The Art of Collecting LIghtbulbs

The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa
By Michael Kimmelman (2005)

Chapter 5: The Art of Collecting Lightbulbs

The author once met a Baltimore dentist named Hugh Frances Hicks shortly before his death at age 79 in 2002. Dr. Hicks had collected 75,000 items that were either lightbulbs or things related to lightbulbs. Many are historically significant, like some of Edison's earliest experiments. His is the largest such collection in the world and he turned his basement into a museum called the Mount Vernon Museum of Incandescent Lighting.

Kimmelman queries “Why do people collect?” And, specifically, why did Dr. Hicks collect lightbulbs? Evidently, it began when Hicks was a toddler and his mother gave him an old lightbulb to play with. One thing led to the next and, before you know it, he became a dedicated collector.

In general, Kimmelman speculates that “some people collect because collecting can be a great art if earnestly engaged in.” This, he explains, accounts for why most of us like viewing collections even if we aren’t collectors ourselves. Also, “collecting is a way to bring order to the world” or “it is also a way to define some idiosyncratic niche for the collector, as art does for an artist.” I can add another reason: obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). My deceased father-in-law had many collections: 1,500 works of art; 1,200 art books; 500 Santa Claus figures; over 200 pairs of glasses; hundreds of clocks, and many other collections. It was mind-boggling and a nightmare for my sister-in-law who took it upon herself to clean out his house before selling it.

But, I digress. The point is, serious collectors are ubiquitous and many of their collections are art forms. “Collected objects become symbolic when they lose their utilitarian purpose … Their uselessness becomes their asset: they turn into totems and fragments of the lost worlds they came from.” These lost worlds, like art, provide the viewers with a sense of wonderment. They heighten our curiosity and help us become more aware of our surroundings.

Back to Dr. Hicks. Evidently, psychiatrists once visited him as a part of their investigation into why collectors collect. “They were something,” he said. “They didn’t blink their eyes. They were interviewing collectors from all over the world. After spending $4 million, they concluded that collectors collect for the fascination of an object and for no other reason. Heck, I would have told them that for $1 million.”

So, now I’m wondering if we artists compulsively create art for the same reason that collectors collect. Is it fascination??

What are your thoughts?

P.S. Have a great weekend! I’ll be back on Monday.

The Art of Making Art Without Lifting a Finger

The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa
By Michael Kimmelman (2005)

Chapter 4: The Art of Making Art Without Lifting a Finger

Art on one level already may be a state of mind. Of course it is first of all a physical object with which we interact in the moment. But after we have seen a work, what do we take away except a memory of it? And memory is thought, a mental seed planted by the artist, which is reproduced in as many different variations as the number of people in whom the memory exists. What makes art good is partly its power to proliferate as a variable memory, an intangible concept, filtered through individual consciousness.

To support this point of view, Kimmelman provides the interesting tale of Pop Art’s Ray Johnson. Johnson (1927 – 1995) was primarily a collage artist (photo), but also engaged in performance and conceptual art. One of his great contributions was the innovation known as “Mail Art.” His final artistic creation was his own suicide. Before jumping off the bridge into the frigid January waters of Long Island Sound at the age of 67 (6+7=13), he checked into Room 247 (2+4+7=13) of the Baron’s Cove Inn at Sag Harbor Cove (both of which to 13 letters). He also left behind an enormous puzzle of his collages on a wall in his house: a forensic challenge. It is interesting that his body was found floating upon the waters face up with his arms neatly folded across his chest – a work completed. This artwork now exists only in our minds, which as Kimmelman suggests is reproduced in as many different variations as the number of people in whom the memory exists.

Of course, this way of thinking erases the boundary between “art” and “not art.” Is every thought, every manufactured thing a work of art just because we think it is? Duschamp’s ready-mades support that notion. Robert Rauschenberg declared it to be “art” when he erased a drawing of de Kooning. Artist Yves Klein’s show, “Le Vide” (“The Void”), at a gallery in Paris attracted mobs of people into a gallery that contained no art at all. The list of artists who engaged in conceptual art is endless. The point was to “elevate the ordinary” and to achieve a “heightened state of awareness.” So, everday life became a work of art.

Is the “idea” more durable than the physical work of art itself? If so, then there is no line drawn between art and everyday life. They are, as Kimmelman suggests, one.

What are your thoughts?

The Art of Having a Lofty Perspective

The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa
By Michael Kimmelman (2005)

Chapter 3: The Art of Having a Lofty Perspective

This chapter is about “beauty” and covers many of the same topics we’ve already discussed here, from the Greek philosophers to Hume, Kant, and Danto. However, Kimmelman provides another perspective which he illustrates through a story about mountain climbing. At one point in his life, he wanted to scale Mount Sainte-Victoire, the same peak that inspired Cezanne (photo). Expecting a mountain-top epiphany, the author was disappointed to find that no such enlightenment occurred and so he began to speculate about why.

One clue might be in how we understand “beauty.” According to philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto, beauty, if it is not to be solely decorative, should also have a deeper rationale for being in art; it should be intrinsic to the meaning of art. This removes the superficial aspect of beauty and provides a deeper meaning that must be deciphered through an effort to understand its meaning.

Danto's notion nicely coincides with David Hume’s. Hume, who separated natural beauty from beauty in art, saying that natural beauty just hits you in the face – it is plainly there, and if you fail to recognize it, too bad, no rational explanation of nature’s beauty will redress your failure – whereas beauty in art depends on reasoning and critical analysis: people may come around to seeing beauty in art through reasoned argument.

The author uses two examples to support these philosophies: Duschamp’s “readymades” which have been critically accepted as art, such as “The Fountain” (a urinal); and, Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s wrapping of the Reichstage which was, during the planning stage, met with outrage by Berliners but later embraced as “the symbolism of turning the new seat of a reunified Germany into a chrysalis and then unwrapping it.”

Continuing his quest for enlightenmnet, Kimmelman hikes a second peak. This time, he has an epiphany of sorts. He realized that all deep understanding of beauty may in fact be acculturated. That is, “art becomes our entree to the sublime. It illustrates that beauty is not something static and predictable and always there at the top of a mountain, but an organic, shifting, elusive, and therefore more desirable goal of our devotion, which we must make an effort to grasp.

Personally, I agree. Isn't this why "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" If beauty were a standardized, quantifiable entity arrived at by formulaic means or limited to only one set of standards wouldn't it become ordinary and lacking the "sublime"? Don't we bring our individual thoughts, ideas, and experiences into play when we deem something to be beautiful? Yes, emotions play a role, but not without cognitive processes.

What are your thoughts?

The Art of Being Artless

The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa
By Michael Kimmelman (2005)

Chapter 2: The Art of Being Artless

Yesterday, we engaged in a good discussion about chapter 1. The central theme of this book is to encourage us to keep our eyes open, to be more alert to the serendipitous events that can inspire our work. These events occur within our everyday lives and may well be disguised as seemingly unimportant if we fail to look closely or to pursue them. The author also urges us to consider the fact that we can learn, among other things, that a life lived with art in mind might itself be a kind of art. What a beautiful thought!

In the case of Bonnard, his muse was Marthe. According to Kimmelman, Pierre dated the birth of his painterly identity to shortly after they met. To a lesser degree, I, too, can point to a specific time when my work significantly changed and I suspect there will be future times that will be marked as a turning point as well.

In Chapter 2, Kimmelman discusses unintentional art. Sometimes art appears unexpectedly. It doesn’t arrive through the front door. It sneaks in the back, the more startling for being the result of dumb luck. Several interesting examples are provided, but the one that caught my attention is a photograph by Anonymous that hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It’s a picture from the 1930’s of a woman with one leg propped on the running board of a car with the man in the car looking out at her. There’s a surprising beauty and symmetry to this photo. Clearly, the photographer was an amateur and probably had no idea that he/she had created a work of art. The author speculates that the photo may have made its way to someone’s attic, and eventually to a dumpster or flea market where it was scavenged by a dealer-collector. Eventually, Thomas Walther at the Met acquired it.

This discussion is preceded by an interesting journey through the transformation of photography from a solely professional activity to a popular amateur one thanks to the invention of the Kodak camera by Eastman. As an aside – I was interested to learn that the name “Kodak” was made up by Eastman because “k” was his favorite letter and he thought the name would be easy to remember. The early popular cameras didn’t have viewfinders, so the results were often accidental. The popularity and affordability of these cameras produced a sea of shutter-bugs and a few accidental masterpieces.

Kimmelman also discusses Bob Ross, TV’s art guru. Ross did not get bogged down in the issue of whether his cheesy paintings were actually good. Nor did he really care whether anybody even painted along with him… Ross’s message was: You may feel hemmed in by work or by family, but before an easel you are your own master... His purpose was as much to massage souls as it was to teach painting... He sold hope. I remember watching several episodes in Ross’s series and, although I didn’t like the paintings he executed, I was entranced by his sincere joyfulness about the act of painting. "Happy clouds" "Happy trees"! It was soothing and encouraging. Perhaps this is why he had such a large following. The books mentions that only 3% of Ross’s viewers actually painting along with him. So, the other 97% may have been, like me, attracted to the soothing aspect of his delivery. Nevertheless, did a few accidental masterpieces result because of his influence? Maybe.

The point is, a masterpiece doesn’t necessarily occur at the hands of a master artist. It can be the product of an amateur. I’m wondering if Kimmelman is changing the meaning of the word “masterpiece.” Webster’s defines the word in terms of a piece being produced through extreme skill. This implies expertise and intention. But, Kimmelman feels that a masterpiece can be an accidental product of an amateur without skills. I’m not certain that I agree, but will think about it further.

What do you think?

The Art of Making a World

The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa
By Michael Kimmelman, 2005

Chapter 1: The Art of Making a World

In this chapter, Kimmelman takes us behind the scenes into the intimate and seclusive lives of Pierre Bonnard and his wife, Marthe. Their world was carefully constructed to satisfy Marthe’s need for extreme privacy. Whether or not Pierre wanted this lifestyle is unclear, but he nevertheless created and maintained it at least for Marthe’s sake. The natural consequence was that Bonnard chose to find inspiration, beauty, and meaning from his immediate surroundings and from introspection. As Kimmelman writes, that was precisely Bonnard’s gift to posterity. He explored his world every day, and as he did so, it became more and more fantastical. In his own words, Bonnard explained it this way: People always speak of submission to nature. There is also submission to the picture. Even the most ordinary surroundings can inspire a masterpiece, especially if the goal is to create a work of art rather than a faithful rendition of one's surroundings.

Viewing Bonnard’s work is a voyage into a fantastical place. He transforms his world from ordinary to extraordinary by enhancing reality through color and form manipulation, disguised or nearly obscured forms that add nuanced meaning to the work, and brushwork that enlivens his subjects. Bonnard's world as he senses it becomes apparent; it’s meaningful and it’s alive.

What was the catalyst for the transformation of Bonnard's paintings from skillful to masterful? Kimmelman wrote in the Introduction to this book that The consequence of his [Bonnard’s] meeting Marthe was, you might say, an accidental masterpiece. Or to put it another way, Bonnard made his novel deep, and beautiful art out of what seemed to many friends and observers a claustrophobic and sometimes unfortunate relationship. To live intensely is one of the basic human desires and an artistic necessity. Bonnard, in his elective reclusiveness with Marthe, lived all the more intensely through his work. His force of will in so doing was a creative and illustrative act.

Lately, I’ve been paying attention to the madness and methods of those who achieve – who excel beyond their own wildest dreams. What do they all have in common? Imagination, passion, focus, a sense of purpose, perseverance, ability to avoid distractions, and fearlessness. There are so many “artists” in the world today but how many of us elect to own these characteristics? How many of us take full advantage of creating a masterpiece derived from our intimate world? How easily do we turn aside from our passion and goals in the face of failure and distractions?

If I were double-jointed I would buy a pair of sharp-toed cowboy boots and kick myself in the butt every time I am distracted from my art making in order to pursue something that ends up being a total waste of time, that fails to inform my work. For instance, watching TV or doing something that someone else should be doing instead. Am I serious about making art or not? Ouch! My butt hurts.

Kimmelman's words are true: To live intensely is one of the basic human desires and an artistic necessity.

What are your thoughts?

The Accidental Masterpiece

It’s time to review and discuss another book, and I was lucky enough to find The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa by Michael Kimmelman (2005). One quick read through the Introduction and I was hooked! This is a good one.

Kimmelman is chief art critic of The New York Times and has written other books related to art. This particular book became a New York Times Bestseller and received rave reviews. Personally, I like his informed and accessible writing style and can’t wait to read the rest of the book and share it with you as I read it.

Today, I’ll begin with Kimmelman’s Introduction – his purpose for writing this book. The idea behind ‘The Accidental Masterpiece,’ the one that popped into my head at some point, is pretty simple. It is not that I should write a book of art history or criticism, exactly, or solely dwell on the accomplishments of the greatest or of my favorite painters, sculptors, and photographers. Nor is it that all art is salutary. A day of looking at bad art can be long and dark. Instead, it is that … art provides us with clues about how to live our own lives more fully. Put differently, this book is, in part, about how creating, collecting, and even just appreciating art can make living a daily masterpiece. I have come to feel that everything, even the most ordinary daily affair, is enriched by the lessons that can be gleaned from art: that beauty is often where you don’t expect to find it; that it is something we may discover and also invent, then reinvent, for ourselves; that the most important things in the world are never as simple as they seem but that the world is also richer when it declines to abide by comforting formulas. And that it is always good to keep your eyes wide open, because you never know what you will discover.

Parts of this fascinating Introduction deal with chance occurrences that lead to the creation of an “accidental masterpiece." For instance, when Pierre Bonnard encountered for the first time the woman who would become the “defining figure of his life and work”, Maria Boursin.
Kimmelman segues between the Introduction and rest of the text by writing What follows are some of my own points of contact with things greater than myself. This promises to be a wonderful journey.

Hope you’ll join me!

Art Instruction Books

Photo: A wonderful group of students at a rehabilitation center beginning to learn watercolors.

Now that I’m back in New York, I decided to look through my bookshelves and was alarmed by the magnitude of my neglected collection of art instruction books. I suspect that I’m not the only person on the planet to own a large number of these books. I also suspect I’m not the only person guilty of reading through an art instruction book once or twice, trying a few tips, and then putting it on the bookshelf to collect dust for eternity. I don’t even want to think about how much money I spent on these books!

When I go to the bookstore I’m amazed at how many of these books exist! How do these authors convince a publishing house that they have something new and different worth publishing? Hmmm… this thought led me to reread the introductions of my books to see. Here’s a sampling:

Creative Discoveries in Watermedia by Pat Dews. Introduction statement: “Techniques are methods of rendering artistic works, procedures used to translate your ideas into finished paintings. Being familiar with a variety of techniques makes it easier to represent your ideas. This book includes many techniques for starting and finishing successful paintings, as well as how to generate excitement, create new surfaces, correct mistakes, crop creatively and much more.”

Master Disaster: Five Ways to Rescue Desperate Watercolors by Susan Webb Tregay. Introduction statement: “There are two reasons that this book is different from others on watercolor painting. First, I have learned that the detailed planning of a painting is not always desirable. Flexibility, rather than the perfect plan, is what makes finishing a painting possible. This book will allow you the freedom to be motivated by spontaneous washes of color and flashes of inspiration… Second, I am not writing this to teach you how to paint like me. My purpose is to teach you how to finish your own paintings in your own style. You will learn how to paint like yourself – only better.”

A Proven Strategy for Creating Great Art by Dan McCaw. Introduction statement: “My goal in writing this book is to provide you with a map leading you toward the treasure that lies within you – your individuality, your own voice.”

Watercolor: A New Beginning by Ann K. Lindsay. Introduction statement: “This book is the result of my quest to find a way of teaching watercolor that would work for everyone, that would let anyone experience painting as an enjoyable, playful, and magical part of his or her life. It also came from my own growing understanding that making art is an intuitive process, yet as far as I had seen, it had always been taught from a rational point of view. Increasingly, this just didn’t make sense. I began to feel that teaching techniques, rules, principles, and theories first was simply not appropriate and, more often than not, shut down a person’s own creative process.”

How to Make a Watercolor Paint Itself: Experimental Techniques for Achieving Realist Effects by Nita Engle. Introduction statement: “Rather than teach you the basics of composition, color theory, and the like – information you can readily find elsewhere – I will tell you how I discovered my own identity in painting, how I found out why I do what I do, and help you find your own answers so you can turn the techniques I present to your own use.”

Color and Light for the Watercolor Painter: How to Get the Effects You Want Every Time by Christopher Schink. Introductory statement: “Most of the painters I encounter in my classes have developed enough skill in color mixing to produce a great variety of the colors they desire. Their problem is not technique; where they have difficulty is in deciding where, when, and how to use their mixtures, and most importantly, in understanding why certain choices work or do not work. In this book I have attempted to provide answers to these problems, but not necessarily the infallibly right answers, and certainly not the only answers.”

Creative Watercolor Workshops: Challenge Your Artistic Boundaries With 25 Fund Painting Exercises by Mark E. Mehaffey. Introduction statement: “Why write another book about painting? The answer is simple: I am a teacher. I have ideas that I believe will help artists. But this book is designed to get you to think about what you want to accomplish rather than to just follow along. This book will help you paint like you, not like me.”

And so on…

In rereading these lofty goals I can see why I was enticed to purchase these books and it’s true that I learned something from each one. BUT, it can be confusing to try to learn and adhere to this myriad of approaches to creating art. In the balance, were all these books helpful or confusing? Did they help me learn to paint like “me” but only better or did they lead me to imitate? Did they influence my aesthetic sensibility to the point of conformity?

I must ponder these questions and, as I do so, I think I’ll head to the bookstore and find another book!

What do you think?

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Hello friends!! I apologize for my prolonged absence from the blogosphere. However, my summer home in Maine doesn't allow me easy access to the internet. So, I'll use today's post to let you know what I've been up to for the past three months and then try to find something more interesting to discuss that is related to "art" tomorrow, now that I'm back in New York.

For those of you who've been following this blog you already know that I hung two exhibitions this summer. The first exhibition was hung in June/July at the Port Clyde Gallery in Maine. It was well attended and I sold ten paintings. The second exhibition was held in August/September in New York and (coincidentally) I sold ten paintings there as well!

I managed to teach a few art workshops over the summer and thoroughly enjoyed my students. It's wonderful to witness that "aha!" moment when a student realizes a new direction and begins to achieve mastery. I look forward to working with new students as time progresses.

I completed very few of my own paintings this summer, but that's what Fall/Winter/Spring is for. Pretty soon (tomorrow) I'll isolate myself in my studio and continue working on my series "The Laws of Nature." So far, three paintings from this series have been juried into major exhibitions: The San Diego Watercolor Society's 30th International Exhibition where my painting won the Dick Blick award, The Aqueous USA 2010 exhibtion, and The 34th Annual Open International Exhibition 2010 of the North East Watercolor Society.

My work appears in three books and a DVD this summer, and I'll include more information about this in future posts.

Now for the best part: I bought a kayak!! It's a Scirocco sixteen-foot long sea-going kayak. I also took a course in paddling techniques and rescue. I have a deep love for all things aquatic and getting out on the ocean in a kayak is a blast.

I've just finished reading all your wonderful comments from the summer and am blown-away by the substance and insights! Can't wait to see how our future discussions develop!

It's good to be "back."

Fine Art: Public or Private?

Last evening I viewed a documentary/opinion movie entitled “The Art of the Steal.” It focused upon how the Philadelphia Museum of Art managed to acquire and control the most important and valuable private collection of art, known as The Barnes Foundation, established by Albert C. Barnes in 1922. This foundation housed one of the world’s largest collections of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and early Modern paintings purchased by Dr. Barnes with money he made from pharmaceuticals. At this point the collection is worth an estimated $35 billion. Housed in a beautiful building (photo) nearly five miles south of Philadelphia, Barnes hung his collection for the purposes of education. The Foundation’s “school” annually enrolled a small number of fine art students under the instruction of an even smaller contingent of faculty. The public was allowed access to view the collection only two days a week. Barnes hated the social elite in Philadelphia and had his lawyers draft a will to keep his Foundation intact and specifically out of the hands of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Time, greed, loopholes in the will, and political shenanigans undermined Barnes’ attempt to keep his Foundation intact as a private instructional institution with limited public access. In the year 2014 his collection will move into a newly constructed building in association with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and under the control of the Pew Foundation. This, of course, will bring in millions of tourist dollars annually for the city of Philadelphia. Barnes must be rolling in his grave.

I mention all this because it raises an interesting question: Is it imperative that the general public gain access to any and all significant private collections of fine art that exist? In other words, is the owner of a significant private collection of fine art beholden to the general public to share it? Who really owns great works of art, and when is a collection significantly large enough to become public domain?

What is your viewpoint?

Art Societies & Such

Hi all! I'm back in NY for a week to hang a solo show entitled "Eggsistential" at the Viewpoint Gallery (41 eggshell paintings). I'll return to Maine next week for the rest of the summer. I've missed my daily "chats" with you all and hope to make up for it by summer's end. In the meantime, I've been thinking about the role of art societies and want to solicit your opinions.

Over the past decade watercolor has been the dominant medium for my work (I use oils and acrylic to a lesser extent). During those ten years I've competed in a number of national and international exhibitions sponsored by watercolor societies such as the American Watercolor Society (AWS), the National Watercolor Society (NWS), the Transparent Watercolor Society of America (TWSA), and so on. When I can, I visit these exhibitions in person and I receive catalogues from most.

It's apparent to me that these societies greatly influence the subject matter and techniques of the artists who compete or who strive to become competitors. There's always a large number of flower paintings, people paintings, and city scapes in these shows. There's also a lot of photo-referenced work. And, there's a lot of ultra-realism. And, there are a lot of imitators of other successful artists from shows past. It's gotten to the point where I can predict what a national/international watercolor exhibition will look like before I even see it.

It seems to me that these societies, which serve as the gatekeepers to what is acceptable in the watercolor world, have very conservative taste. Avant garde work has little to know chance of finding entry into these exhibitions. This reminds me of the Paris Salon, so entrenched in its traditional taste that the newly emerged Impressionists had to find their own venue so their work could be seen.

So, here are some questions for you: Do you think that art societies, with all their influence, help or hinder the progress of art? Do they keep step with the contemporary dialogue in art? I'd love to know your opinion!