Continuing on the theme from the Rungius post a few days ago, I’m including this entry here and in my Artzine so folks can weigh in on the topic.
With “Wildlife Art” magazine closing its doors, and the mere handful of animal-themed paintings in the 200+ works at the OPA show here in Missoula, I have to wonder: should we even be trying to set wildlife (or animal) art apart from other subject matter? The OPA exhibition categories are landscape, still life, and figurative…which begs the question as to what category my grizzly bear or barrel-racing piece ought to go in. Generally, though, it seems that many exhibitions and auctions don’t try to separate entries in this manner.
Quoting once again from the essay by Kirsten Evenden, written to accompany a recent Rungius exhibition:
This is a concern with wildlife art - that isolating works depicting similar subject matter does nothing to move the tradition forward. Artist Robert V. Clem has said, “…I have been increasingly put off at the extent to which…works involving natural history subject matter are relentlessly categorised as ‘wildlife art’, in such contrast to everything else which seemingly qualifies as simply ‘art’.” Indeed, during his day, Carl Rungius confronted the same issue, “What do you mean, Sporting art? There is only art; it may be good or bad, but it’s still art.” [emphasis mine]
So…where does animal art fit? should it be set apart? what do you think?
Entries (RSS)