Finding Solutions

Winslow Homer once said "Look at nature, work independently, and solve your own problems." I'd like to focus on the last part of that statement. As an artist, solving my problems is discovering solutions. There are a variety of avenues that I can take to arrive at a solution, and here's an example. Those of you who've been following my work for awhile know that some of my posted eggshell paintings are repeats. That's because I've been busy for the past two months preparing 34 oil paintings for an upcoming solo exhibition next June. Half of the canvases were completed last year, but the rest are new. It'll take me a few more months to complete all of them, so my eggshell painting is on hold for a couple more months. Yesterday, I hit a technical "wall." I've been painting for decades, but just couldn't find the proper technique for rendering two of the paintings. After experimenting for weeks without success, I put down my brushes yesterday and spent some time reviewing old notes to see if I'd forgotten something. Nope! Couldn't find anything. So, where can I find other possible solutions? Ask advice from professional artists, read more books on oil techniques, keep experimenting, step away for awhile to refresh my creative mind, complete a series of indepth analyses of successful paintings to discover a useful technique, and - my favorite - persevere! Don't stop until I've found the answer. I love this aspect of painting: the challenge of problem-solving. Isn't that part of being a "professional" artist? If I were a professional button maker I'd have to exhaust every avenue to find ways to solve production problems so that I could fill orders on time with a quality product. I couldn't just give up. And, as Homer suggests, the artist needs to be independent. How successfully I solve this technical problem depends very much on my personal and independent decisions. Now ... back to problem-solving!

"Artist" vs. "Professional Artist"

In response to my last blog, Margaret Ryall raised an interesting point about making a distinction between the label "artist" and "professional artist." This is worth exploring, and the criteria she posted made me wonder how the term "professional artist" is defined in other countries. So, I found a website for the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, http://media.ifacca.org/files/DefinitionArtistAnalysis.pdf that provides an interesting analysis. If you don't want to read it, I'll share the highlights.

According to UNESCO (1980) " 'Artist' is taken to mean any person who creates or gives creative expression to, or re-creates works of art, who considers his [sic] artistic creation to be an essential part of his life, who contributes in this way to the development of art and culture and who is or asks to be recognized as an artist, whether or not he is bound by any relations of employment of association."

The UK establishes what makes an artist professional in principle:
"While there are several interpretations of what constitutes a professional 'artist' a broad interpretation is any arts practitioner working in the arts ... be they creative or interpretative, who either makes or endeavours to make a living from their work. A professional artist will also be defined through peer recognition."

Ther term "professional artist" is usually formally defined by countries for tax purposes and benefits. Therefore, the definition varies from country to country. However, there are identified five common approaches, which I'll briefly state (if you're interested in the fleshed-out defintions go to the website):

1. Definition through membership: a person is defined as an artist through membership of a recognized artist association (e.g. a society of professional artists).
2. Definition by committee: artistic status is determined by a committee, such as a committee of 'experts' or of artistic peers.
3. Definition by authority: the taxing authority determines eligibility.
4. Definition by association with artistic output: i.e. an artist is someone who produces art
5. Definition by the nature of arts activity: an artist is deemed professional if their arts work is undertaken in a 'businesslike' manner.

In the USA, our IRS defines nine criteria in its definition of a "professional artist." I'm certain that you're familiar with those if you file taxes in this country.

The First and Second Steps to Becoming an Artist

According to psychologist Otto Rank, The first step in becoming an artist is when one calls oneself an artist. This is a powerful statement. I remember years ago when I first adopted that identity and it was precisely such a moment. Sure, I had studied fine art at universities and privately, but, at that time I didn't really feel like an artist because I hadn't made many sales nor had I established a relationship with a gallery. In fact, my work wasn't all that great. Then, someone came to my home to look at my paintings. I was embarassed and made some lame excuse that I was working hard so that one day I could become an artist. The person looked up at me in astonishment and said "You ARE an artist!" That was the turning point for me. That's when I realized that self-identification as an artist is essential to becoming an artist. This is where it starts. OK - so the rest of the world might not always agree with the label, but who cares? Over the summer I read a wonderful biography of Louise Nevelson written by Laurie Lisle. I was taken with the fact that Nevelson self-identified as an artist at a very early age. It was her identity and passion from youth even though it took her nearly four decades to get her first solo show. According to Lisle, Nevelson early on developed the ability to dissociate herself from the objective reality and enter completely into the emotional truth of an experience. This was essential to her development as an artist. Is this the second step to becoming an artist? If, as Theresa Bernstein once wrote, The language of art is the prime language of a human relationship with life, then wouldn't the acquisition of that language be essential and the logical next step after one has self-identified as an artist?

Sheer Guts and Determination

One of the many things I truly love about artists is their openess. Let's face it: sometimes it's psychologically tough to put your work on exhibition. After all, it's a reflection of your internal self. More often than not, we artists experience rejection and indifference (even worse!). BUT - there are those golden moments when someone really "gets it", when the painting is juried into a major exhibition, wins an award, when we get a show, or even included in books. Sure, the external validation is an important motivator, but self-satisfaction with the work is more important. I say all this in light of the fact that some artists have a harder time of it than others and we need to keep things in perspective. For instance, Louise Nevelson - one of the greatest sculptors of our time. After decades of rejection marked by bouts of serious depression and near starvation, she was finally given an exhibition - the 1941 Nierendorf exhibition. What a triumph! That is ... until the reviews came out. Here's the review: "We learned the artist is a woman, in time to check our enthusiasm. Had it been otherwise, we might have hailed these sculptural expressions as by surely a great figure among artists." What a blow! But, she kept trying and through sheer guts and determination she succeeded. Of course, it takes more than guts and determination to be a successful artist. One also must skillfully execute a unique and meaningful work of art. However, if we engage in self pity, or even quit, we'll never "make it." I've read many blogs or heard from artists who hit a wall, who get discouraged. Think about what Nevelson had to endure and keep going! I'm rooting for you :)

Abstracted objective painting

One of my favorite artists, Georgia O'Keeffe, once stated "It is surprising to me to see how many people separate the objective from the abstract. Objective painting is not good painting unless it is good in the abstract sense. A hill or tree cannot make a good painting just because it's a hill or a tree. It is lines and colors put together so that they say something. For me, that is the very basis of painting. The abstraction is often the most definite form for the intangible thing in myself that I can only clarify in paint." Much earlier this past year I experimented with the Fibonacci spiral based on the Golden Mean ratio of 1:1.618 (the study to the left is one of the experiments). This proportion is completely mathematical and, therefore, abstract. There's a better explanation of this in one of my earlier blogs. Although this painting is only a study, an interesting effect and new meaning occurs because I've imposed abstract design on the eggshells. Are they spiraling down a drain? Are they rising up through a tornado? Are they tunneling sideways? There's force, direction, dynamism. It's not just about broken eggshells, but about something acting on them causing them to move in a spiral. This implies not only volumetric space but also time, the fourth dimension. O'Keeffe offers us a valuable lesson in how to make our work dynamic, meaningful, and original.

Illusion vs. Reality

Louise Nevelson, a noted artist of the last millenium, once said "Illusion permits anything. Reality stops everything." I could ponder that statement forever. It reminds me of an incident in a watercolor workshop that I took nearly a decade ago. One student was laboring to exactly reproduce a photograph of a harbor scene - boats, water, pilings, near shore features, etc. The student had no idea about what was important in the scene, what had attracted him to it in the first place, or even the creative possibilities he could derive from it. At one point, the instructor stopped by the student's table and remarked that he should consider editing. Not everything in the photograph had to be in the painting. Not surprisingly, the student didn't know what to do. He couldn't veer from his path, so he kept going. The painting wasn't successful, the reference photograph was better. Back to Nevelson: "Illusion permits anything. Reality stops everything." Amen!

The Role of Beauty in Art

Last year I attended a lecture entitled "What is Art?" given by Arthur Danto, Professor Emeritus in Philosophy from Columbia University and art critic for the New York Times and Art Forum. In defining art, he identified two criteria necessary for something to be deemed a work of art: 1) it has meaning, and 2) it embodies that meaning. (This inspired me to begin teaching workshops across the country based on concept development.) But, Danto asks, what about aesthetics? Should art have an aesthetic dimension? NO, he says. Beauty is important in life, but not in art. He cited Duchamp who viewed beauty as "retinal flutter" and pointed out the Dada movement as examples. So, Danto adds, beauty is important in life, and certainly is one of the virtues, but art isn't impoverished if it isn't beautiful. ART IS AN AESTHETIC OF MEANING, it needs conceptual weight.

I agree with Dantoto a point. Although I tend to make eggshells look beautiful, that's not the point. It's really about the concept - FRAGILITY - of the psyche, of life, of our investments and the beauty that can be found in chaos, in the fragments of our psyches, in the remains. If you'd like to read a really great opinion about all this, please read Margaret Ryall's blog: http://www.margaretryall.blogspot.com/. She wrote an informed response to my comments on Danto and beauty on her October 21st entry comments area. Take a look!

Formula vs. Interest

As I continue to share with you the parts of Ben Shahn's Book ("The Shape of Content") that interest me, I'm reminded that this is only one man's perspective of art and artists. There are so many other opinions and many of you have shared yours on this blog. I'm grateful. The sharing of ideas and opinions is important to expanding one's horizons and maturing as an artist.
Today's blog is about this statement by Shahn: "If a painting is to be at all interesting, it is the very absence of formula that will help make it so. Paintings must emerge from a personal vision." I spent many years teaching college students who frequently sought a formulaic approach to problem-solving rather than engage in the struggle of independent thought. I called this "cook-booking." They wanted a recipe; someone to tell them step-by-step how to get from A to Z. I refused to provide such a crutch because it prevents students from engaging in creative thinking and in developing analytical skills that enhance understanding and give birth to creative solutions.
How many painting workshops have you attended where the instructor provides a "formula" for creating a work of art? How many times has an instructor asked you to imitate his/her approach? How many of us prefer to learn this way? It's hard work to think independently - t0 break away from the crowd and make a work of art that's uniquely personal. Yes, we still have to learn the traditional techniques so that the quality of our work doesn't suffer, but we then must use those techniques to make our work interesting by making it uniquely personal. Over the past few years, I've learned of others who decided to try to paint eggshells the way I do. Some tell me that this is a form of flattery. I don't see it that way. I think it's sad, because the imitators don't have enough confidence or belief in their own ideas to express them. It's like refusing to speak because what you say can never be as good or as important as what someone else has to say. This is becoming invisible. Shan also wrote "If there is value it rests upon the human ability to have idea, and indeed upon the stature of the idea itself. For me, there would be little reason for painting if idea were not to emerge from the work."
Embrace your ideas - express you ideas - share your ideas!

The Value of Art

The value of art is a hotly debated topic, and one that directly affects us as artists. We can view the value of art as being both its monetary value and its value to society. During this week, I've been sharing with you ideas from Ben Shahn's book "The Shape of Content" because I find that his analyses are important to me during this period in my career as an artist. Here's what Shahn says about the value of art:
"It is not the degree of communicability that constitutes the value of art to the public. It is its basic intent and responsibility. A work of art in which powerful compassion is innate, or which contains extraordinary revelations concerning form, or manifests brilliant thinking, however difficult its language, will serve ultimately to dignify that society in which it exists. By the same argument, a work that is tawdry and calculating in intent is not made more worthy by being easily understood. One does not judge an Einstein equation by its communicability, but by its actual content and meaning." Once again, we return to the intention of the individual artist in order to give value to the work. How many of us paint in order to reveal our relationship with this world, and how many paint only for praise/fame and income? If I read Shahn's idea correctly, it looks like we artists are directly responsible for imparting value to our work.

Content and Form

Thanks to those of you who've joined in my discussion about Ben Shahn's concepts as they are expressed in his book "The Shape of Content." I hope more of you will join in.

I'd like to focus on Shahn's statement that "Form is the visible shape of content." He sees the two as inseparable in a work of art, because form is the "turning of content into a material entity, rendering a content accessible to others, giving it permanence." He sites a number of examples such as the influence of the concept of the Holy Trinity in art by creating triptychs, or figures in threes and the use of other religious symbols, or forms, that reveal a specific content. And, Shahn sees the influence of Freud's ideas on contemporary art, which is directed toward a public conversant with Freud, and so on.

Finally, Shahn sees form as a discipline according to the needs of content, because form follows a logical order:

1) it's based on a theme

2) it requires the marshaling of materials to cast the theme

3) it sets the boundaries of the outer limits of the idea

4) It relates inner shapes to those outer limits creating harmony, and

5) it abolishes excessive content (content outside the limits).

This all ties in to my earlier discussions about decision-making as an artist; about concept development; about creating a work of art that is unique by virtue of the fact that it embodies the artist's unique point of view; about being deliberate. As an artist, what legacy will you leave for the art world?