ART DISCUSSIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS - 2013
Hello Brian and everybody else taking part in this discussion.
An introductory note - Because of multiple reasons, Eric G. C. Weets, a self taught Belgian artist, is not in a position to interact on this platform. I am his partner and am posting his thoughts/views on his behalf, which may contribute to the on going discussion.
I am jumping in late and have followed the most recent posts. (It's a daunting task to go through almost 3000 comments but would like to go through them later)
If I can just say something about "Has art lost its way?"
Art has not lost its way, its the artists who have to (come back?) seek what 'art' is because they are the ones who are creating art. I quote Eric G. C. Weets here:
"You can make art with everything but if you be honest and correct then you will know that the first 500 works cannot be good because you are not yet there, where your personality is. You make up a piece from what you have seen, from what you have learnt. You have to go further on and on till you are fed up with what you have seen and what you have learnt. You have to go on till you find that box and take out from there that is something complete unique and about which you can say, this is me. It’s a learning process and to reach there, it takes years and mountain of patience.
Second thing to be aware of is - you have to have that uniqueness in you. There is a chance that you may also find nothing and then it is quite a waste of time and the sad thing is, you don’t know it from before whether you have it or not.
Personally, I think that most artists find something they are happy with and they stay doing it because it gives them some satisfaction but satisfaction is not what it goes about. You have to acknowledge that beyond personal satisfaction, the real quest starts.
That is why I say you will have to go through, most probably, a lot of depressions, lot of times not being happy with yourself, if you choose to create art." Eric G. C. Weets, art painter.
My dear Filomina.
Thankyou so much for making your post on behalf of Eric.
He through you spoke a deep truth and it hit the spot with me and it will I feel sure do the same for every artist following and engaged in this thread.
The very best of good fortune to you both
An introductory note - Because of multiple reasons, Eric G. C. Weets, a self taught Belgian artist, is not in a position to interact on this platform. I am his partner and am posting his thoughts/views on his behalf, which may contribute to the on going discussion.
I am jumping in late and have followed the most recent posts. (It's a daunting task to go through almost 3000 comments but would like to go through them later)
If I can just say something about "Has art lost its way?"
Art has not lost its way, its the artists who have to (come back?) seek what 'art' is because they are the ones who are creating art. I quote Eric G. C. Weets here:
"You can make art with everything but if you be honest and correct then you will know that the first 500 works cannot be good because you are not yet there, where your personality is. You make up a piece from what you have seen, from what you have learnt. You have to go further on and on till you are fed up with what you have seen and what you have learnt. You have to go on till you find that box and take out from there that is something complete unique and about which you can say, this is me. It’s a learning process and to reach there, it takes years and mountain of patience.
Second thing to be aware of is - you have to have that uniqueness in you. There is a chance that you may also find nothing and then it is quite a waste of time and the sad thing is, you don’t know it from before whether you have it or not.
Personally, I think that most artists find something they are happy with and they stay doing it because it gives them some satisfaction but satisfaction is not what it goes about. You have to acknowledge that beyond personal satisfaction, the real quest starts.
That is why I say you will have to go through, most probably, a lot of depressions, lot of times not being happy with yourself, if you choose to create art." Eric G. C. Weets, art painter.
My dear Filomina.
Thankyou so much for making your post on behalf of Eric.
He through you spoke a deep truth and it hit the spot with me and it will I feel sure do the same for every artist following and engaged in this thread.
The very best of good fortune to you both
Filomina, I'm sure you'll agree that each one of us is 'unique'; this means that we all have that 'uniqueness' Eric is talking about, in us... when one is being honest in their work and not derivative, the 'uniqueness' can come through.
Depression is a health problem, and I don't think it has to do, (necessarily) with art. One can become depressed for many reasons, when one has lost hope... yes, losing the hope of becoming the next Picasso, can lead some to depression, also, if they are so inclined, to start with...
As far as art goes, working with intensity, honesty and consistency is enough... the results will come about, sooner or later...
- I do agree that each one is 'unique' and so we all have our own 'uniqueness es' in us, no doubt.
You are also right about depression being a health problem but Eric is talking about 'art depression' here which can set in if one desires to create something 'unique' and 'original', which was Eric's primary quest. This is what the word 'artist' means to Eric.
He did not see any point in copying or repeating something which has already been done. Eric says "Going back, every time, to what already exists (in art) is, for me, simply trying to escape because you don’t know what to do new”. Quite hard statement but it also took him almost his life time to find and do something 'new' in art and that of course has come with working with honesty and integrity, like you mentioned.
I am quoting Weets here about 'art depression'.
"Making art is fun, some say. It is completely wrong. Making art is no fun. It’s a torture. You have to accept that you have to go through a lot of depression, lot of not being happy with yourself, not being happy with others. Till you come somewhere…but still, it shall anyways, never satisfy you (except when you are old, little bit demented and then you simply do what you always did and be happy with what you do.) But till that time you cannot be satisfied. You have to sit alone in a room, cracking your brains, thinking goddamn where am I going wrong? How and what can I do better? Because there is always something more you didn’t see yet, didn’t feel yet and no sooner than you give in on yourself saying I don’t want to torture myself anymore, you are on the wrong way and then you make nothing worth to be spoken about."
Mr. Julian Spalding has said the following, "Eric Weets is one of those rare people - a genuine original.... Everyone is unique, just as every ice crystal in a snow drift is unique (unbelievable though it may seem but true) - but few individuals develop an expressive language that is uniquely their own". Mr. Spalding's quote about Eric continued here.
Depression is a health problem, and I don't think it has to do, (necessarily) with art. One can become depressed for many reasons, when one has lost hope... yes, losing the hope of becoming the next Picasso, can lead some to depression, also, if they are so inclined, to start with...
As far as art goes, working with intensity, honesty and consistency is enough... the results will come about, sooner or later...
- I do agree that each one is 'unique' and so we all have our own 'uniqueness es' in us, no doubt.
You are also right about depression being a health problem but Eric is talking about 'art depression' here which can set in if one desires to create something 'unique' and 'original', which was Eric's primary quest. This is what the word 'artist' means to Eric.
He did not see any point in copying or repeating something which has already been done. Eric says "Going back, every time, to what already exists (in art) is, for me, simply trying to escape because you don’t know what to do new”. Quite hard statement but it also took him almost his life time to find and do something 'new' in art and that of course has come with working with honesty and integrity, like you mentioned.
I am quoting Weets here about 'art depression'.
"Making art is fun, some say. It is completely wrong. Making art is no fun. It’s a torture. You have to accept that you have to go through a lot of depression, lot of not being happy with yourself, not being happy with others. Till you come somewhere…but still, it shall anyways, never satisfy you (except when you are old, little bit demented and then you simply do what you always did and be happy with what you do.) But till that time you cannot be satisfied. You have to sit alone in a room, cracking your brains, thinking goddamn where am I going wrong? How and what can I do better? Because there is always something more you didn’t see yet, didn’t feel yet and no sooner than you give in on yourself saying I don’t want to torture myself anymore, you are on the wrong way and then you make nothing worth to be spoken about."
Mr. Julian Spalding has said the following, "Eric Weets is one of those rare people - a genuine original.... Everyone is unique, just as every ice crystal in a snow drift is unique (unbelievable though it may seem but true) - but few individuals develop an expressive language that is uniquely their own". Mr. Spalding's quote about Eric continued here.
Filomina,
You are generalizing the exception; yes some artists are haunted, and some are/were crazy; but this is not the norm, and it would be a big mistake to imply that there is no art without torment.
Vermeer was perfectly sane, and so was Rembrandt, Leonardo, PIcasso, and most of the others... The insane and/or the haunted stand out as a good story, no doubt, but they are the minority...
To say the artist MUST be tormented in order to be any good is a Romantic view, and it is false. It is hard to do art when one is sane; how much harder it must be when one is not...
Eric is a cool dude, self taught and what not... but he is by no means the oracle with regards to what art is or what an artist should be.
I have checked out his work, by the way, and it is very much derivative... not a putdown, just an observation... so, please, lighten up.
- I have put forth the journey of an artist, the experiences he has gained on the way and his thoughts on the process. Nothing more. (And of course, each one will have their own experiences, based on so many parameters.)
Filomina,
What you say I believe is true for some artists not all. You imply a underlying need in an artist that can not be satified unless they express themselves by a process that satifies this need.
It is obvious such artists existed and no doubt may still do and they appear driven to produce their art with or without recognition or reward. One can point to Van Gogh, Modigliani, Gauguin and many others, there is little difference in dying of syphylis or tuberculosis in a garret in Paris or a grass hut in Polynesia and just as stupid.
Is suffering for your art such a sensible idea? Surely staying alive and healthy is a first requirement. And who is to say that this need is genuine that an artist who appears driven to create at any cost is in really driven to aquire fame and fortune? In not succeeding to these desires and failing, might he not attempt to justify his failure by claiming it was the process that drove him and not the potential gratification.?
Yet there are worse fates for an artist of this kind and another form of death. I am thinking of all the nameless artistic drones who due to economic talent whose talent is lost to and submerged in advertising and although feeding their families settle fo designing well a packaging for mundane products or illustrating commercially. Are they right in doing their duty to society and ding the best they can in the circumstances the world presents to them or they not doing their duty by not fulfilling their personal needs and possible denying the world of something more wonderful that the may have ceated?
What I ask is another question and I think Chris alludes to this? When does the business of promotion and explaination become a requirement? At what point does it become the prime aim and the role of the artist? How much importance should be placed on the meaning of a work of art and its ability to communicate visually? Which is, is it not, what visual art is supposed to do.
- I was wondering if ‘humanity’ would suit better in the question than ‘society’ but nevertheless…
Brian, you question, "Is suffering for your art such a sensible idea?" My answer would be no, its not.
But on the other hand, the issue isn’t a matter of choice. Artists don’t choose to suffer, its just that they have no choice. I think the following quote sums it up beautifully.
“The biographies of great artists make it abundantly clear that the creative urge is often so imperious that it battens on their humanity and yokes everything to the service of the work, even at the cost of health and ordinary human happiness. The unborn work in the psyche of the artist is a force of nature that achieves its end either with tyrannical might or with the subtle cunning of nature herself, quite regardless of the personal fate of the man who is its vehicle.” (Carl Gustav Jung)
When the artist wants to be true to his nature/character, he has no choice but to question himself, challenge himself, experiment, struggle to do better, work on to satisfy his quest, so on and so forth, all this causes a kind of stress/struggle and as a by-product of all these activities, he suffers (not all, by default but most do) It does not mean that the artist is sitting and brooding 24/7 or has no fun in his life at all but because art occupies his whole life, he has no choice but to carry on the path, taking along whatever comes his way. (Nothing romantic about it though, as some would like to believe.)
As some artists’ quests come to fructification, all their struggles are seen/felt in the works they created which may, eventually, brings them fame and fortune. But the prime intention of an artist is to get the idea out, like he envisions it.
If a visual artist has to explain his works in words, then he absolutely has failed in his job as a visual artist. If he could explain his idea better in words than he could paint, he is better off being a writer/orator because it will do much justice to his original idea of expressing himself in that manner.
On the other hand, there are some artists who want to be popular and want to gather fame. If they can achieve that, nothing can beat it. There are also artists who are very much satisfied with what they do and find pleasure in their works, nothing against it either.
In the end, it is not really the artists that are important, but the works they created and the impact it has/d on society that matters. (On a lighter note, the artists are not put up in an auction, only their works are.)
Andy Warhol projected his time of popular culture with the society’s obsession with glamour and fame much in a same manner Hirst is doing today with his art - showing the dead and decay, putting it all on the pedestal and making them pay handsomely for it. I think both will go in history, if we like it or not, because of the statements they made with their works.
What you say I believe is true for some artists not all. You imply a underlying need in an artist that can not be satified unless they express themselves by a process that satifies this need.
It is obvious such artists existed and no doubt may still do and they appear driven to produce their art with or without recognition or reward. One can point to Van Gogh, Modigliani, Gauguin and many others, there is little difference in dying of syphylis or tuberculosis in a garret in Paris or a grass hut in Polynesia and just as stupid.
Is suffering for your art such a sensible idea? Surely staying alive and healthy is a first requirement. And who is to say that this need is genuine that an artist who appears driven to create at any cost is in really driven to aquire fame and fortune? In not succeeding to these desires and failing, might he not attempt to justify his failure by claiming it was the process that drove him and not the potential gratification.?
Yet there are worse fates for an artist of this kind and another form of death. I am thinking of all the nameless artistic drones who due to economic talent whose talent is lost to and submerged in advertising and although feeding their families settle fo designing well a packaging for mundane products or illustrating commercially. Are they right in doing their duty to society and ding the best they can in the circumstances the world presents to them or they not doing their duty by not fulfilling their personal needs and possible denying the world of something more wonderful that the may have ceated?
What I ask is another question and I think Chris alludes to this? When does the business of promotion and explaination become a requirement? At what point does it become the prime aim and the role of the artist? How much importance should be placed on the meaning of a work of art and its ability to communicate visually? Which is, is it not, what visual art is supposed to do.
- I was wondering if ‘humanity’ would suit better in the question than ‘society’ but nevertheless…
Brian, you question, "Is suffering for your art such a sensible idea?" My answer would be no, its not.
But on the other hand, the issue isn’t a matter of choice. Artists don’t choose to suffer, its just that they have no choice. I think the following quote sums it up beautifully.
“The biographies of great artists make it abundantly clear that the creative urge is often so imperious that it battens on their humanity and yokes everything to the service of the work, even at the cost of health and ordinary human happiness. The unborn work in the psyche of the artist is a force of nature that achieves its end either with tyrannical might or with the subtle cunning of nature herself, quite regardless of the personal fate of the man who is its vehicle.” (Carl Gustav Jung)
When the artist wants to be true to his nature/character, he has no choice but to question himself, challenge himself, experiment, struggle to do better, work on to satisfy his quest, so on and so forth, all this causes a kind of stress/struggle and as a by-product of all these activities, he suffers (not all, by default but most do) It does not mean that the artist is sitting and brooding 24/7 or has no fun in his life at all but because art occupies his whole life, he has no choice but to carry on the path, taking along whatever comes his way. (Nothing romantic about it though, as some would like to believe.)
As some artists’ quests come to fructification, all their struggles are seen/felt in the works they created which may, eventually, brings them fame and fortune. But the prime intention of an artist is to get the idea out, like he envisions it.
If a visual artist has to explain his works in words, then he absolutely has failed in his job as a visual artist. If he could explain his idea better in words than he could paint, he is better off being a writer/orator because it will do much justice to his original idea of expressing himself in that manner.
On the other hand, there are some artists who want to be popular and want to gather fame. If they can achieve that, nothing can beat it. There are also artists who are very much satisfied with what they do and find pleasure in their works, nothing against it either.
In the end, it is not really the artists that are important, but the works they created and the impact it has/d on society that matters. (On a lighter note, the artists are not put up in an auction, only their works are.)
Andy Warhol projected his time of popular culture with the society’s obsession with glamour and fame much in a same manner Hirst is doing today with his art - showing the dead and decay, putting it all on the pedestal and making them pay handsomely for it. I think both will go in history, if we like it or not, because of the statements they made with their works.
Filomina; the prime intent of an artist is not to "get the idea out", to publicise it as you suggest but rather simply to create. If you're going to fall down in the forest and you really Need an auditor to hear it then you are not a tree.
- Thanks Mark for pointing it out. The sentence is misleading.
I had to mention ..out ‘of himself’..the prime intention of an artist is to get the idea out ‘of himself’, like he envisions it.
Artists (not just painters, any artist) carry an innate urge (Art is born in, another point of discussion maybe, art is a part of who they are, their identity,) which has to come out. It’s like it has to take birth. It cannot be otherwise or else it becomes a frustration.
This also sheds more light on the ‘struggling’ part of being an artist. They are trying to get the idea out of themselves (so its more of an internal battle) and they cannot stop till it is out (which makes them behave abnormally, now this makes me think what is normal?) and in effect it becomes an obsession, leading to some amazing outcome.
I think to achieve greatness or to achieve anything at all for that matter, everyone has to pay/has paid the price it demands/ed.
Filomina,
That is a very Romantic view of the artist, the lonely genius working in a garret, cutting his/her ear off in desperation, trying to prove a point... one I certainly don't subscribe to.
For one, there is o such thing as complete originality; everybody is borne within a culture, and that culture puts its stamp on everything that person will do, think or create.
Learning the craft of art requires an understanding of the medium's history, best practices and an understanding of the past achievements...
Being sad, depressed and lonely about one's art is not constructive in any way...
Sure, being focused and involved and pushing the boundaries of the medium, improving on one's skill set, and moving past one has already done is important...
I find the doom and gloom, however, quite funny :-D
- Really? You find the lives of Gauguin, Van Gogh, Munch, Bacon, et al, to be funny?
Quoting Eric, “Van Gogh came out of the impressionists. He wanted to depict nature in a realistic manner. But on the way he discovered that this did not satisfy his creative need. So he struggled to find a way to put his ‘felt’ emotions and the ‘reality’ he saw, on canvas. That struggle brought forth works which stood out from the impressionists and this is what I meant by ‘original’ and ‘unique’ because it was never done before.
Every artist starts with what is available to him. Most artists play around with what comes handy but some try to dig deeper. They walk the untrodden path/s (which also makes them insecure and doubtful and questioning, if they are on the right way.) But going through these negative phases, most probably, are the only ways to discover something new. By trying to find new ways of expressions, by experimenting and re challenging, some come to almost entirely unique results. And these are the works we call ‘masterpieces’, eventually.
If you see in the past, to touch a cord in the viewer, artists have experienced excesses in their lives. Their struggle to bring out the deepest emotions, in its purest form, did not come about without emotional upheavals.
The most ‘wonderful’ ‘masterpieces’ are created out of an innate urge to create something, never seen before.
The difference between art and craft is: craft is something you fill your day with; Art is an unstoppable inner urge, which occupies your life.”
That is a very Romantic view of the artist, the lonely genius working in a garret, cutting his/her ear off in desperation, trying to prove a point... one I certainly don't subscribe to.
For one, there is o such thing as complete originality; everybody is borne within a culture, and that culture puts its stamp on everything that person will do, think or create.
Learning the craft of art requires an understanding of the medium's history, best practices and an understanding of the past achievements...
Being sad, depressed and lonely about one's art is not constructive in any way...
Sure, being focused and involved and pushing the boundaries of the medium, improving on one's skill set, and moving past one has already done is important...
I find the doom and gloom, however, quite funny :-D
- Really? You find the lives of Gauguin, Van Gogh, Munch, Bacon, et al, to be funny?
Quoting Eric, “Van Gogh came out of the impressionists. He wanted to depict nature in a realistic manner. But on the way he discovered that this did not satisfy his creative need. So he struggled to find a way to put his ‘felt’ emotions and the ‘reality’ he saw, on canvas. That struggle brought forth works which stood out from the impressionists and this is what I meant by ‘original’ and ‘unique’ because it was never done before.
Every artist starts with what is available to him. Most artists play around with what comes handy but some try to dig deeper. They walk the untrodden path/s (which also makes them insecure and doubtful and questioning, if they are on the right way.) But going through these negative phases, most probably, are the only ways to discover something new. By trying to find new ways of expressions, by experimenting and re challenging, some come to almost entirely unique results. And these are the works we call ‘masterpieces’, eventually.
If you see in the past, to touch a cord in the viewer, artists have experienced excesses in their lives. Their struggle to bring out the deepest emotions, in its purest form, did not come about without emotional upheavals.
The most ‘wonderful’ ‘masterpieces’ are created out of an innate urge to create something, never seen before.
The difference between art and craft is: craft is something you fill your day with; Art is an unstoppable inner urge, which occupies your life.”
Filomina,
I think what you describe about the character of artists could be termed obsession. This condition is not the sole property of those with artistic skills. Obsession can be destructive not only to the person with the problem, it is a problem, but to those around them.
This undoudtably is the nature shared by many artists and high achievers in all walks of life and for them all, because it affords them no rest ( no rest for the wicked) it is exhausting and debilitating and ultimately, psychologically and physically damaging, not the best scenario for the production of work.
I think there is a medium way. Being driven to achieve a high level of level of excellence, in any sphere' requires the ability to pace oneself, to recognise one's limitations, to allow oneself periods of rest and recuperation. The condition you descibe may well indicate a form of bi-polar which is delusion and mania followed after the 'high' by the trough of depression. That many artists suffer thus does not mean it is the norm. Bright stars though do tend to burn brightly and burn out quickly too.
Mania is not mandatory in the artist's make up, it is not the prerequisite for greatness. Those that are manic, are as human beings, to some extent defective and can cause harm but can also be responsible for creating and ahieving greatness, (not always), but at what cost?
-- Don't mean to interrupt but if I may go on to note few things on the topic discussed before your entry : It does take immense amount of time, effort and patience on the artist’s part to portray the world, with humans in all its glories and follies, as he sees it. The onus is on the artist because he is the medium between the world of idea/thought and the visual realization of it.
In effect an artist has to experience the world, to know how he would like to project what he sees and with lot of experimentation, materialize his experiences visually. Like I mentioned in my previous posts the artist has to do a lot of research, thinking, trial and errors, which is not easy. Sometime even a life time is not enough. Just to be technically brilliant (like Irena mentioned, many lack it) takes years. Besides that, the subject matter – WHAT to do – can take long time(differs from individual to individual) the experimentation – HOW to accomplish the thought/idea to the best of ones abilities and within his own limitations–can take maybe half a life time or more. One may achieve the technical brilliance but lack the vision, other may have the vision but fall short of the experience etc etc. If an artist is not driven enough, to go on without any guarantees of reward during his lifetime or after, is unable to accomplish the aim because of the costs involved. But on the other hand, one cannot have the cake and eat it too, stands true.
The artists, who, single mindedly, go after their aim and achieve the desired result, irrespective of the disagreeable conditions: mental, physical or otherwise, are the ones who make history because all their efforts, their struggle, their labor, is seen and felt in their works. And so we have only so many in a century who, surmounting the obstacles reach the pinnacle and are glorified for their accomplishments, even after they are no more. One example of such scenario is the recent auction record of Bacon’s work.
Looking at the current state of the art around, one wonders how many artists are willing to put in the efforts it needs and the demand it makes or the cost one has to pay to achieve all this.
I think what you describe about the character of artists could be termed obsession. This condition is not the sole property of those with artistic skills. Obsession can be destructive not only to the person with the problem, it is a problem, but to those around them.
This undoudtably is the nature shared by many artists and high achievers in all walks of life and for them all, because it affords them no rest ( no rest for the wicked) it is exhausting and debilitating and ultimately, psychologically and physically damaging, not the best scenario for the production of work.
I think there is a medium way. Being driven to achieve a high level of level of excellence, in any sphere' requires the ability to pace oneself, to recognise one's limitations, to allow oneself periods of rest and recuperation. The condition you descibe may well indicate a form of bi-polar which is delusion and mania followed after the 'high' by the trough of depression. That many artists suffer thus does not mean it is the norm. Bright stars though do tend to burn brightly and burn out quickly too.
Mania is not mandatory in the artist's make up, it is not the prerequisite for greatness. Those that are manic, are as human beings, to some extent defective and can cause harm but can also be responsible for creating and ahieving greatness, (not always), but at what cost?
-- Don't mean to interrupt but if I may go on to note few things on the topic discussed before your entry : It does take immense amount of time, effort and patience on the artist’s part to portray the world, with humans in all its glories and follies, as he sees it. The onus is on the artist because he is the medium between the world of idea/thought and the visual realization of it.
In effect an artist has to experience the world, to know how he would like to project what he sees and with lot of experimentation, materialize his experiences visually. Like I mentioned in my previous posts the artist has to do a lot of research, thinking, trial and errors, which is not easy. Sometime even a life time is not enough. Just to be technically brilliant (like Irena mentioned, many lack it) takes years. Besides that, the subject matter – WHAT to do – can take long time(differs from individual to individual) the experimentation – HOW to accomplish the thought/idea to the best of ones abilities and within his own limitations–can take maybe half a life time or more. One may achieve the technical brilliance but lack the vision, other may have the vision but fall short of the experience etc etc. If an artist is not driven enough, to go on without any guarantees of reward during his lifetime or after, is unable to accomplish the aim because of the costs involved. But on the other hand, one cannot have the cake and eat it too, stands true.
The artists, who, single mindedly, go after their aim and achieve the desired result, irrespective of the disagreeable conditions: mental, physical or otherwise, are the ones who make history because all their efforts, their struggle, their labor, is seen and felt in their works. And so we have only so many in a century who, surmounting the obstacles reach the pinnacle and are glorified for their accomplishments, even after they are no more. One example of such scenario is the recent auction record of Bacon’s work.
Looking at the current state of the art around, one wonders how many artists are willing to put in the efforts it needs and the demand it makes or the cost one has to pay to achieve all this.
One installation I think of as pure genius is "A Thousand Years" by Damian Hirst:
http://www.damienhirst.com/a-thousand-years
Re: Hirst...And it is after this point, I was wondering, if Hirst’s artistic journey was stalled or fulfilled? He came up with an idea, materialized it and Charles Saatchi bought it. Not just that but commissioned Hirst and then we have, ‘The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’ for 50,000 pounds in 1991 …it all clicked. I also have wondered if Mr. Saatchi did not come in the picture, would Hirst have gone on to make something else? But then, it would be like thinking, ‘if my cat was a cow, I would get milk from my cat.” On the other hand, this is how evolution happens, in art and otherwise and we have to live with it, if we like it or not. I think Hirst short changed the 'artists' (I could be wrong) or if we think an artist’s art reflects the society he lives in, doesn’t Hirst’s art depict it wonderfully then?
....The casual disrespect for both the living and the dead (Cow) is appalling. 'I have the money to do this (as Fiona pointed out) and it's bound to shake some trees, let's do it!' ....
- Mark…Hirst did not have money then (when he made “A thousand years’, the installation in discussion) he had to borrow from friends for this one. Money came in just after this work when Mr. Saatchi bought it and then paid more for another one…and that is where I wondered if Hirst’s artistic journey was stalled/cut short, with all the money and demand for more, coming in. And also wondered, if he would have done something else (installation or otherwise, to convey his idea in a 'better' manner) had Mr. Saatchi not come in the picture.
....His 'Self portrait with a dead bittern' has none of these qualities and the fact that the bird is dead seems to be a case for celebration. On the other hand his 'Doctor Tulp demonstrating dissecting of an arm' is another matter. Here we are presented with a cold clinical anatomy lesson, there is no emotion other than keen curiosity. Death in he form of the cadaver is treated completely without any obvious sympathy, compassion has been set aside in the pursuit of science.
In his 'Blinding of Samsom by the Philistines' he knocks our socks off . His full frontal depiction of Samson.s eyes being gourged out, is uncompromisingly horrific and pulls absolutely no punches. There is in fact no lack of shock, horror , blood, guts, grisle and bone in Rembrandt some of the most shocking and disturbing images are in his scenes of the Passion ( they rival Mel Gibson's film on the subject). It is Rembrandt's unflinching ability to confront mortality ( his own included) with an absolute lack of idealisim or 'softening the blow' as it were , I consider might well be an early forrunner to what we see in the image posted so bravely by dear Titus.
One can understand how after many stepping stones have been trodden, from Rembrandt
(and Rembrandt was also influenced by those before him) how eventually, we are led to
Francis Bacon. And is it any wonder we learn, that Bacon is claimed by Damien Hirst to be his idol and major influence? .....
- Brian…Your comparisons are quite nice. Hirst’s idea is great but the execution of it, that is where I have a problem and think Hirst took short cut in the process ….and that is why I said Hirst short changed the artists (or maybe if we were to know more about his fascination/obsession with ‘decay’, his installation will be understood in a manner he meant it. (example with Bacon in the following para) (and here again, we are at the ‘struggle of an artist’ part about which we discussed much earlier in the thread... Joop missed that I think). It is becoming increasing difficult for artists to come up with ways to materialize an idea because so much has already been done and basically, it is (only) about life…and death and everything in between, of course, one can art about.
Example - Like when Reine said about Bacon.. “the great with the distortions of the figures put us in desper, we are spectators of a desaster, in front of a man, incapable to escape from his suffering condition…” We know of Bacon’s asthmatic condition. While he was gasping for each breath and death was right in front of him, his father sent him on horse backs, wanting to make his ‘sickly’ boy ‘healthy’ making Bacon’s condition even worse… and then Bacon’s resilience..overcoming death each time the asthma attack passed. It was a surprise how he survived so long with such a damaged body.….or that of his homosexuality….where there is no escape… all these are Bacon’s personal experiences and he found a way to depict all these in his work.
Filomina.
Re Hirst and history.
Another thing Robert Hughes said in regard to Hirst's shark exhibit (it isn't art, not in my book), was that he would sooner look at a dead halibut in a fishmonger's shop window. (Or words to that effect.)
- Brian, I am aware of what Mr. Hughes said about Andy Warhol. Hirst’s work may not be art in your (and many others) book but they will be mentioned in the books, I said because of the statements they made with their works. This does not mean that I like or dislike their works, it’s just that they made something which made a mark in history that opened discussion and put people on thinking, just like Duchamp did with his ‘Fountain’.
Re Hirst and history.
Another thing Robert Hughes said in regard to Hirst's shark exhibit (it isn't art, not in my book), was that he would sooner look at a dead halibut in a fishmonger's shop window. (Or words to that effect.)
- Brian, I am aware of what Mr. Hughes said about Andy Warhol. Hirst’s work may not be art in your (and many others) book but they will be mentioned in the books, I said because of the statements they made with their works. This does not mean that I like or dislike their works, it’s just that they made something which made a mark in history that opened discussion and put people on thinking, just like Duchamp did with his ‘Fountain’.
Filomena, re your comment-
"...artist's art reflecting the society he live's in,......'
' For the Love of God', Hirst's diamond studded skull was/is loaded with interpretations..
On opening night PV, the place was full of the world's Glitterati. A statement in itself.
Hirst is well known for taking other peoples idea's and moving onwards with them. His Shark was originally seen in a shop window front in Brick Lane...
Hirst had the money- the financial backing to do what he wanted.
'For the Love of God', is a statement commonly used by my parents generation and verbalised in a tone of exasperation...
Who knows, but was this work created in this same tone???? What can I get away with next??? Hirst really shot himself in the foot -so to speak, and hasn't yet recovered...he played the market. In this he had a strong voice, and this voice remains hanging over 'art' in its relationship to the 'market' etc....
His work was important.
Fiona… I have no doubt about Hirst’s work being important if we talk about contemporary art and I also mentioned this maybe 100 or so posts before. Copying it here…
“…Brian, I am aware of what Mr. Hughes said about Andy Warhol. Hirst’s work may not be art in your (and many others) book but they will be mentioned in the books, I said because of the statements they made with their works. This does not mean that I like or dislike their works, it’s just that they made something which made a mark in history that opened discussion and put people on thinking, just like Duchamp did with his ‘Fountain’….”
So undeniably (for me) Hirst will be mentioned in the art history but if it is with the same respect that Bacon and others commanded, that I doubt. (and I could be proven wrong of course but that will be clear only after couple or few decades later, I think, when we look back and compare.)
WHAT DOES THE ARTIST OWE SOCIETY?
- Artists just have keep doing what they do to the best of their abilities, with or without gratification, personal and/or societal, I think.
- Artists just have keep doing what they do to the best of their abilities, with or without gratification, personal and/or societal, I think.
And this on art and science.'Art even the simplest, is an expression of truths too complex for science to express, or for science to express, or to conveniently express. This is not to say that science is in some way inferior to art, but that that they have different purposes and different uses. Art is a human shorthand of knowledge, a crucible, an algebra, a tremendous condensing, in the case of great art, of galaxies of thoughts, facts, memories, emotions, events, experiences- to ten lines of Macbeth, to six bars of Bach, to a square foot of canvas in a Rembrandt.'
- Absolutely… "Art is a human shorthand of knowledge…in case of great art..." I cannot help but like to give a link here because this exactly what the artist felt when he created these works. In his words, "what fascinated me tremendously was the compactness, the entanglement of fragments of real memories, thoughts, experiences, illusions and fantasies becoming symbolic stories. It looked as if the real and the intuitive world were intermixing". Eric G. C. Weets. http://ericgcweets.weebly.com/painting-number-2.html Do click on the fragments to see the details. Sadly, the monitor does not do justice to the original work.
Wow! Filomina,
Just clicked onto a couple of fragments and was astounded by the intricacy of the drawings.
The only thing I have seen resembling anything like this assemblage of imagery, is some Chinese and Indonesion paintings.
Such a pity the images are reproduced at such a small size. One would need a great deal of iconic understanding to make the most of them.
- This is another large scale work but maybe gives better picture of what is happening as these are work in progress images. http://ericgcweets.weebly.com/work-in-progress-images.html
I'll give you my take on it, Mark... and Brian...
I am looking at the images posted by Filomina and the first thing I see is noise, similar to TV noise: an even distribution of black and white, no up, no down, no right or left, which means that the idea of composition/weight is not part of the work of or this discussion. (I think composition is the most important aspect of any image).
The work has no structure whatsoever; it is amorphous. There is no composition and no contrast; (given that it's b&w I'm not expecting to see colour schemes being developed, but at least some contrast of textures, if not of value... if you look at these images in terms of texture, there is none, or, there is one even texture on the entire surface...
We get closer, to the point of discerning what produces all this noise, and we see graffiti type doodles, Picasso cliches drawn Keith Haring + comic book style... not very well drawn at all.. a type of obsessive-compulsive spewing of random doodles...
"A doodle is an unfocused or unconscious drawing made while a person's attention is otherwise occupied." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodle
It is obvious that Eric is self-taught, a very 'naive' artist, and this is why I am resistant to the wisdom he is imparting...
- Mark - Yes, Mr. Weets has painted landscapes, portraits, extreme figurative, hyper realist, surrealist paintings and abstract art. He has made digital art, animations and sound scapes (I have uploaded some examples of his oil paintings (in color) and works in digital media on my profile, pls do have a look.)
Weets wanted to capture the passing thoughts or rather fragments of thoughts as, when and how they occurred, on the canvas, without or as less as possible interfering in the process. So there is no composition, no pre-planning. These are, one can say, doodles, extended into paintings or automatic drawings because the artist wanted to see how far he can go, without his conscious involvement.
Weets is a self taught artist and has studied art history, especially the works of Kandinsky, Klee, Miro, Gauguin, Cezanne, Bosch, Goya, the Flemish primitives, Ensor, ancient history and cultures and so of course all this has influenced his work, it could not be otherwise. Artist quote, “It is my belief that I cannot paint what I have never seen before and so I am able to create new objects and entities out of what I have seen, from my young and the adult life. You will find in my work everything that plays a part in daily reality, including childhood beliefs carried unconsciously into the adult mind and more conscious experiences, learned by observation and study”.
The innate urge of the artist, to create unique works, lead him on a path where he discovered a way to depict the vastness of our contemporary world, densely. The almost chaotic, nonetheless, homogeneous overview and the omnipresent focal point, encourage the viewer to find his own way to approach and understand the works, without leading or guiding him in a direction. This freedom not only allows a viewer to navigate and venture in a manner that suit him best but also presents him with a challenge: to view and study these paintings in radically different manner.
Chat: I am aware of Mr. Dubuffet's work and the art brut/outsider art.
- Absolutely… "Art is a human shorthand of knowledge…in case of great art..." I cannot help but like to give a link here because this exactly what the artist felt when he created these works. In his words, "what fascinated me tremendously was the compactness, the entanglement of fragments of real memories, thoughts, experiences, illusions and fantasies becoming symbolic stories. It looked as if the real and the intuitive world were intermixing". Eric G. C. Weets. http://ericgcweets.weebly.com/painting-number-2.html Do click on the fragments to see the details. Sadly, the monitor does not do justice to the original work.
Wow! Filomina,
Just clicked onto a couple of fragments and was astounded by the intricacy of the drawings.
The only thing I have seen resembling anything like this assemblage of imagery, is some Chinese and Indonesion paintings.
Such a pity the images are reproduced at such a small size. One would need a great deal of iconic understanding to make the most of them.
- This is another large scale work but maybe gives better picture of what is happening as these are work in progress images. http://ericgcweets.weebly.com/work-in-progress-images.html
I'll give you my take on it, Mark... and Brian...
I am looking at the images posted by Filomina and the first thing I see is noise, similar to TV noise: an even distribution of black and white, no up, no down, no right or left, which means that the idea of composition/weight is not part of the work of or this discussion. (I think composition is the most important aspect of any image).
The work has no structure whatsoever; it is amorphous. There is no composition and no contrast; (given that it's b&w I'm not expecting to see colour schemes being developed, but at least some contrast of textures, if not of value... if you look at these images in terms of texture, there is none, or, there is one even texture on the entire surface...
We get closer, to the point of discerning what produces all this noise, and we see graffiti type doodles, Picasso cliches drawn Keith Haring + comic book style... not very well drawn at all.. a type of obsessive-compulsive spewing of random doodles...
"A doodle is an unfocused or unconscious drawing made while a person's attention is otherwise occupied." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodle
It is obvious that Eric is self-taught, a very 'naive' artist, and this is why I am resistant to the wisdom he is imparting...
- Mark - Yes, Mr. Weets has painted landscapes, portraits, extreme figurative, hyper realist, surrealist paintings and abstract art. He has made digital art, animations and sound scapes (I have uploaded some examples of his oil paintings (in color) and works in digital media on my profile, pls do have a look.)
Weets wanted to capture the passing thoughts or rather fragments of thoughts as, when and how they occurred, on the canvas, without or as less as possible interfering in the process. So there is no composition, no pre-planning. These are, one can say, doodles, extended into paintings or automatic drawings because the artist wanted to see how far he can go, without his conscious involvement.
Weets is a self taught artist and has studied art history, especially the works of Kandinsky, Klee, Miro, Gauguin, Cezanne, Bosch, Goya, the Flemish primitives, Ensor, ancient history and cultures and so of course all this has influenced his work, it could not be otherwise. Artist quote, “It is my belief that I cannot paint what I have never seen before and so I am able to create new objects and entities out of what I have seen, from my young and the adult life. You will find in my work everything that plays a part in daily reality, including childhood beliefs carried unconsciously into the adult mind and more conscious experiences, learned by observation and study”.
The innate urge of the artist, to create unique works, lead him on a path where he discovered a way to depict the vastness of our contemporary world, densely. The almost chaotic, nonetheless, homogeneous overview and the omnipresent focal point, encourage the viewer to find his own way to approach and understand the works, without leading or guiding him in a direction. This freedom not only allows a viewer to navigate and venture in a manner that suit him best but also presents him with a challenge: to view and study these paintings in radically different manner.
Chat: I am aware of Mr. Dubuffet's work and the art brut/outsider art.
An artist's suffering to create his/her art and complete sacrifice to the process could come from the following quote I would like to mention here and thought it is relevant to Patrice's comment above. "Making art is fun, some say. Making art is no fun. It’s a torture. An artist has to accept going through a lot of depression, lot of not being happy with oneself, not being happy with others. Till he comes somewhere…but still, it shall anyways, never satisfy him (except when he is old, little bit demented and then he simply does what he always did and be happy with what he does.) But till that time he cannot be satisfied. An artist has to sit alone in a room, cracking his brains, thinking goddamn where am I going wrong? How and what can I do better? Because there is always something more he didn’t see yet, didn’t feel yet and no sooner than he gives in on himself saying I don’t want to torture myself anymore, he is on the wrong way and then he makes nothing worth to be spoken about." Eric G. C. Weets - art painter.
Beauty has nothing to do with Art. Marcel DuChamp answered it best, "Art is what the artist says it is!!!"
- True but then, who or what decides - who is an artist?
- True but then, who or what decides - who is an artist?
Is being self taught better than spending years at Art School?
It really differs from person to person.
Formal education can curb development of the creative mind because there is more effort put in learning the techniques than freedom of expression. Of course it differs from art school to art school; there are teachers who allow the students to explore their own creativity. On the other hand, if somebody is born to be an artist, it will come out, with or without formal education because he has the innate urge, the discipline and the will which will make him experiment with materials and styles boldly, disregarding the rules.
It really differs from person to person.
Formal education can curb development of the creative mind because there is more effort put in learning the techniques than freedom of expression. Of course it differs from art school to art school; there are teachers who allow the students to explore their own creativity. On the other hand, if somebody is born to be an artist, it will come out, with or without formal education because he has the innate urge, the discipline and the will which will make him experiment with materials and styles boldly, disregarding the rules.
Hello, Filomina.
I have to disagree. I have never seen art done by someone with no training that was any good. It was art, (because everything qualifies) but stunted, limited, unrealized. If you look at all of art history, thousands of years of it, there has been only one case - Rousseau - of an artist with no formal training that did work worth remembering.
Education is the only thing that teaches the syntax, the language, art is spoken with. That language is not obvious, and almost no one other than artists know it. And education is the one way people learn about enough ideas and possibilities - and learn to understand their implications - to allow their work to be about informed choices. If one is uninformed, there are unlikely to be such choices available to their minds. Their souls may desire expression, but they have no idea how to say what they mean, and are unaware of all the things they CAN mean.
-Hello Daniel. I mean no formal training. Self taught artists do teach themselves what all is required to make their work. Francis Bacon had no formal training. He was mostly self taught, no? Man Ray was a self taught photographer and these are just couple of names in the visual arts, who became well known for their works.
G'Day Filomina, Thanks for the response. I think you have probably misread what I had to say. I did NOT write artists create with the intention of making money. As an artist they paint or whatever they do. Making money has nothing to do with that.
I did say that artists are PROFESSIONAL when they have a career as a result of being an artist. This commonly involves selling works.
-Hello Graeme, You did not say it, I stated it.
“I did say that artists are PROFESSIONAL when they have a career as a result of being an artist.” If you put it this way, then you are right.
A profession requires the professional to follow a certain set of rules; they have no freedom in it. I mean imagine a dentist or an architect doing what they pleased, most probably it would be a disaster. For an artist, to create his/her art, there are no set of rules, the only rules they follow strictly are the ones they make for themselves and so they have the freedom and in that sense, art cannot be a profession.
"An artist who stops practicing art is committing emotional suicide".
Art is embodied in form of an artist. (There is no option of choice for them.)
Art is embodied in form of an artist. (There is no option of choice for them.)
Hi / Filomena and Graeme.
In 1921/22 Max Ernst threw canvasses and paper on the rough worn floor and made pencil rubbings which became his starting point. He also listened to "Automative" poetry and writing
of Breton. This made way to many of the Surrealists, Masson did scribbles and ink shooting into wet paper.(1924) from which strange dream like landscapes and objects would arise This whole movement of Poets, Artists, and writers called 'Automative Art ".So its not new.....but is fun to explore on many levels.
- Hello Dave
Max Ernst and most of the other surrealists experimented with automatic drawings under the influence of Freud, Jung etc (psychoanalysis) Most of the surrealists used automatic drawing as a starting point to build on their figurative-surreal compositions but there were also some artists like Miro, Klee who saw automatic drawing on its own, as an end result.
Some automatic drawings are a kind of doodles but making a doodle on a small paper or a corner of a page, do not say much on its own. What is most fascinating to see is: when one continues drawing, say for 8 hours a day, without considering what is already down on the canvas and what is still to come, and continue this for minimum of couple of months, one will discover that there is so much more going on in one’s mind than one ever thought was possible. Not only everything one learnt or saw in one’s life comes to the surface but also a complete fantasy world, with most amazing figures next to childlike doodles, come to fore.
You can say that Eric carried the baton of automatic drawings of the 1920’s into the 21st century’s contemporary context. Explaining it in the following paragraphs, addressed to Rosa.
Quote Eric, “I keep the flow of creativity going on my works, by keeping the conscious mind busy with good music”.
Filomena.
Oh....I just seen the progressing work. And I find it fascinating. I know how you partner can draw. My oldest son is left handed too, and they really are handicapped with starting to draw. I love the idea, and above all, I find it that this is a real statement about how our intelctual brain could be "mapped"....with all these objects so finely drawn, are alll tight the ones with the others and are emerging literally from our "intelectual magma". I do love it. I have posted it into my FB wall. It remembers much of the idea of my own son, that loves the intricate and small, the detailed shapes and the natural opening of his inner soul.
Kind regards from Bilbao, Spain
- Hello Rosa, Thanks for your comment and for posting the link on your FB wall. Love your …emerging literally from our "intelectual magma” and ‘..how our intelctual brain could be "mapped"...expressions.
Quote Eric, “I understood that the way I wanted to express myself, what I believed in, I could not do that in abstraction, in a normal figurative painting or expressionistic work, (I did those as well) but I had to find something else”.
Eric’s first experiment with automatic drawings was in a sketch book with pencil. He filled up the sketch book with almost everything that came up in his mind. It looked that the longer he went on, the more fascinating the figures became.
Then he drew tiny figurative and non figurative objects with Indian ink on a quite large drawing sheet. He started at the top right corner, filling up the entire page, without thinking twice. What he had in mind was to make an abstract, built up with figurative images. When one sees the drawing from some short distance even, it looks like a grey haze. So, what one sees is nothing, being built up of thousands of somethings.
He continued the same process on much larger scale on canvas in 2007, to show the complexity of life on earth, the compactness and the entanglement of ‘everything’, and how, it seems, that ‘everything’ cannot live with or without each other.
What he does in his work, is just the opposite of simplifying. He puts so much he can, on one painting to show how close and interconnected things are as you observed it ‘..all tight..’... Some details are figurative, some are pure symbolic or illusionary.
A spectator cannot have an overview at once. It is especially true with his big paintings. One has to go close by to examine what is in front of him. When he is close to that part, the rest is out of his vision. So to examine the whole painting, the viewer has to, in a manner of speaking, travel in (front of) it.
The artist compares his big works with the earth. It’s amazing to see that a planet, where every living thing is continuously busy with its survival, looks so peaceful and silent, seen from outer space.
(One major disadvantage I am facing at the moment, in showing Eric’s works on the web pages, is the size of monitor. The impact one experiences when standing in front of the originals, say 6 x 16 feet, is completely lost.)
In 1921/22 Max Ernst threw canvasses and paper on the rough worn floor and made pencil rubbings which became his starting point. He also listened to "Automative" poetry and writing
of Breton. This made way to many of the Surrealists, Masson did scribbles and ink shooting into wet paper.(1924) from which strange dream like landscapes and objects would arise This whole movement of Poets, Artists, and writers called 'Automative Art ".So its not new.....but is fun to explore on many levels.
- Hello Dave
Max Ernst and most of the other surrealists experimented with automatic drawings under the influence of Freud, Jung etc (psychoanalysis) Most of the surrealists used automatic drawing as a starting point to build on their figurative-surreal compositions but there were also some artists like Miro, Klee who saw automatic drawing on its own, as an end result.
Some automatic drawings are a kind of doodles but making a doodle on a small paper or a corner of a page, do not say much on its own. What is most fascinating to see is: when one continues drawing, say for 8 hours a day, without considering what is already down on the canvas and what is still to come, and continue this for minimum of couple of months, one will discover that there is so much more going on in one’s mind than one ever thought was possible. Not only everything one learnt or saw in one’s life comes to the surface but also a complete fantasy world, with most amazing figures next to childlike doodles, come to fore.
You can say that Eric carried the baton of automatic drawings of the 1920’s into the 21st century’s contemporary context. Explaining it in the following paragraphs, addressed to Rosa.
Quote Eric, “I keep the flow of creativity going on my works, by keeping the conscious mind busy with good music”.
Filomena.
Oh....I just seen the progressing work. And I find it fascinating. I know how you partner can draw. My oldest son is left handed too, and they really are handicapped with starting to draw. I love the idea, and above all, I find it that this is a real statement about how our intelctual brain could be "mapped"....with all these objects so finely drawn, are alll tight the ones with the others and are emerging literally from our "intelectual magma". I do love it. I have posted it into my FB wall. It remembers much of the idea of my own son, that loves the intricate and small, the detailed shapes and the natural opening of his inner soul.
Kind regards from Bilbao, Spain
- Hello Rosa, Thanks for your comment and for posting the link on your FB wall. Love your …emerging literally from our "intelectual magma” and ‘..how our intelctual brain could be "mapped"...expressions.
Quote Eric, “I understood that the way I wanted to express myself, what I believed in, I could not do that in abstraction, in a normal figurative painting or expressionistic work, (I did those as well) but I had to find something else”.
Eric’s first experiment with automatic drawings was in a sketch book with pencil. He filled up the sketch book with almost everything that came up in his mind. It looked that the longer he went on, the more fascinating the figures became.
Then he drew tiny figurative and non figurative objects with Indian ink on a quite large drawing sheet. He started at the top right corner, filling up the entire page, without thinking twice. What he had in mind was to make an abstract, built up with figurative images. When one sees the drawing from some short distance even, it looks like a grey haze. So, what one sees is nothing, being built up of thousands of somethings.
He continued the same process on much larger scale on canvas in 2007, to show the complexity of life on earth, the compactness and the entanglement of ‘everything’, and how, it seems, that ‘everything’ cannot live with or without each other.
What he does in his work, is just the opposite of simplifying. He puts so much he can, on one painting to show how close and interconnected things are as you observed it ‘..all tight..’... Some details are figurative, some are pure symbolic or illusionary.
A spectator cannot have an overview at once. It is especially true with his big paintings. One has to go close by to examine what is in front of him. When he is close to that part, the rest is out of his vision. So to examine the whole painting, the viewer has to, in a manner of speaking, travel in (front of) it.
The artist compares his big works with the earth. It’s amazing to see that a planet, where every living thing is continuously busy with its survival, looks so peaceful and silent, seen from outer space.
(One major disadvantage I am facing at the moment, in showing Eric’s works on the web pages, is the size of monitor. The impact one experiences when standing in front of the originals, say 6 x 16 feet, is completely lost.)