ART DISCUSSIONS - 2014
Filomina – although I like those ideas about automatic writing, I’m more a fan of taking a look at what’s coming out, and working with it, rather than continuing automatically, without trying to make sense (semantic &/or aesthetic) of what comes out as it’s coming out. As a poem comes out, a structure becomes apparent, that I feel it’s important to consider and adopt and employ for the rest of the poem. In music, it would be like recognizing patterns, and embracing (rather than ignoring) them – and incorporating them in the rest of that piece.
- Thanks for your input Paul.
Eric uses black oil paint/ink for his drawings/painting on canvas/paper. When he draws the first line on blank canvas, that line is the beginning. Unlike words for poems/writings, this line/mark cannot be rearranged, erased or undone. (It can be of course, even if with much difficulty but Eric’s interest is to know: how long he can go on drawing, almost automatically, without repairs or repetition)
Incorporating the first line, Eric then, draws more lines which become figures and objects. These figures and objects dictate what comes next. In this way, slowly, an almost chaotic looking world of images, emerge.
Here’s a link where you can see, in real time, how, a painting or at least a part of a painting, came into existence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMlHp7HxsE
Filomina,
When Eric began to paint he knows he will fill the entire surface of the canvas. So he knows what he will do. The big challenge in painting is the space and Eric finds the solution to this problem by filling the entire surface. The rest are details. As always painting is between the requirement of the artist and requirement of the painting.
- Hello Ksenia, Every painter knows from before that he is going to fill the canvas with paint but the real question is how?
Eric’s main challenge, in painting the way he paints, is not just filling the entire canvas but to capture the passing thought or rather fragments of thoughts on canvas as, when and how they occur and as a consequence, the entire canvas gets covered with paint. For him, the most important thing is that the flow has to stay automatic and without repetition.
When Eric began to paint he knows he will fill the entire surface of the canvas. So he knows what he will do. The big challenge in painting is the space and Eric finds the solution to this problem by filling the entire surface. The rest are details. As always painting is between the requirement of the artist and requirement of the painting.
- Hello Ksenia, Every painter knows from before that he is going to fill the canvas with paint but the real question is how?
Eric’s main challenge, in painting the way he paints, is not just filling the entire canvas but to capture the passing thought or rather fragments of thoughts on canvas as, when and how they occur and as a consequence, the entire canvas gets covered with paint. For him, the most important thing is that the flow has to stay automatic and without repetition.
Re : Picasso: He didn’t really invent anything, he took over. But he went so far in what he took over that it became unique, making him one of the genius in art history. He did not go only on techniques. It’s not how he used his paint or his brush, it’s about what he did with the subject. He put something in it so that it got a language that really talks. Guernica is one such work. Looking at it one feels the agony, the anguish, the horror, the suffering, the despair and helplessness of people, in times of war. Not many paintings evoke so many emotions. Its timeless and has become one of the iconic work of the 20th C.
That said, he did repeat himself a lot, especially when he was older. What can be expected from a man so prolific throughout his career? Yeah at eighty, he is empty... in a manner of speaking. No human can churn out masterpiece after masterpiece. Most of the artists reach their peak which can be summed up in one or two masterpieces of their lives. The rest of the works are getting there/studies/search and thereafter it all may as well be down hill... Picasso went on and on till the end because like he said ‘For my part, I can't do anything else but what I am doing’ maybe because artists just cannot stop creating, even though he did say repeating oneself is pathetic or something like that.
That said, he did repeat himself a lot, especially when he was older. What can be expected from a man so prolific throughout his career? Yeah at eighty, he is empty... in a manner of speaking. No human can churn out masterpiece after masterpiece. Most of the artists reach their peak which can be summed up in one or two masterpieces of their lives. The rest of the works are getting there/studies/search and thereafter it all may as well be down hill... Picasso went on and on till the end because like he said ‘For my part, I can't do anything else but what I am doing’ maybe because artists just cannot stop creating, even though he did say repeating oneself is pathetic or something like that.
Is not the discord mainly because some regard the world/life/humanity as being beautiful and some the opposite? And both are true, partially. It is never about just one thing, good/happy. There’s also bad/sad/ugly and whole gamut of emotions in between, on both the sides, in varying degrees. Each one tries to express the emotion/s which has/ve left mark/s on him the most, or try to encompass all of them in his work.
Human condition is going in the drain that is only partially true and so is the other side. If only we’d be honest and willing enough to see. Most of the time, it is easier to retain our sanity by closing our eyes/seeing just what we want to see than open them and see the gore around and face our helplessness.
Based on the person’s being, either he finds comfort in beautiful things or confronts the other side and face the ugliness. Sometimes someone sees both the sides, unbiased, and drawing conclusions, puts these forth in his work.
Human condition is going in the drain that is only partially true and so is the other side. If only we’d be honest and willing enough to see. Most of the time, it is easier to retain our sanity by closing our eyes/seeing just what we want to see than open them and see the gore around and face our helplessness.
Based on the person’s being, either he finds comfort in beautiful things or confronts the other side and face the ugliness. Sometimes someone sees both the sides, unbiased, and drawing conclusions, puts these forth in his work.
Filomena
Thank you so much.
Your words have contributed so much to know much about this artist. Yes I do agree that as much genious as one can be, comint to a point there is an inflexion on that and then many repeat themselves or wonder around their axis of genious.
We come to a point......is the artist a genious, or he or she come do genial works from time to time. I love to see and read and learn how people is at last. J.S. Bach was considered old fashioned in his time. He was a real genious, but above all he was a man of a carnal vitality too, and his life was not so much special but for this capacity for working and do what he "had to do". But it is obvious that taking the "cantatas" which are a huge monument of music creation he repeat many of his structures, but then you come to really "love" that kind of repetitions, or traits of his music. Take Leonardo. He has been considered a genious and famous specially by Mona Lisa, but when I see his sketches about anatomy I become dumbfounded. His mind was much more than artistis, he was a complete scientist in his way.
Thanks a lot for your contribution. I love to learn new things.
Rosa
- Rosa, genius is nothing if it is not combined with an ability to concentrate/focus on one and the same subject/project for a long long time. Then of course, the person can come to a point when s/he is able to come up with/create something unique/original, in that (any given) field. So then, how many times can such occurrences happen? One should be considered successful if it happens once in the person's lifetime, I think, to be called a genius in that field.
Thank you so much.
Your words have contributed so much to know much about this artist. Yes I do agree that as much genious as one can be, comint to a point there is an inflexion on that and then many repeat themselves or wonder around their axis of genious.
We come to a point......is the artist a genious, or he or she come do genial works from time to time. I love to see and read and learn how people is at last. J.S. Bach was considered old fashioned in his time. He was a real genious, but above all he was a man of a carnal vitality too, and his life was not so much special but for this capacity for working and do what he "had to do". But it is obvious that taking the "cantatas" which are a huge monument of music creation he repeat many of his structures, but then you come to really "love" that kind of repetitions, or traits of his music. Take Leonardo. He has been considered a genious and famous specially by Mona Lisa, but when I see his sketches about anatomy I become dumbfounded. His mind was much more than artistis, he was a complete scientist in his way.
Thanks a lot for your contribution. I love to learn new things.
Rosa
- Rosa, genius is nothing if it is not combined with an ability to concentrate/focus on one and the same subject/project for a long long time. Then of course, the person can come to a point when s/he is able to come up with/create something unique/original, in that (any given) field. So then, how many times can such occurrences happen? One should be considered successful if it happens once in the person's lifetime, I think, to be called a genius in that field.
"Work" is not synonymous with "job" - and most people use it that way, and thereby assuming it isn't all that enjoyable... just something you have to do.
So - I am saying that any effort towards a goal is "work." "Work" is a neutral word, and I don't think it can be qualified as tedious or enjoyable until you are working at something in particular. Yes - of course working at making art is enjoyable -- why would we do it otherwise?
Art was never my hobby. I was just determined to never be the starving artist and I had to spend more time and effort developing a career that paid the bills so that I could paint. I also spent a lot of time working on creative endeavors in my corporate life that were also enjoyable.
I think, that whether you are 20 or 60, when you do what you love and follow your bliss, "work" is enjoyable.
- Patrice, early on in the thread, I did post something about the artist's struggle, which you have read but did not subscribe to that point of view.
Enjoy maybe a big word to say that the artist find pleasure in the activity of painting/drawing itself. For some few artists it is absolutely not so. To work it out, meaning if s/he wishes to materialize the idea visually, the process of it can be sheer agony, demanding hours upon hours of work, draining the artist physically and mentally.
I have witnessed an artist working 90 odd DAYS for 10 - 12 hours a day on ONE painting. Why do it then? you ask. I cannot answer for others but this artist I mentioned did it because he wanted to see if he could create something which has not been done before in art, that was his aim.
The sad thing is after he came close (I say came close because he began to see flaws in his work as soon as he finished it and started on the next big work)
The rigorous ordeal took its toll and he fell sick… so the sad thing is his work is not physically exhibited yet. Can one imagine the frustration the artist must feel at this point.
Wonder how many artists have to deal with these sorts of situations here?
So - I am saying that any effort towards a goal is "work." "Work" is a neutral word, and I don't think it can be qualified as tedious or enjoyable until you are working at something in particular. Yes - of course working at making art is enjoyable -- why would we do it otherwise?
Art was never my hobby. I was just determined to never be the starving artist and I had to spend more time and effort developing a career that paid the bills so that I could paint. I also spent a lot of time working on creative endeavors in my corporate life that were also enjoyable.
I think, that whether you are 20 or 60, when you do what you love and follow your bliss, "work" is enjoyable.
- Patrice, early on in the thread, I did post something about the artist's struggle, which you have read but did not subscribe to that point of view.
Enjoy maybe a big word to say that the artist find pleasure in the activity of painting/drawing itself. For some few artists it is absolutely not so. To work it out, meaning if s/he wishes to materialize the idea visually, the process of it can be sheer agony, demanding hours upon hours of work, draining the artist physically and mentally.
I have witnessed an artist working 90 odd DAYS for 10 - 12 hours a day on ONE painting. Why do it then? you ask. I cannot answer for others but this artist I mentioned did it because he wanted to see if he could create something which has not been done before in art, that was his aim.
The sad thing is after he came close (I say came close because he began to see flaws in his work as soon as he finished it and started on the next big work)
The rigorous ordeal took its toll and he fell sick… so the sad thing is his work is not physically exhibited yet. Can one imagine the frustration the artist must feel at this point.
Wonder how many artists have to deal with these sorts of situations here?
Filomena
I agree with you. Absolutely.
Who is aiming at being a genious though....? not even once in our lives?. Any....geniality is something like a label, the others use with some person, being whatever....and of course it means quite an OUT-standing disposition and action to what is able to do. It is given in many other facets of life, since, war games, artship, medicine, science, cheff cuisine....And it is not matter of focusing, but of "uniqueness" and above all, the feeling of irrepetible or imitable quality. Yes. But I cannot forget that even in our modesty (I do not beleive that any genious is here commenting about this issue..though I may be wrong of course) we are trying to be "US" , which is something!!! and that though not altogether out-standing our work is unique too, as any soul is unique too.
Thank you so much for your insight.
Rosa
-Rosa - agree with Titus here. One cannot 'aim' at becoming genius. One is or isn't. But to figure out/bring to surface that 'uniqueness' one possesses, one needs utmost dedication, integrity and honesty in searching for it. It’s a learning process and to reach there, it takes years and mountain of patience.
Second thing to be aware of is - one has to have that uniqueness within. There is a chance that one 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 one has it or not.
I agree with you. Absolutely.
Who is aiming at being a genious though....? not even once in our lives?. Any....geniality is something like a label, the others use with some person, being whatever....and of course it means quite an OUT-standing disposition and action to what is able to do. It is given in many other facets of life, since, war games, artship, medicine, science, cheff cuisine....And it is not matter of focusing, but of "uniqueness" and above all, the feeling of irrepetible or imitable quality. Yes. But I cannot forget that even in our modesty (I do not beleive that any genious is here commenting about this issue..though I may be wrong of course) we are trying to be "US" , which is something!!! and that though not altogether out-standing our work is unique too, as any soul is unique too.
Thank you so much for your insight.
Rosa
-Rosa - agree with Titus here. One cannot 'aim' at becoming genius. One is or isn't. But to figure out/bring to surface that 'uniqueness' one possesses, one needs utmost dedication, integrity and honesty in searching for it. It’s a learning process and to reach there, it takes years and mountain of patience.
Second thing to be aware of is - one has to have that uniqueness within. There is a chance that one 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 one has it or not.
Filomena and Sheera... I have carted several artists off to the Asylum, and buried several others because they become mentally obsessive about their work....but this happens in Business. Education and is largely overcome since we began teaching time management peer mentoring and objective setting to their art skills.Keep your sanity it's the most precious thing you own. Without it....?
-Dave, have had a lengthy discussion about artists struggle/obsession on another thread. I do agree there are heavy repercussions but does anything come without a price?
Are you saying idea/creativity can be commanded at will so that it can be time managed? I doubt it. I think it’s a continuous (thinking) process.
-Dave, have had a lengthy discussion about artists struggle/obsession on another thread. I do agree there are heavy repercussions but does anything come without a price?
Are you saying idea/creativity can be commanded at will so that it can be time managed? I doubt it. I think it’s a continuous (thinking) process.
The artist MUST be concerned only about his own needs, if his needs are to create the best art he can, the clearest vision he can. Otherwise it is a compromised art. Otherwise it is art by committee.
Expression, complete and full, is the artist's concern. The artist presses out from within himself his whole being. That expression is done using the visual syntax that both organizes the expression and adds to it. In other words, art uses a specific visual language. It is up to the viewer to be able to read that language. The artist is responsible for his own literacy, not the literacy of the viewer. That is not a "to hell with you" message to the viewer. It is simply a determination of who is validly responsible for what.
-The artist, being the first 'person' in the creative process, his prime motive/concern is to get the idea out of himself to the best of his abilities (self censorship, honesty, self criticism coming into picture here) Once that is accomplished and the artist is satisfied (he never can be because once the concept is visually rendered, the artist starts seeing how he could have done it better, inspiring him to go on to the next project/work) but say, the closest he could come to the result he envisioned. Thereafter, the work comes in the viewers/public domain: the next step and there the artist can do nothing about the reaction the work generates (quite a vulnerable position he puts himself into) and that’s why sometimes the artworks are not understood in the time they were created because the artist goes on his solo journey and the public takes its own time to understand and follow the thought process, I think.
Expression, complete and full, is the artist's concern. The artist presses out from within himself his whole being. That expression is done using the visual syntax that both organizes the expression and adds to it. In other words, art uses a specific visual language. It is up to the viewer to be able to read that language. The artist is responsible for his own literacy, not the literacy of the viewer. That is not a "to hell with you" message to the viewer. It is simply a determination of who is validly responsible for what.
-The artist, being the first 'person' in the creative process, his prime motive/concern is to get the idea out of himself to the best of his abilities (self censorship, honesty, self criticism coming into picture here) Once that is accomplished and the artist is satisfied (he never can be because once the concept is visually rendered, the artist starts seeing how he could have done it better, inspiring him to go on to the next project/work) but say, the closest he could come to the result he envisioned. Thereafter, the work comes in the viewers/public domain: the next step and there the artist can do nothing about the reaction the work generates (quite a vulnerable position he puts himself into) and that’s why sometimes the artworks are not understood in the time they were created because the artist goes on his solo journey and the public takes its own time to understand and follow the thought process, I think.
Hello everybody, have been reading the new posts over the last couple of days.
For better understanding, we will have to divide the art works of the late 19th century onwards till now and the art before that period because there is a sharp difference in the reasons behind the ‘art’ making of these periods. (with some exceptions of course, like Goya, who were also putting their thoughts in their works, in their times.)
On the art works post late 19th Century, we cannot pass judgments but can just have opinions about. Especially in the conceptual art, if one does not know what the artist's intentions were and maybe, the thinking process that lead to create the particular art piece or whatever name they call it by, one cannot judge because there is not one artist, who will put any of his work in a gallery, without intensely thinking about it. No matter how bizarre, the works can or may look. It does have art value.
When things turn ugly, each has his own way of dealing with it. Say, Lorraine went and baked a blueberry pie.
As I read '…the works continued Manzoni's obsession with the limits of physicality, whilst parodying the Art World's obsession with permanence, and also provided a poignant Memento Mori...' One may pooh-pooh the idea but not only did he go in history with the product of his mind but with product of his body as well. What idea can be more satisfying/rewarding to him, as an artist, than what he did?
I think ‘poop in the can’ (conceptual art) does not go about poop itself but ‘poop’ as a medium and what it connotes. The work seen today becomes irrelevant (not really) but in 1961 (after the wars and in between the war), when it was done for the first time, it had relevance. (one will see the relevance in current times even because same ‘s**t’ is happening even now, if we look around.) So, the time (it was created in) has to be taken into consideration to understand the work and the intention of the artist in making it. As of today, most of the bodily wastes have already been used to make art with. So, yeah, we will just have to move on.
On the other hand, if you think about it, it is very important bodily function, its just that we prefer not to talk about it.
Recently, I read gays were being punished by shutting their r******* and force feeding them laxatives.
The following does not feel right immediately after what I just wrote above but….
We, humans, indeed have come a long way, in comparatively shorter time, in our humanity, say for eg. in terms of tolerance, from artists risking their ‘heads being severed’ to (just) putting up with the ‘bashing with words’ in the virtual/print media (at least, in most part of the world) Come to think of it, our ‘cleverness’ has always evolved around violence, to survive: not others but each other.
I do think we have more pressing problems of our (humankind’s) survival itself to think about than ‘call to arms’ for art’s sake. Why not use all the time and energy in creating something to that effect and see how far it can get us?
Purpose of art, I think, is to gain a different perspective on ordinary, daily living.
As for me, I am care-giver to an artist (who has created works in almost every medias but his preferred medium is oil paint) 24x7, costing most of my time and energy and as you can imagine, my cup runneth over.
A hearty welcome to you Bill, Matt, Fabian.
For better understanding, we will have to divide the art works of the late 19th century onwards till now and the art before that period because there is a sharp difference in the reasons behind the ‘art’ making of these periods. (with some exceptions of course, like Goya, who were also putting their thoughts in their works, in their times.)
On the art works post late 19th Century, we cannot pass judgments but can just have opinions about. Especially in the conceptual art, if one does not know what the artist's intentions were and maybe, the thinking process that lead to create the particular art piece or whatever name they call it by, one cannot judge because there is not one artist, who will put any of his work in a gallery, without intensely thinking about it. No matter how bizarre, the works can or may look. It does have art value.
When things turn ugly, each has his own way of dealing with it. Say, Lorraine went and baked a blueberry pie.
As I read '…the works continued Manzoni's obsession with the limits of physicality, whilst parodying the Art World's obsession with permanence, and also provided a poignant Memento Mori...' One may pooh-pooh the idea but not only did he go in history with the product of his mind but with product of his body as well. What idea can be more satisfying/rewarding to him, as an artist, than what he did?
I think ‘poop in the can’ (conceptual art) does not go about poop itself but ‘poop’ as a medium and what it connotes. The work seen today becomes irrelevant (not really) but in 1961 (after the wars and in between the war), when it was done for the first time, it had relevance. (one will see the relevance in current times even because same ‘s**t’ is happening even now, if we look around.) So, the time (it was created in) has to be taken into consideration to understand the work and the intention of the artist in making it. As of today, most of the bodily wastes have already been used to make art with. So, yeah, we will just have to move on.
On the other hand, if you think about it, it is very important bodily function, its just that we prefer not to talk about it.
Recently, I read gays were being punished by shutting their r******* and force feeding them laxatives.
The following does not feel right immediately after what I just wrote above but….
We, humans, indeed have come a long way, in comparatively shorter time, in our humanity, say for eg. in terms of tolerance, from artists risking their ‘heads being severed’ to (just) putting up with the ‘bashing with words’ in the virtual/print media (at least, in most part of the world) Come to think of it, our ‘cleverness’ has always evolved around violence, to survive: not others but each other.
I do think we have more pressing problems of our (humankind’s) survival itself to think about than ‘call to arms’ for art’s sake. Why not use all the time and energy in creating something to that effect and see how far it can get us?
Purpose of art, I think, is to gain a different perspective on ordinary, daily living.
As for me, I am care-giver to an artist (who has created works in almost every medias but his preferred medium is oil paint) 24x7, costing most of my time and energy and as you can imagine, my cup runneth over.
A hearty welcome to you Bill, Matt, Fabian.