - it will hopefully be up and running soon.

Thank you or the kind words, and I can't wait to see the site once it's up. It may sound silly but I really enjoy seeing people who I consider better artists than me because not only do I learn more that way, but it gives me a goal to shoot for.

Michael

 

[NewMusic_Jenn]

It's not very manly, as a real man would go without armor and still make the kill.

I don't know about "real men".

..'caus men who are into art = sexy!

(just had to get that off my chest - so to speak)

 

[jimlintott]

Interesting subject.

My only artistic outlet (that I have any mastery over) is photography. I have had a couple of painters say that it is cheating and doesn't take skill.

I point out to them that if we took our stuff to a scene and started to work that the painter has options like leaving out the ugly building, changing the time of day or even the season but I can only work with what is available at the time.

There is no cheating in art there is only results. I don't care how you got there I just care whether I like it or not.

 

[NewMusic_Jenn]

It's an interesting and sticky subject, but I'll throw this out as at least a partial response: the part I've bolded is what I have trouble with. Not only do I not know at what point the artist should be held responsible for all this, I'm not even sure I agree the artist should be held responsible. The idea that the artist (in any medium - visual or otherwise) should be able to understand and justify everything s/he does is only one view of how the creative process works. And I'm pretty sure that it's a very limiting one, in fact.

I think the artist is responsible for certain choices, unique to each work (or maybe each moment of each stage of each work?), and there are other things that arise unexpectedly out of the context of those choices. Joyce famously said, late in his life "I may have over-systematized Ulysses". Alain Robbe-Grillet writes about this as well, in his collection of essays For a New Novel.

But I think the best and most interesting discussion of the interplay between conscious will, unconscious influence, chance and context in art is the set of Interviews With Francis Bacon by David Sylvester. Fascinating, and really useful for any artist, I would think. (I'm a composer, and I always have my copy close to hand.)

Well put Orpheus - I too am a composer (orchrestral and chamber music type) and the idea that an artist could justify every aspect of their work seems a little over the top to me.

Case in point:

When I was working on my thesis a few years ago (an orchestral work) I also had to do a detailed analysis of it after the piece was completed. Now, I wrote the bloody piece so you'd think I could easily analyze it. Yet for me this was actually quite challenging - I found all sorts of relationships I hadn't purposely put in there. I struggled with this information (should I include it as part of the analysis knowing I didn't intentionally put it there or omit it). My supervisor came down on the side of including it since he reasoned that the musical relationships were there whether I consciously intended them or not and the point of an analysis is to describe what is there - not what was intended. This got me to thinking about the creative process as a whole. Had I started out to write a piece with crazy-complex relationships between various sections and spent my creative energy making certain the piece was "cleaver" (from an analysis point of view) I would have missed out on some of the creative roads I ended up taking.

So when I hear artists (any genre) speaking about every conceivable interpretation that is brought to their attention having been pre-planned my BS meter goes off. I have had performers bring things to my attention (ways of looking at a certain passage for example) that I did not intend but are there or could well be interpreted as being there. I have no problem saying, "Hmm - it's not what I was thinking but I do see what you mean! "

This is not to say I (or any artist) creates in a haphazard or unplanned way - just that there are subtle complexities that that can creep in and take on their own meaning*.

*though not in a supernatural kind of way!

 

[coalesce]

My only artistic outlet (that I have any mastery over) is photography. I have had a couple of painters say that it is cheating and doesn't take skill.

Please tell me you proceeded to soundly slap the people who said that to you.

Who the frick died and left them Artgod?

Michael

 

[Amapola]

Please tell me you proceeded to soundly slap the people who said that to you.

Who the frick died and left them Artgod?

Michael

Oh, you mean you don't know about the Art Police? These "kindly" souls roam the earth and (snobbily) tell others what is not deemed "art" by them. Usually whilst holding a champagne glass with the pinky just so.

A friend of mine calls them Art Holes. You can meet them just about anywhere.

 

[Mephisto]

There is an artist from El Paso, Texas/Juarez, Mexico that is currently showing in my home town that I'm positive must be Salvador Dali reincarnted. His name is Antonio Castro and his surrealism and technique is unlike any I've personally experienced - I've tried to find images to link to online, but alas, they're difficult to find.

If this artist has a show anywhere near you, I heartily suggest you make a point to catch it - I promise you'll be enthralled for hours.

 

[porch]

Mephisto, reading your OP here reminded me of a book by painter David Hockney that a friend of mine once showed me. I barely had a chance to skim it, but he seemed to be claiming that some highly regarded Renaissance painters used optical devices, such as the camera obscura, to trace "photographic" outlines on their canvasses, much like someone would use an opaque projector.

Just looking at some of the pictorial references in the book, he seemed to have a case. But, damn, that book was big! I could only imagine that he got so involved in proving this because he was on the defensive; Too many people had accused him of "cheating" in some way.

Arguments about something being Art/Not Art are almost always doomed to devolve, since no-one can agree on the definition of capital "A" Art. Folks just end up bandying the term about to express what they consider good or not. I suppose that, in my own mind, I have some Hierarchy of Art, in which I'll find some pieces to be not as Art as others, but framing things in these terms does little for discussion. Some people in the Art World have a vested interest in claiming the term Art for themselves. I think that when considering if something is successful or not, all we have to do is compare the intent of the creator to the end results. Other than that, whether we as individuals like it or not is a matter of taste. When you view things in this way, the term Art becomes almost useless, and everybody is a winner, from the intellectual artist, trying to respond to a select circle of academics (and maybe some buyers?), to the hobbyist landscape painter who just wants to please themselves and perhaps a neighbour or two.

How about that H. R. Giger? Personally, I think he is a little cheese, falling into sci-fi/horror genre with a lot of his stuff. It's also the kind of cheese that I really love. Plus, I think he transcends genre and provides a lasting emotional effect. He uses airbrush quite differently from the majority of airbrush artists I've seen. He also extensively uses templates and masking.

picture perfect,
`porch

 

[Mephisto]

Mephisto, reading your OP here reminded me of a book by painter David Hockney that a friend of mine once showed me. I barely had a chance to skim it, but he seemed to be claiming that some highly regarded Renaissance painters used optical devices, such as the camera obscura, to trace "photographic" outlines on their canvasses, much like someone would use an opaque projector.

Just looking at some of the pictorial references in the book, he seemed to have a case. But, damn, that book was big! I could only imagine that he got so involved in proving this because he was on the defensive; Too many people had accused him of "cheating" in some way.

Arguments about something being Art/Not Art are almost always doomed to devolve, since no-one can agree on the definition of capital "A" Art. Folks just end up bandying the term about to express what they consider good or not. I suppose that, in my own mind, I have some Hierarchy of Art, in which I'll find some pieces to be not as Art as others, but framing things in these terms does little for discussion. Some people in the Art World have a vested interest in claiming the term Art for themselves. I think that when considering if something is successful or not, all we have to do is compare the intent of the creator to the end results. Other than that, whether we as individuals like it or not is a matter of taste. When you view things in this way, the term Art becomes almost useless, and everybody is a winner, from the intellectual artist, trying to respond to a select circle of academics (and maybe some buyers?), to the hobbyist landscape painter who just wants to please themselves and perhaps a neighbour or two.

How about that H. R. Giger? Personally, I think he is a little cheese, falling into sci-fi/horror genre with a lot of his stuff. It's also the kind of cheese that I really love. Plus, I think he transcends genre and provides a lasting emotional effect. He uses airbrush quite differently from the majority of airbrush artists I've seen. He also extensively uses templates and masking.

picture perfect,
`porch

I'll definitely have to find the Hockney book, it sounds really interesting and as I mentioned in the OP, I'm sure many traditional painters/artists thought that even the old grid system of artistic duplication was "cheating."

It always comes back to "taste" doesn't it, porch? I've seen technically GREAT art that lacks passion, and I've seen technically mediocre art that I can't stop thinking about.

It doesn't really matter what the tools are when it comes to art, just how they are used to convey the artist's intentions. I think that Amapola also bought up those people (Art Holes) who try to claim ART as something only they know about, and I'm afraid to say that these people are often pseudo-intellectuals. I've run into several who try to justify BAD non-representational art with their pseudo-intellectual rhetoric (or artist's statements) and I usually find them more contempible than those who buy are simply because "they like it," and "it matches their drapes." At least the latter are being honest.

BTW, Giger's work was primarily free-hand airbrush until he did the NYC series, although you can see evidence that he once used his mother's lace doilee in one of his "Tourists" paintings. For the record, I believe there is a vast difference between a stencil and a free-hand shield - also, what few stencils Giger has used, he cut himself. A far cry from many of the commercially available airbrush stencils available on the market today.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

In my opinion, very often when people are discussing the "art or not?" question, it would be much more productive framing the question as "any good?"

Can't we just discuss the merits of the piece in stead of playing this game of trying to define something you find disagreeable out of the running all together? This is very frequently what I want to ask art holes (love the term).

That's why I am partial to Scott McCloud's definition of art: Any human activity that isn't directly related to survival or reproduction.

This way, there's little bickering over terms, and we can steer the discussion towards the real questions: Does it speak to us, make us reflect, enrich us, arouse emotion?

Also, count me as one who doesn't care how a particular piece of art came about. Like love and war, art is an all-out no-holds-barred activity. There is no "cheating". This coming from someone who generally enjoys display of virtuosity in any medium, it's just that technique is not at all the defining quality to me. I love the art of Rembrandt van Rijn as well as that of David Shrigley.

So when I hear artists (any genre) speaking about every conceivable interpretation that is brought to their attention having been pre-planned my BS meter goes off. I have had performers bring things to my attention (ways of looking at a certain passage for example) that I did not intend but are there or could well be interpreted as being there. I have no problem saying, "Hmm - it's not what I was thinking but I do see what you mean! "

This is not to say I (or any artist) creates in a haphazard or unplanned way - just that there are subtle complexities that that can creep in and take on their own meaning*.

*though not in a supernatural kind of way!

I really agree with the above. I'd add that I think non-verbal forms of communication and experiencing the world are immensely important in order to escape the tyrrany of language. Art can help us remember to really sense the world in between the daily grind of putting labels on things and categorizing according to words. This can trigger moods, emotional responses and subtle associations that are not available elsewhere.

I guess in a sense I regard this as a kind of (decidedly non-woo) mysticism in that these experiences cannot be explained adequately with language. Like you described, sometimes the artistic process is messing about with things until it suddenly clicks and makes sense in a way that couldn't be predicted. Or you look at your own creations some time after completion, and find it's telling you things you never consciously put in there.

There is an artist from El Paso, Texas/Juarez, Mexico that is currently showing in my home town that I'm positive must be Salvador Dali reincarnted. His name is Antonio Castro and his surrealism and technique is unlike any I've personally experienced - I've tried to find images to link to online, but alas, they're difficult to find.

If this artist has a show anywhere near you, I heartily suggest you make a point to catch it - I promise you'll be enthralled for hours.

arte-mexico.com/romanosc/castrol/selec < This guy? (add www and .htm). Too bad about the small size of the images, but they do look intriguing.

 

[Mephisto]

arte-mexico.com/romanosc/castrol/selec < This guy? (add www and .htm). Too bad about the small size of the images, but they do look intriguing.

Close, and very, very interesting, but no cigar. This guy here:

http://steppinoutnewmexico.com/images/Border_images_004_web.jpg

http://steppinoutnewmexico.com/images/Border_images_005_web.jpg

These painting are fairly large too. The hand is about five feet X three feet, and the "Pieta" is slightly larger. His technique is fairly obvious here, although the photos don't do justice to the paintings. There are several of his other works that are far more awe-inspiring than these two, but they are a fair representation of his work. He usually includes a self-image in most of his work (these two excepted) and he is Salvador Dali reincarnated, something which I'm sure he capitalizes on.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Interesting thread. When does Craft become Art? And vice versa.

People have been debating the difference between Art and Craft for centuries, and will continue to do so. I think it would be pretty boring if the two definitions were agreed upon by all.

When the brush, pencil, croquill pen or anything else magically get up on their own and create a piece of art. Until then, the artist is ALWAYS responsible for the results.

That reminds me of Brian Eno's latest work, 77 Million Paintings.


Thaiboxerken, is Sun Tzu's The Art of War manly?

 

[logical muse]

That's why I am partial to Scott McCloud's definition of art: Any human activity that isn't directly related to survival or reproduction.

Why the limitation to humans?

Here's a little presentation I put together a few years back, on this topic.

http://public.box.net/steve89696

That link will take you to my storage box. The file you want is called aaron_the_artist.ppt. Yes, it's a powerpoint file...

 

[Mephisto]

Interesting thread. When does Craft become Art? And vice versa.

People have been debating the difference between Art and Craft for centuries, and will continue to do so. I think it would be pretty boring if the two definitions were agreed upon by all.



That reminds me of Brian Eno's latest work, 77 Million Paintings.

Totally interesting link, orphia. Thanks for that (I'm an Apple-head myself).

I've always been interested in any art involving light. That came about first with my penchant for stained glass (I always marveled at church windows - not for the subject matter, but more for the way light enhances the work), and second, with the advent of digital art and how the glow of the computer monitor seemed to bring the work to life.

I think that people who blur the definition between art and craft keep me interested in both.

 

[Mephisto]

Why the limitation to humans?

Here's a little presentation I put together a few years back, on this topic.

http://public.box.net/steve89696

That link will take you to my storage box. The file you want is called aaron_the_artist.ppt. Yes, it's a powerpoint file...

I'm going to bookmark your link, logical - I only recently checked back to see how this thread was doing and I've run out of time. I'll get to it in the early a.m.

Thanks for posting it.