Blog

I wanted to spend a little time in this blog on my favorite topic. It is my favorite topic expressly because I consider myself extremely good at it. Not only do I think this, but I am sure I can find many close acquaintances who would also agree with me. The topic I am talking about is –Being Wrong!

Being in a state of wrongness is an uncomfortable place to be. Empirically speaking, many who know they are "wrong" suffer the same malady: anxiety, sweaty hands, nervousness, a sense of aloneness; a feeling of being outside the norm or I might add separated from those who hold the consensus they are "right". Being wrong stigmatizes people. It sets them apart from everyone else who, ironically, think they are right.

Now under ordinary circumstances, being wrong, many times, can be accredited to having the incorrect information or having no information at all. Or the knowledge or information you do have was false or had erroneously attributed origin. This is understandable and correctable.

But I want to take a positive look at the idea of being wrong.

Children seem to take being wrong more in stride. It is not something they stress over too much. They realize their mistake and adopt a new attitude when the get new information. Adolescents start to lose this ability as they age. By the time we reach adulthood being wrong is a terrifying thought. In this information age, the idea of being wrong, with all the technology readily at hand you would think we would always be better informed and more 'right" more times than not.

I say being wrong isn't a bad thing. Being wrong is health and we should not ridiculed anyone for being wrong. I truly believe, for most of us, we are going to be wrong about half the time in all decisions we make. If we don't allow ourselves the luxury of being wrong, I fear learning will stop. For us to get to a reasonable conclusion about anything requires us to be wrong. How else will be able to strive to be right? Without the willingness to take a risk to be wrong, our future learning will be at stake. And we will achieve nothing of value because the fear of being wrong prevented us from striving for excellence.

As artists it is almost a responsibility to force ourselves into being wrong. We need to make wrong choices and risk the whole idea on being wrong so we can create new ideas. If nothing is ventured, nothing will be gained. If we don't embrace risk, embrace the idea of being wrong and worry only about failure, we are certain to fail.

The only times where I can fathom that being wrong is detrimental is when given the correct information we turn away from it or refuse to use it; when we refuse to acknowledge that nothing is worth doing if there isn't a willingness to be wrong.

The entire process of making art has come under suspicion. Why do artists work to produce art using traditional methods, vise-a-vie- authentically, mechanically by hand, without aids, while posers produce work for the trash heap?  I believe the reason is the same - recognition and respect.  If you produce real art the old fashioned way, one hope’s to gain the respect of society and of course their peers. Many, many would-be artists don't have the skill, the training or know-how to pull off a work of art, so they resort to trickery or fakery to get a result. They may even fool most of the judges some of the time, but making 'real' art results in producing a body of work, an inventory. It is not easy to keep producing work year after year if you are producing fakes or using gimmicks. You would have to either get bored or begin to lose interest. Also the fear of being found out, over time, must become overwhelming. I can’t imagine having to explain my process to others not the least of which other artists; especially if you begin to gain notoriety. The pressure of being found a fake would be enormous after a while and cause one to either stop altogether or devote themselves to learn the art process after much study

Over time, the fakers will tire or worse be found out and will be weeded out while real artists will prevail. We should be diligent in judging art for galleries and shows, but the fakers will sneak through, once or even twice.  In the end they will not prevail over the long haul. I always think we should be judging artists considering a body of work and not one piece placed into a show or gallery. When you look at fifteen or a hundred pieces, the proof will be in the pudding and all will know if this person deserves to be called 'artist'.

One prevailing aspect about making art is expression. Artists want and need to express themselves and what is in their hearts would never want others who see their work to question their motivation, processes and more importantly their sincerity of purpose. Not everyone can be an artist. It is just the nature of things. Just as not everyone can be a pilot or doctor or scientist.  But the beauty of making art is that just about everyone can express themselves through the making of art.  But, and there is a big But, many of these people will show “creativity” and produce “creative” pieces- and here is another big But- none of it may be considered art in the truest sense. Because to be good at anything it takes education, experience, dedication, devotion and a single mindedness to get up every day and work at it. This is the arena where real artists are made. This is the theater that few are willing to be in. Living, breathing, producing art is what makes one an artist.

I greatly believe in the Yin/Yang theory. This is an Asian theology which teaches balance in life is what makes it all plausible and enjoyable. There is a time for everything and everything has a time. We need work as well as play activity and rest. As artists we all know this to be true. There is a time to think what to paint as well as time to create work. One without the other leads invariably to mediocrity and confusion, which we are drowning in today; politically as well as socially.

Society is experiencing the results of too much work, too much drive, too much ambition. This is why the world is in the state it is in now. We are being fed every day in newspapers and on television ads that we need more of everything. We can't handle what we have now effectively. It saddens me when I read the newspapers or watch broadcasts designed to obfuscate information. It is getting harder to know the good guys from the bad guys.

 Americans work more hours than any other culture on earth, including the Japanese. We happily give our employers 60 to 80 hours a week without any objection. We won't need any despots pushing us in the coming future. We will do it all by ourselves. We have already lost the fundamental beliefs in a Yin/Yang theory. Success, money, fame, wealth have become the catchwords in everything we do.  We are not rewarded for doing anything for the love of it, for the pure pleasure and satisfaction; for the truth of the process.

The one truth in my life is my art. It is the one place I can still strive for a truth. It is the one thing in which I seek the truth; the one constant.  It’s hard to lie in painting. If you do, it leads to bad work. If you are an artist worth your salt, there is no faking it and you know when a lie is being painted.  Artists have painted propagandistic works throughout history, but they are obviously lies which can be picked up easily and recognized as such by everyone. Great works of the past have told this truth.

For instance Ecstasy of Saint Teresa by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Guernica by Pablo Picasso, May 3^rd, 1808 by Goya and not the least of which was Conspiracy of Batavians under Claudius by Rembrandt. There are many more, most of which have lost meaning for us through time and neglect.

Art has the potential to heal, raise one up, open our eyes, and connect us to the sublime, to soothe us and bring comfort and offer us the truth.  If we encourage art, offer more teaching, allow it back into our schools and place it in the forefront of our thinking, we can again use art to bring together a more positive reason for being; discovering the Yin Yang of life, the balance in nature we have lost in humanity.

When I finish a hard worked piece, I think I've done well and I am usually satisfied with myself. When looking at it the next morning, I can't help but feel a letdown of sorts because I no longer love the work as much. My exuberance and enthusiasm when painting it may have clouded my judgment and what I thought was working turns out in the end not to be the case. Looking at it with fresh eyes, so to speak, and with some ‘distance’, I am not moved by my effort.

Mind you, I put my heart and soul into the piece; it had my full commitment; but on seeing it anew the following day, I can't help but think I somehow missed the mark. The feelings from the night before have quelled and in the light of a new day the work seems lackluster and boring.

This is a constant dilemma and I have no ready answer for it. I am sure it happens to many artists. So I open this up for you to think about.

When striving to be better, are we too fussy?  Should we be satisfied with everything we do?  Are we trying too hard and end up shooting ourselves in the foot?  Can we get away with the results as they are? Why does it matter so much?

I think back on my youth and wonder why it is I strive to be better at what I do.  It could be the upbringing I received by my parents or the fact they worked hard at what they did to give me a better life that I now feel I should strive to be better?  This could be my way of paying them back.  But who now is there to care how good I do?  We artists all know art doesn’t pay much. We devote ourselves in the service of art with little reward.  So why care if we do well at it?

One of my idols and mentors is Rembrandt. Not only for the work he produced but if you know anything about his life, he was a rebel. He painted what he wanted, how he wanted.  Rembrandt constantly was changing his approach to his painting, looking for a new way to say things, a different way to apply paint to get a realistic result.  In the end he paid dearly for this rebelliousness and died broke with all his belongings and treasures being sold off to pay his numerous debts.  So, can I do mediocre work and be happy with that?  Should I ease up on myself and give myself a break?  My only answer to date that I can come up with is, I have to satisfy myself that what I do is the very best I can do at this time and work like heck to always be better.

I wonder if this is the struggle of all artists to never be satisfied with yesterday’s effort and strive for more.

Are we meant to be artists?  Is it fair to say that if we work at something long enough, we should succeed at it?  If you have a love for a profession, shouldn’t you be allowed to benefit from it? Make your living from it?  What kind of a world would it be if everyone who wished to be an artist became one?  Is this even possible?  All this may be true if we are making doughnuts or widgets or go into accounting, but not with fine art.

Today many who are taking up the craft of fine art will never rise to a level where they will get national or international recognition. Many may achieve local notoriety but will not make enough money to survive on art alone.  Today we can’t be a judge or discourage anyone wishing to be an artist even if, as a teacher or practicing professional, you know in your heart this person will never achieve their goal.

It goes hand in hand with being politically correct. Nowadays teachers can't tell a new student "not to quit their day job". You can't tell anyone they are mediocre anymore without incurring the wrath of those who think everyone is entitled to be whatever they set their mind to even if they have no aptitude for art.  It's a dilemma that won't go away soon. Given the state of much of the contemporary art being made today, you can understand why everyone thinks with a week’s instruction; they too, can be a professional artist.  Being an artist is not about learning rules, methods and techniques.  It goes deeper than that.  It goes to the heart of what art is or at least should be. Art is more than a craft or expression.  It is a way of seeing the world and having the ability to express it effectively and convincingly.

There are good painters out there doing great work, but will never be in museums because their work is representational and painted in a style that requires years of study. Many refuse to put in the time it takes to learn to paint. And it takes a lifetime.

Being self-delusional to an extent is necessary for a successful career. But, you have to back it up with quality work and inventory. You also have to dedicate yourself to a life of strife and turmoil and understand that even when you produce a "work of art", you may still go unnoticed. When do you throw in the towel and surrender? Today we are told to follow our dreams, keep at it and we will get there. Not so!  It helps if you have talent, but talent alone will not keep your boat afloat. Too many waste their lives thinking they can do anything they put their mind to; again, it will probably not happen. Self- help books help only one person-the author. Will we ever stop believing we’re meant to be great artists?  Probably not!

MFA’S -Yes or no

The Art field is one of those professions where a degree is not a guarantee of success or even talent for that matter. The problem with an education in fine art is the fact that in the end art isn't an intellectual pursuit. True, you have to have some smarts to learn the methods and techniques, color and design.

But after all this you only have the tools. You still have to have the creativity, ambition, heart and dedication. More importantly, you need a voice.  Art is communication; it speaks to people. Artists are the conduit through which art speaks. You don’t hear these words often when discussing art.  If you have nothing to say, your art will be empty.

Most great art of the past has wonderful undertones and subtext.  Art has always been created to fill the soul and strengthen the heart. Art was created to make others see the world as it was or as it should be. To be an artist one has to be intelligent but the work must not rely on the intellectual to be good.  When art is intellectual, the point it makes is quickly assimilated then leaves little else to speak for it.  It's similar to sleight of hand, a trick.  After looking at it for a minute or two, one is left wondering what else is there. 

Art based on emotion is ever lasting; it continues to intrigue and appeal even to future generations.    Great art is universal and transcends time, place and ethnicity.

From what I see of emerging MFA's from art schools is they are learning the business of art.  Many don't learn the techniques and method to produce traditional art. They are fed that anything they create is art worthy just through their efforts alone. When the art they eventually produce doesn't communicate, they are left with nothing to fall back on to help them overcome the problems. They have little concrete skills in the basics of what it takes to make art. Schools have thrown out the rules in favor of spontaneity and inventiveness. 

Art has and will always be representative of our realities; of our world.  Good art reflects our surroundings as well as artists ideas about those surroundings. When an artist gets too abstract they narrow our view of the world to one point.  Traditional art opens art to all; we connect with it; we can see what the art is saying and in some cases commiserate, it relates to and touches something universal to all of us. "Ism's" will come and go and the face of art will change with each generation. But we must not lose touch with what has come before. We need to learn all we can from those who have laid the ground work. We can and should experiment with new ideas and forms, but art must have humanity; not to a small group of investors, but to the entire world. Art must be for everyone.

I keep hearing that artist are creating traditional landscapes but I’m not sure what is meant by traditional landscapes in today's context. Do we mean scenes painted with traditional methods and techniques? Or traditional as opposed to abstract or expressionist or loosely painted?  Many artists don't paint in the antique method much anymore.  Modern Landscapes are far from traditional in this sense and I think that is a good thing. Modern landscapes should reflect the modern world.

The first landscapes were most likely cave drawings done by ice age people combining physical origins and the cultural overlay of human presence, it was the dynamic backdrop to people’s lives.

Later artists created landscapes as a milieu to explain religious events and help catapult ideas of religion and  the nature of God and mankind.  The main thrust of the paintings centered around and explained the human condition as it related to God and our connection to God.

The landscapes of the turn of the century were created out of a need to explain man’s place on earth. To document the world that mankind was beginning to explore.   A need to understand ourselves and our place in nature.  There was a thirst to acquire knowledge about nature and record the world we lived in. Humankind spread and began to populate and settle new and wondrous places.  It was a time for artists, when the landscape itself became the subject devoid of human intervention. 

The landscapes from the early California Impressionist’s were created to explain a new unexplored wilderness.  To show a new young country the other half of a frontier never seen before.  

But these scenes are no longer there. Much of what was painted has been lost to history and development.   Much of this land has been tamed or cultivated.  More has been paved over, plowed under or manicured to perfection leaving in its place tall buildings and paved streets and grassy lawns.

Ideas about the land have changed. We need to change with it. We are the record keepers of what is, what we are and what we will become. Landscape painting is the record of our time. The places we inhabit and a record of who we are as we interact with the land. 

Those coming up today, future young buyers will need to see scenes that relate to them.  Unfortunately, the paintings by Inness, Cole, Church, et al, thought wonderful and magical to us, will not suffice being repeated in the traditional manner. They will become the record for what was in past generations. We live a new world and that world will demand new landscapes; scenes that relate to life today. If art has any purpose at all, it is to record life as it is. Landscape painting is  the mirror on a world needing attention and safeguarding. 

What should not change is the artistry in producing such work. Artists still need to apply themselves as heartily as our predecessor.  Artist’s need to paint their time. 

Recently I had a conversation with an artist on the topic of controversial art.  It got me thinking not only about art that may seem controversial to some and their right when confronted with such, but also about the right of an artist to show what some see as controversial art? 

We live in a society where if someone is offended by a work of art they see in a gallery or exhibition or public space for that matter; they have a right to bring litigation in court against it. In some cases they have won settlements against the artist or the venue exhibiting the artwork.  But what of the rights of the artist to exhibit work some may find controversial?

The artist I was talking with held a seminar –in China I might add--on what constitutes a work of art that could be considered controversial or in this case pornographic.  In the course of presenting a slide show, he showed a picture of female genitlia where upon the audience was audibly responsive. By his accounts things quieted down and he went on to finish his presentation. Later, he admitted that in retrospect he could have used a different, less explicit, artwork and would do so in future. In the end, no one brought suit and many were pleased with the seminar.

In America a similar situation presented a different result when a young women was shown; in the course of a seminar on sexuality, a picture of an interracial couple in the act of lovemaking.  While she could have left, she stayed to the end. Later, she filed suit in court against the school for having been exposed to pornographic material she found offensive.  The absurd thing is the court sided in her favor and she won a large monitory settlement.

Now I am not going to use this forum to debate which art is pornographic and which art is not pornographic.  What I am interested in is why is it allowable for anyone who is offended by such work to bring litigation against someone who exhibits work deemed to be offensive to this individual. What happens to the artist who has the same rights to exhibit a work he or she deems appropriate and not necessarily por nographic. Does it become a problem of perception or actual fact? Is it only a matter of personal taste or does one individual dictate to the whole?  After all, what one finds offensive another may not and vice versa. I see much artwork I find objectionable and in bad taste, but do I have a right to seek legal representation to stop it?  More importantly, is this a case to be settled by the courts?  Is this not just a difference of opinion between people?  I don’t always agree with the taste of others but I agree they have a right to their taste even if I find it offensive. Freedom to choose is the American way.

“Beauty for beauty’s sake” -- We hear this expression as it relates to art all the time. Artist’s attempt to paint what is considered a thing of beauty. We look on things in nature and say they are beautiful.  Art is a thing of beauty.  The beautiful way the artist handled the subject.  Her beauty is made eternal by the artist’s deftness.

The difficulty with the idea of beauty for beauty's sake is determining the definition of beauty -- other than what has become definitive in the dictionary.  I believe nothing in nature has beauty. Conversely nothing in nature is ugly. This may sound like I am playing semantics here but think about it -- Since everyone on earth may have a differing opinion as to what beauty is, is it not probable all things have no inherent beauty when we eliminate the human condition.  If humans didn’t exist, the concept of beauty would cease to exist.  Beauty is exclusively a human concept.  No other species ponders the question of beauty.

Given that we created this idea, is it possible that we condition ourselves to determine beauty based on

personal biases or seminal experiences in early development; acquiring tastes based on parental influences or personal relationships?  Throughout history, the concept of beauty changes. What was once considered beautiful shifts with time, attitudes and regimes.  If we understand beauty as universal in all of us, why does it change with changing generations?  Why does one style become obsolete only to be resurrected with future generations?

When we make something we consider beautiful we run into the problem as to what is actually beautiful. It's the same problem as trying to get a consensus as to what is art. Are we not imposing beauty onto things?  Humankind is so varied and unique; experiences so multiple, what one finds beautiful, another may merely consider … ordinary. Of course there is general agreement on many things beautiful, but doesn't that limit the field, especially for artists?  Consider the expression - "a face only a mother can love!" Really now!

Can we artists portray things as they are without bias and hope to find a consensus that what we created has a beauty others will also see?

I wonder if a thing is beautiful only if it is appealing to the eye or is pleasant to the touch.  If it enriches our lives in some way; reaches our senses in such a way that we go all mushy inside.  But if these things are true, it harkens back to previous environmental conditioning.  We consider beauty only from a subjective point of view; belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

Is it even possible to paint without regard to inherent beauty?  The more important question for me is to not make a judgment on beauty and paint with an open mind.  Is that at all possible?  Should beauty for beauty’s sake be a consideration at all when creating a work of art?