Occam's Razor by Katharine A. Cartwright Watercolor on Arches paper 26" x 20" If two theories predict phenomena to the same accuracy, then the one which is simpler is the better one. Moreover, additional aspects of a theory which do not lend it more powerful predicting ability are unnecessary and should be stripped away. The simplest explanation for my extended absence from blogging is lack of high-speed internet access. Moving to Maine has only one "down side" and that's it! Time-Warner won't string cable to our home, Hughes satellite is too expensive and unreliable, Verizon's MiFi doesn't get a signal, and local WiFi access is a fifteen minute drive. So, I'll post when I can and apologize for not visiting your posts!! In the midst of settling in to our new home, I managed to add this painting to the "Laws of Nature Series." My interpretation of "Occam's Razor" is that the "singularity" that theoretically gave birth to our universe is the simplest possible explanation for the laws of physics. Our complicated and elaborate attempts to modify what naturally occurs leads to chaos and can only be imperfect. So, the razor cuts through our efforts to reveal the primordial singularity in the ancient sky. I intend to stick with this new series for at least five years and will interpret all the laws I've already painted and visit some new ones. There's always room for improvement and new ideas. On another note, I'd like your opinion about public support for the arts. I was having dinner with some folks the other night and someone made the comment that he didn't want his tax dollars used for the arts. I strongly disagreed with him for many reasons, but would like your opinions. Should public funds be used to support artists and art projects? Why or why not? To what degree?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Simple Explanations and Your Tax Dollars
Occam's Razor by Katharine A. Cartwright Watercolor on Arches paper 26" x 20" If two theories predict phenomena to the same accuracy, then the one which is simpler is the better one. Moreover, additional aspects of a theory which do not lend it more powerful predicting ability are unnecessary and should be stripped away. The simplest explanation for my extended absence from blogging is lack of high-speed internet access. Moving to Maine has only one "down side" and that's it! Time-Warner won't string cable to our home, Hughes satellite is too expensive and unreliable, Verizon's MiFi doesn't get a signal, and local WiFi access is a fifteen minute drive. So, I'll post when I can and apologize for not visiting your posts!! In the midst of settling in to our new home, I managed to add this painting to the "Laws of Nature Series." My interpretation of "Occam's Razor" is that the "singularity" that theoretically gave birth to our universe is the simplest possible explanation for the laws of physics. Our complicated and elaborate attempts to modify what naturally occurs leads to chaos and can only be imperfect. So, the razor cuts through our efforts to reveal the primordial singularity in the ancient sky. I intend to stick with this new series for at least five years and will interpret all the laws I've already painted and visit some new ones. There's always room for improvement and new ideas. On another note, I'd like your opinion about public support for the arts. I was having dinner with some folks the other night and someone made the comment that he didn't want his tax dollars used for the arts. I strongly disagreed with him for many reasons, but would like your opinions. Should public funds be used to support artists and art projects? Why or why not? To what degree?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Adversity and great art
Sincere thanks to all of you who wished us well during our recent move from NY to Maine! We arrived at our new home a little over a week ago and are settling-in. Although there’s still a great deal left to do, we’re comfortable. A new buyer for our NY home appeared within one week of relisting the house, so now we’re awaiting a new closing date. That’s a relief!
We had hoped to persuade the cable company to run wires here so we can access high speed internet. Being unsuccessful, we’re subjected to the glacial pace of modem and dial-up, which explains my absence from the blogosphere. Wifi access is available at the library about a half-hour away, so I’ll take advantage of that every now and then.
I’ve begun a new painting in my series “The Laws of Nature.” It’s entitled “Occam’s Razor” and should be completed within a week. There’s more pressure to produce now, since I’ve been offered a solo show in May. Somehow, between now and then, I need to complete ten more paintings!
This leads me to the theme for today’s blog: the importance of adversity.
Since we have no access to TV yet (another long story that involves Direct TV and its inability to provide us with someone to install the satellite dish that still sits in its box in our garage) we watch old DVD’s. I have the complete set of all six seasons of “Northern Exposure.” Near the beginning of season three is an episode about Ed’s discouragement with his film-making. General store-owner, Marianne, advises Ed that adversity is important for the development of great art. Without it, artists cannot significantly improve their work. That’s been my experience about everything, but that’s probably because I’m one of those people who seem to mostly learn from trial and error.
How about you?
We had hoped to persuade the cable company to run wires here so we can access high speed internet. Being unsuccessful, we’re subjected to the glacial pace of modem and dial-up, which explains my absence from the blogosphere. Wifi access is available at the library about a half-hour away, so I’ll take advantage of that every now and then.
I’ve begun a new painting in my series “The Laws of Nature.” It’s entitled “Occam’s Razor” and should be completed within a week. There’s more pressure to produce now, since I’ve been offered a solo show in May. Somehow, between now and then, I need to complete ten more paintings!
This leads me to the theme for today’s blog: the importance of adversity.
Since we have no access to TV yet (another long story that involves Direct TV and its inability to provide us with someone to install the satellite dish that still sits in its box in our garage) we watch old DVD’s. I have the complete set of all six seasons of “Northern Exposure.” Near the beginning of season three is an episode about Ed’s discouragement with his film-making. General store-owner, Marianne, advises Ed that adversity is important for the development of great art. Without it, artists cannot significantly improve their work. That’s been my experience about everything, but that’s probably because I’m one of those people who seem to mostly learn from trial and error.
How about you?
Monday, March 14, 2011
What I have learned & Moving day
Thanks, all, for your wonderful comments to my posts. My last post, Understanding Art, included a comment that challenged me. Our good friend, Mark Sheeky, asked me “After years of analysis Kathy I wonder what you understand about art?" That’s a great question and one that deserves an answer.
My answer is contradictory: I’ve learned that I know very little about art and also all there is to know. I know little of the entire history of art, the myriad of materials and techniques used in all art forms, and the personal lives of artists past and present. There’s an ocean of information and my knowledge is just a drop in that ocean.
On the other hand, I know all there is to know about my own artmaking: I know why I paint, what I paint and how to paint it. I know my own world and can navigate it. In practical terms, that’s all I really need to know. (Sorry for all the "I's")
So, why bother to spend years reading about and discussing art theory?It's to satisfy my need to expand my understanding of my chosen profession. I no longer want to function as an artist in a vacuum, and need to connect with the art community and its roots. I’m curious. This has been a satisfying experience that has lead me to all of you! How great is that?
*****************************
Personal update: We’re finally moving to our home in Maine on Wednesday (16th). We would have moved earlier, but were waiting to close on the sale of our NY home. Just a few days ago the purchaser backed out (only one week before closing!). We were upset, but have learned to make lemons out of lemonade and are moving on. The house is back on the market and in the good hands of our realtor and a friend. It'll have to sell without us.
So, Wednesday is moving day followed by settling-in. I’ll try to check in whenever possible. Thanks for staying with me over the years and during my frequent absences. You’re all so dear!
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Understanding Art
It’s mind-boggling how many books, essays, and articles have been written to instruct others on how to understand art. Analyses of technique, composition, materials, meaning, etc number as many as the stars in our galaxy and yet we seem to need more of them every year. Art has been put under a microscope. Although we artists hope our work will draw attention, but do we really need someone to act as an intermediary between our creation and its viewers? Do we really need someone else to explain to the public that which our art naturally speaks for itself?
One could argue that we all need to be educated into understanding art. Certainly that would be true for learning about materials and techniques. Perhaps it’s also helpful to the viewer to learn about the circumstances surrounding the creation of a work of art, and many analyses offer this type of instruction. Since I spent most of my career as an academic, I can’t argue against instruction. But, as an artist, I want my work to speak directly to viewers without the interference of an intermediary.
And, when you think about it, who really understands “art” anyway? I like this quote from an Ezine article by Redi Zartey:
Understanding art in its totality is almost an impossible task for a human being. There are over 3,600 terms in art to be understood. And these are not definitive in nature. Art is when you are free to redefine these.
What’s your opinion?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Painting Workshops: The Season Begins!
A brand new season of painting workshops will soon begin, and I’m ready to teach. Yippee!! For me, the season begins in May and ends in October. Venues are spread from coast to coast (California to Maine) and I’m always thrilled to work with new and returning students.
My lessons in painting match my personal philosophy: All great paintings begin with a great concept, and that concept must come uniquely from the individual artist! It’s all about helping my students find their own voice and then effectively expressing it in a way that’s technically masterful. It doesn’t matter to me which medium my students select, it only matters that they’re willing to engage in original and meaningful artmaking.
It’s taken me awhile to develop a good method for helping my students to find their own voice, but it really works. I challenge them to tap into their own relationships with the world around them and apply their intuition and imaginations to their interpretations. This means turning away from imitation and strict copying of photographs.
What I really love about teaching is witnessing how my students respond: lightbulbs turning on! I never grow tired of it, and am anxious to begin the new season. So, materials are being packed, airline tickets are being purchased, and anticipation builds as I look forward to working with a whole new batch of students.
If you’re interested in enrolling in one of my workshops, the schedule is listed here: www.kacartwright.com.
Come join us!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
"Starving Artist" - Myth or Fact?
Lately, I’ve been interested in finding facts about the status of professional visual artists in this country. Is the “starving artist” a commonplace condition or a myth?
This led me to the NEA website where one may access their publications on this topic and more. To see the list and read the research publications, go here.
Research Report #48 Artists in the Workforce: 1990 - 2005 (which is a follow-up of Research Report #37 Artists in the Workforce: Employment and Earnings 1970 – 1990) provides us with a scenario based upon statistics from census data. Therefore, Americans who declared their primary career as “artist” make up the data base for this report. “Artist” includes all forms of art (e.g. literature, theater, music, visual arts, etc) but I’ve chosen to focus upon the visual arts in this report. We are listed as “fine artists,” which is defined as “art directors; craft artists; fine artists include: painters, sculptors, and illustrators; multi-media artists;animators.”
Here are some interesting findings about the state of professional fine artists in the USA between 1990 and 2005:
Population
We make up 11% of the total population of artists in this country between 2003 and 2005, which is a total population of 216,996. (Designers are 39%, Performing Artists 17% Architects 10%, Writers/Authors 9%, Producers/Directors 7%, and Photographers 7%). The total population of artists in all categories numbered nearly two million.
Between 1970 and 1990, the number of artists [in all categories] more than doubled from 737,000 to 1.7 million—a much larger gain than the labor force as a whole—but between 1990 and 2005, the number of artists grew by 15.7 %, compared with a 17.4 % increase for the overall labor force.
There have been shifts among artist occupations. Between1990 and 2000, the number of artists grew by 11.6%, an increase of about 200,000 artists. Over that period, the number of designers rose by 130,000 while the number of fine artists decreased by 47,000. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of designers again increased, this time by about 30,000, while the fine artists continued to decline by another 15,000.
Geography
Not surprisingly, most artists during this time lived in California, New York, Florida, and Texas. On average, in 2000, there were 68 artists for every 10,000 people and 8 of those were fine artists. However, in Vermont and New Mexico, 15 were fine artists, followed closely by Hawaii and Montana with 10 or more.
As you would expect, opportunities for employment as an artist are greater in metropolitan areas. Half of all artists live in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. But, the homes for fine artists are (in order of highest to lowest population):
Santa Fe, NM
San Francisco, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach,CA
New York, NY
Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA
It looks like we mostly like to settle along the East and West Coasts.
Gender , Age, Race, and Education
I was unable to find the statistics for these categories in the “fine arts” so the following statements apply to artists in all categories:
Artists in all categories are more likely to be men than women.
In 2000, the median age of artists was 39, the same as the median age of the U.S. labor force, both up from 37 in 1990. As the baby boomers aged, the median age rose to 40 by 2005, for artists and for the labor force as a whole.
In keeping with the labor force as a whole, most artists are white, but again like the labor force, the artist population is quickly becoming more diverse.
Artists have higher education levels than the labor force as a whole. In 2000, 51% of artists had bachelor’s degrees or a higher level of education, compared with 26% of the U.S. labor force and 64% of professional and related occupations. In the 2003-2005 data, over 5 % of artists had bachelor’s degrees or higher, suggesting that the proportion of artists with degrees is rising.
A report of the American Community Survey, 2003–2005 indicates that Fine artists, art directors, and animators had a total population of 216,996, 47.4% of are women, 15.8% are minorities, 44 is the median age of the population, 25.7% are under the age of 35, 51.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 5.8% are enrolled in school.
Employment and Income
Compared with the American labor force as a whole, artists are much more likely to be self-employed. Almost one-third of artists were self-employed in 2000, compared with less than 10% of the labor force. About half of fine artists and writers were self-employed.
The 2003-2005 data indicate that the numbers of self-employed artists are increasing, with 35% of all artists self-employed, and each artist occupation showing more than 20% self-employed.
Compared to other professionals, artists are less likely to report full-time employment in their field (more than 35 hrs/wk and 50 wks/yr).
In 1999, the median income for fine artists was $25,000/year. By comparison, the median income for artists in all categories was $30,000/year.
The median income for artists in 2003-2005 was $34,800, or $29,700 when adjusted for inflation to represent 1999 dollars. Full-year, full-time artists earned $45,200 (unadjusted) while the median income for full-year, fulltime professionals was $52,500. Producers and writers who worked full time had incomes above $50,000, and the median income for full-year, full-time architects was higher, at $63,500. For the 45 percent of artists who did not work full time all year, however, the median income
was $20,000. The 2003-2005 median income for all women artists was $27,300, or 65 percent of the $42,000 median income for all male artists.
A report of the American Community Survey, 2003–2005 indicates that among Fine artists, art directors, and animators 51.5% are full-time full-year workers, 55.6% are self-employed, 39.0% are in the private for profit employment sector, the median 2005 income is $30,600, for men that income is $37,800 and for women that income is $22,600. The median income for full-year, full-time workers is $42,800 (51.5% of fine artists).
Returning to my original inquiry about the “starving artist” image it seems that it is a myth – at least for men. It looks like women must live on a much smaller income that can’t support a reasonable lifestyle in an urban area where most artists live. So, women tend to fit the "starving artist" image. But, you can form your own conclusions.
What are they?
This led me to the NEA website where one may access their publications on this topic and more. To see the list and read the research publications, go here.
Research Report #48 Artists in the Workforce: 1990 - 2005 (which is a follow-up of Research Report #37 Artists in the Workforce: Employment and Earnings 1970 – 1990) provides us with a scenario based upon statistics from census data. Therefore, Americans who declared their primary career as “artist” make up the data base for this report. “Artist” includes all forms of art (e.g. literature, theater, music, visual arts, etc) but I’ve chosen to focus upon the visual arts in this report. We are listed as “fine artists,” which is defined as “art directors; craft artists; fine artists include: painters, sculptors, and illustrators; multi-media artists;animators.”
Here are some interesting findings about the state of professional fine artists in the USA between 1990 and 2005:
Population
We make up 11% of the total population of artists in this country between 2003 and 2005, which is a total population of 216,996. (Designers are 39%, Performing Artists 17% Architects 10%, Writers/Authors 9%, Producers/Directors 7%, and Photographers 7%). The total population of artists in all categories numbered nearly two million.
Between 1970 and 1990, the number of artists [in all categories] more than doubled from 737,000 to 1.7 million—a much larger gain than the labor force as a whole—but between 1990 and 2005, the number of artists grew by 15.7 %, compared with a 17.4 % increase for the overall labor force.
There have been shifts among artist occupations. Between1990 and 2000, the number of artists grew by 11.6%, an increase of about 200,000 artists. Over that period, the number of designers rose by 130,000 while the number of fine artists decreased by 47,000. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of designers again increased, this time by about 30,000, while the fine artists continued to decline by another 15,000.
Geography
Not surprisingly, most artists during this time lived in California, New York, Florida, and Texas. On average, in 2000, there were 68 artists for every 10,000 people and 8 of those were fine artists. However, in Vermont and New Mexico, 15 were fine artists, followed closely by Hawaii and Montana with 10 or more.
As you would expect, opportunities for employment as an artist are greater in metropolitan areas. Half of all artists live in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. But, the homes for fine artists are (in order of highest to lowest population):
Santa Fe, NM
San Francisco, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach,CA
New York, NY
Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA
It looks like we mostly like to settle along the East and West Coasts.
Gender , Age, Race, and Education
I was unable to find the statistics for these categories in the “fine arts” so the following statements apply to artists in all categories:
Artists in all categories are more likely to be men than women.
In 2000, the median age of artists was 39, the same as the median age of the U.S. labor force, both up from 37 in 1990. As the baby boomers aged, the median age rose to 40 by 2005, for artists and for the labor force as a whole.
In keeping with the labor force as a whole, most artists are white, but again like the labor force, the artist population is quickly becoming more diverse.
Artists have higher education levels than the labor force as a whole. In 2000, 51% of artists had bachelor’s degrees or a higher level of education, compared with 26% of the U.S. labor force and 64% of professional and related occupations. In the 2003-2005 data, over 5 % of artists had bachelor’s degrees or higher, suggesting that the proportion of artists with degrees is rising.
A report of the American Community Survey, 2003–2005 indicates that Fine artists, art directors, and animators had a total population of 216,996, 47.4% of are women, 15.8% are minorities, 44 is the median age of the population, 25.7% are under the age of 35, 51.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 5.8% are enrolled in school.
Employment and Income
Compared with the American labor force as a whole, artists are much more likely to be self-employed. Almost one-third of artists were self-employed in 2000, compared with less than 10% of the labor force. About half of fine artists and writers were self-employed.
The 2003-2005 data indicate that the numbers of self-employed artists are increasing, with 35% of all artists self-employed, and each artist occupation showing more than 20% self-employed.
Compared to other professionals, artists are less likely to report full-time employment in their field (more than 35 hrs/wk and 50 wks/yr).
In 1999, the median income for fine artists was $25,000/year. By comparison, the median income for artists in all categories was $30,000/year.
The median income for artists in 2003-2005 was $34,800, or $29,700 when adjusted for inflation to represent 1999 dollars. Full-year, full-time artists earned $45,200 (unadjusted) while the median income for full-year, fulltime professionals was $52,500. Producers and writers who worked full time had incomes above $50,000, and the median income for full-year, full-time architects was higher, at $63,500. For the 45 percent of artists who did not work full time all year, however, the median income
was $20,000. The 2003-2005 median income for all women artists was $27,300, or 65 percent of the $42,000 median income for all male artists.
A report of the American Community Survey, 2003–2005 indicates that among Fine artists, art directors, and animators 51.5% are full-time full-year workers, 55.6% are self-employed, 39.0% are in the private for profit employment sector, the median 2005 income is $30,600, for men that income is $37,800 and for women that income is $22,600. The median income for full-year, full-time workers is $42,800 (51.5% of fine artists).
Returning to my original inquiry about the “starving artist” image it seems that it is a myth – at least for men. It looks like women must live on a much smaller income that can’t support a reasonable lifestyle in an urban area where most artists live. So, women tend to fit the "starving artist" image. But, you can form your own conclusions.
What are they?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Pyramid
Concerning the Spiritual in Art
by Wassily Kandinsky
Dover Publications, 1977
Translated by M.T.H. Sadler
Image: Composition VII, 1913 by Wassily Kandinsky
The Pyramid
The comments to my last post over the past week are well-worth a second and third reading. They reflect some profound truths and insights that transcend many of the best art theory books I’ve read and I’m grateful to those of you who have taken the time to write them!
Since I began reviewing this book exactly one month ago today, I’ve been captivated by the responses of my readers to it. Many of us appreciate and even revere the ground-breaking work done by this pioneer artist. WK’s rebellion against the traditional extrinsically-sourced art that preceded and surrounded him gave rise to what we artists do today. It allows us to freely express who we are as individuals – the intrinsic source of inspiration.
But, many of us are turned-off by Kandinsky’s elitist notions. The existence of a hierarchy among artists (whether or not it’s real) is especially abhorrent to us Americans who operate outside the social class system. We consider ours a land of equal opportunity and our philosophy negates the possibility of class by birth. At the same time, we recognize that some achieve to higher levels than others. It’s a fact of life. However, what is the source of the highest level of achievement in art? Is it genetic? God-given? Hard work and determination? I don’t presume to know nor would I guess at an answer.
This leads me to the last part of the first section of WK’s book: “The Pyramid.” Here, the author addresses all forms of art. He writes that in his day, the arts contain “in each manifestation … the seed of striving towards the abstract, the non-material. Consciously or unconsciously they are obeying Socrates’ command – Know thyself.” Because of this, WK notes that there is a convergence among the arts – a “drawing together” of process and purpose. Most notably, he compares music and visual art, which interests me a great deal since music, along visual art and also science, have been my professions.
“With few exceptions music has been for some centuries the art which has devoted itself not to the reproduction of natural phenomena, but rather to the expression of the artist’s soul, in musical sound,” Kandinsky writes. So true! Late in my somewhat mediocre career as a pianist, I hired a concertizing coach. Her constant admonition was to paint with my music – add colors that represent the moods of my soul. It made all the difference in my performances as well as in my paintings.
He adds: “This borrowing of method by one art from another, can only be truly successful when the application of the borrowed methods is not superficial but fundamental…. The artist must not forget that in him lies the power of true application of every method, but that that power must be developed.” Here is the real challenge! When we examine our motivations as an artist, what do we find to be fundamentally true? What should be fundamentally true? And, how dedicated are we to developing it? Here, WK reminds us that art is a discipline and that it requires real work, beginning at the psychological level.
by Wassily Kandinsky
Dover Publications, 1977
Translated by M.T.H. Sadler
Image: Composition VII, 1913 by Wassily Kandinsky
The Pyramid
The comments to my last post over the past week are well-worth a second and third reading. They reflect some profound truths and insights that transcend many of the best art theory books I’ve read and I’m grateful to those of you who have taken the time to write them!
Since I began reviewing this book exactly one month ago today, I’ve been captivated by the responses of my readers to it. Many of us appreciate and even revere the ground-breaking work done by this pioneer artist. WK’s rebellion against the traditional extrinsically-sourced art that preceded and surrounded him gave rise to what we artists do today. It allows us to freely express who we are as individuals – the intrinsic source of inspiration.
But, many of us are turned-off by Kandinsky’s elitist notions. The existence of a hierarchy among artists (whether or not it’s real) is especially abhorrent to us Americans who operate outside the social class system. We consider ours a land of equal opportunity and our philosophy negates the possibility of class by birth. At the same time, we recognize that some achieve to higher levels than others. It’s a fact of life. However, what is the source of the highest level of achievement in art? Is it genetic? God-given? Hard work and determination? I don’t presume to know nor would I guess at an answer.
This leads me to the last part of the first section of WK’s book: “The Pyramid.” Here, the author addresses all forms of art. He writes that in his day, the arts contain “in each manifestation … the seed of striving towards the abstract, the non-material. Consciously or unconsciously they are obeying Socrates’ command – Know thyself.” Because of this, WK notes that there is a convergence among the arts – a “drawing together” of process and purpose. Most notably, he compares music and visual art, which interests me a great deal since music, along visual art and also science, have been my professions.
“With few exceptions music has been for some centuries the art which has devoted itself not to the reproduction of natural phenomena, but rather to the expression of the artist’s soul, in musical sound,” Kandinsky writes. So true! Late in my somewhat mediocre career as a pianist, I hired a concertizing coach. Her constant admonition was to paint with my music – add colors that represent the moods of my soul. It made all the difference in my performances as well as in my paintings.
He adds: “This borrowing of method by one art from another, can only be truly successful when the application of the borrowed methods is not superficial but fundamental…. The artist must not forget that in him lies the power of true application of every method, but that that power must be developed.” Here is the real challenge! When we examine our motivations as an artist, what do we find to be fundamentally true? What should be fundamentally true? And, how dedicated are we to developing it? Here, WK reminds us that art is a discipline and that it requires real work, beginning at the psychological level.
Speaking to readers of his own time, Kandinsky writes “Painting today is almost exclusively concerned with the reproduction of natural forms and phenomena. Her business is now to test her strength and methods, to know herself as music has done for a long time, and then to use her powers to a truly artistic end.” Amen!
In the next section of his book, “About Painting,” WK turns his attention to color theory, form and color, and other matters. That’s where I’ll begin next time.
What are your thoughts?
In the next section of his book, “About Painting,” WK turns his attention to color theory, form and color, and other matters. That’s where I’ll begin next time.
What are your thoughts?
P.S. To those of you who have been following the events of my life, here's an update: We've moved all of our possessions (except for one mattress) to our home in Maine as we await the closing date on our New York home. So, we're camped out on that mattress in an empty NY house for at least two more weeks. All of my art supplies are in storage, but my mind is at work. Hubby is still recovering from his surgery six weeks ago and should be approaching normal in another three weeks. Meantime, we've had record snowfalls, so I've been doing a lot of shoveling!!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Revolution
Concerning the Spiritual in Art
by Wassily Kandinsky
Dover Publications, 1977
Translated by M.T.H. Sadler
Image: Jaune Rouge Bleu by Wassily Kandinsky
Returning to Kandinsky’s book, I’ve begun the next section entitled “Spiritual Revolution.” Any revolution involves rebellion against a prevailing condition. In this case, WK identifies the prevailing condition as the masses who inhabit the lowest level of the spiritual triangle (discussed earlier). These are the unimaginative, uninspired, hypocritical, economic Socialists according to Kandinsky. Those who inhabit the levels directly above this group are only slightly “better.” By contrast, those few at the top of the triangle are the spiritually creative problem-solvers who value science and art. It is from this lofty position that the rebellion is launched against the prevailing condition of the levels below.
But, the leaders of the rebellion are insecure. They know history, and therefore understand that visionaries are first revered and later reviled by society. Rejection is the ultimate reward. They struggle with their role and become tentative. What saves them? Their souls.
by Wassily Kandinsky
Dover Publications, 1977
Translated by M.T.H. Sadler
Image: Jaune Rouge Bleu by Wassily Kandinsky
Returning to Kandinsky’s book, I’ve begun the next section entitled “Spiritual Revolution.” Any revolution involves rebellion against a prevailing condition. In this case, WK identifies the prevailing condition as the masses who inhabit the lowest level of the spiritual triangle (discussed earlier). These are the unimaginative, uninspired, hypocritical, economic Socialists according to Kandinsky. Those who inhabit the levels directly above this group are only slightly “better.” By contrast, those few at the top of the triangle are the spiritually creative problem-solvers who value science and art. It is from this lofty position that the rebellion is launched against the prevailing condition of the levels below.
But, the leaders of the rebellion are insecure. They know history, and therefore understand that visionaries are first revered and later reviled by society. Rejection is the ultimate reward. They struggle with their role and become tentative. What saves them? Their souls.
The artist owns the spirit of the future. The artist can tap into inner truth and reveal it. WK writes: Literature, music and art are the first and most sensitive spheres in which this spiritual revolution makes itself felt. They reflect the dark picture of the present time and show the importance of what at first was only a little point of light noticed by few and for the majority non-existent. Perhaps they even grow dark in their turn, but on the other hand they turn away from the soulless life of the present towards those substances and ideas which give free scope to the non-material strivings of the soul.
Artists speak through their own spirits and to the spirits of others. The connection, therefore, is purely on a spiritual level and not a material one, according to WK. Somehow, this seems too simplistic. After all, art is also an industry. It’s assigned a monetary value and traded as a commodity. Art and money are conjoined.
Although my distillation of WK’s dense text is somewhat overly simplified, his argument rests on the notion that some artists (the geniuses at the top of the pyramid) lead the rebellion against the uninspired, unspiritual legion of others whose influence demands conformity. As the rebellion gains strength, others on levels below join it.
Artists speak through their own spirits and to the spirits of others. The connection, therefore, is purely on a spiritual level and not a material one, according to WK. Somehow, this seems too simplistic. After all, art is also an industry. It’s assigned a monetary value and traded as a commodity. Art and money are conjoined.
Although my distillation of WK’s dense text is somewhat overly simplified, his argument rests on the notion that some artists (the geniuses at the top of the pyramid) lead the rebellion against the uninspired, unspiritual legion of others whose influence demands conformity. As the rebellion gains strength, others on levels below join it.
But, if the rebellion succeeds, doesn't the new condition become the "norm"? Does this mean that the inspired at the top of the spiritual triangle become the condition of the lowest portion of the next triangle? (Remember Kandinsky’s discussion on the movement of the triangle.) At one time, the Impressionists were at the top of this triangle. Now, there are a host of imitators. Impressionism today is ordinary and passe’. Or, is it?
Kandinsky was a revolutionary in art. No doubt about it. But, he has a myriad of imitators today. Are they unenlightened??
What do you think?
Kandinsky was a revolutionary in art. No doubt about it. But, he has a myriad of imitators today. Are they unenlightened??
What do you think?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Kepler's First Law and Other Universal Principles
Kepler's First Law
by Katharine A. Cartwright
watercolor on paper
26" x 19"
The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
Somehow, in the midst of moving, I've managed to complete another painting in my series The Laws of Nature. Painting keeps me sane, even if the results seem a little insane. I think the word is therapeutic. Although I haven't had the chance to return to Kandinsky's book, I continue to ponder his ideas and motivation. Is the act of creating art always therapeutic for the artist? Is this a universal condition? I'll test that notion over the next month since all of my art tools and materials are now in storage until this moving transition is complete. This will be the longest period that I haven't painted and I wonder how it will impact me. Will I resort to thumb-sucking? At least I still have my sketchbook.
What does artmaking do for you?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
What is the future of art, now?
Sometimes it’s good to step back and reflect. This is one of those times. I’m truly enjoying the challenge of reading Kandinsky’s short but dense book (or, maybe I’m the one who’s dense). In either case, it’s time for reflection. Our good friend Casey Klahn commented on my last post about the future. He wrote: “For Kandinsky, the representation of the same objects again and again was the past, and pure abstraction the future. What is the future, now?”
Great question: WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF ART, NOW?
Personally, I think the future is controlled by whoever is steering the ship.
Do visionary artists, art critics, or marketing geniuses control the future of art?
Will artists of the future, who now directly exhibit and market their work through the internet and self-publishing, control the future direction of art?
Will grass roots level artists, like me, ever have any opportunity to steer this ship, or will we remain passengers in the cargo hold?
What do you think?
I’ll be away for the week to make the last preparations to move into our winter wonderland home in Maine (image) and will check in now and then if I’m lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)