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)
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 am
I have often struggled with what category my art fits into as well since I paint a lot of animals. I do think there should be a separate category for animal art since there are so many of us out there. I am not sure how to make this happen. But, it is apparent with the growing industry of doggy day cares, pet super stores, etc. that animals play a dominant role in our lives. By leaving it out of the categories of art exhibits, we are depriving the public of art that would be bought and appreciated if only they were exposed to it. I firmly believe that is why some people view it as a dying art subject - they don’t see it. I have often not participated in contests because my work did not fit into a category.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Oh, my! What a shocker to learn that “Wildlife Art” magazine no longer exists. That is where I first discovered the talent of Robert Bateman and others like him. I certainly do believe that wildlife deserves to be treated as a separate entity. Our population explosion is forcing more and more of them to intermingle with domesticated species as their sources for food diminish. I feel that because of that, they are going to become more endangered as time goes by. Your painting is a good point maker in that the animal is the focal point although it is positioned against an awesome sky background. Paintings don’t give the feeling of wilderness so much so as when they include one or more wild animals; hence, the name “wilderness”.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Without wilderness get me the hell of this planet.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I meant to say off. When it is gone it is gone forever. What gives us the right not to share this earth with them?
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I think that it should not be placed by subject matter. I believe some people look down on it as little more than illustration. I was an illustrator myself. The Webster’s dictionary says illustration…”an example,etc.used to help explain 2. a picture,diagram, etc. used to decorate or explain.” I don’t think these catagories help anyone, the artists or the buyer. I dislike lables and think by ridding ourselves of them , we don’t have to let them get in our way as “artists”
why use it ? I just don’t think we gain anything and maybe by using that lable we lose ……
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
THere are reasons both pro and con, but one thing to consider is this-some people collect art based on themes, such as wildlife, or Paris, or abstract birds, or New England landscape. And some of us paint or portray in other mediums a theme that we are visually or spiritually drawn to. For those of us who are selling our art (and I’m not there yet) it makes it much easier if there is some way of finding those who are collecting what we are portraying and visa versa. I think that was part of Wildlife Arts magazine’s mission- to bring those to groups of people together. While being “wildlife artists” may be limiting in some ways, it does make that connection easier.
Interesting to question what may be going on though. Perhaps there is less interest in wildlife and more on domestic animals- dogs, cats, sheep, horses and chickens are big sellers around here. I hope it doesn’t signal that we are becoming even more disconnected from the wild ones who share our lives with us too. That doesn’t bode well for habitat preservation and threatened and endangered animal protection.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
WOW!!! I’m shocked that “Wildlife Art” magazine is closing. I’m also saddened by the news. That was my favorite magazine. I love wildlife and I love painting it. Maybe it’s just that everyone is cutting back because of gas prices etc. that the magazine had to close. I can’t imagine that people are tired of wildlife. Dvd’s on wildlife are sell outs up here in Alaska and people love our wildlife booths at the fairs, bazaars and festivals up here.
I definitely think that catagories are needed. I’ve always wished that there was a specific catagory for birds as well. Judges basicly make their decisions on their favorites, even if they say that they use a form with required elements that must be in the painting.
Well, we’ll just keep painting wildlife and eventually make history. Whimsical art doesn’t make history and doesn’t help anything. So keep painting the beauty of the world.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I wrote a four paragraph note here and realized that it was just words. What I think this comes down to is subjectivity. To the person creating art, categories probably dont matter. Art is art, in all its forms. To the person walking through a gallery who is stunned by that magnificent piece, categories dont matter because they just have to have that thing right there. To collectors, critics and marketers, categories are essential because they are brushes, knives and chisels in the art of selling art.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I’m going to second Don, and Carl Rungius: art should be ART, regardless of subject matter. I also believe there has been no lessening of demand for wildlife- and animal-related imagery in the print and licensing market.
That said, it does peeve me that the OPA national competition only has categories for figurative, landscape, or still life…as if the other 99% of living beings in this world aren’t worthy of being painted. Considering that humankind’s very first artistic interpretations were of animals, and that we’re not the only ones on this planet, I find the 3 OPA categories obnoxiously anthropocentric.
One of my gallery dealers responded to the Artzine by suggesting that landscape and animal art should be lumped together into one category of NATURE ART.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Julie:
As always I look forward to your monthly newsletter. I was saddened to read of the demise of the Wildlife Art magazine . It was the first magazine I purchased each time a new addition was out. Where will those of us go that love painting animal’s ,enjoying and learning from and of others like us out there in this world of Art? Isn’t a rose still a rose even if it is a climber or a hybrid tea rose ? How and Who now decides what classification, we are as painters of Wildlife and Animal art are to be categorized as?? Could be a landscape? could be a portrait?? could be what??
June 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
GREAT WORK, LOVE YOUR DOG SHOWS, I AM AN ANIMAL LOVER TOO. FOR SOME REASON MY COMPUTOR STARTS AND PAUSES ON THE VIDEOS. I M SURE I COULD FIX IT IF I KNEW WHAT TO DO. HA I WILL MISS THE WILDLIFE ART MAGAZINE ALSO. I COULD TELL IT WAS LOSING GROUND. KM
June 4th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Julie, I found you and your wonderful workshop through Wildlife Art Magazine.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:20 am
“I find the 3 OPA categories obnoxiously anthropocentric.”
I think simply “obnoxious” would have covered it pretty well.
One of the things that I find amusing (in an obnoxious sort of way) about the art world is that it is largely the people who do not do the art themselves who are the ones who decide what is — and what is not — art.
Perhaps artists need to unionize or something because it just seems absurd to me that those who could not paint (or even recognize) a prickly pear if their life depended on it are deciding whether a painting of a grizzly bear (or any other subject) is any good.
I realize the practicalities of the whole thing: the gallery’s and art dealers control all the money. But still, especially with the internet, there must be a way of changing that.
BTW, Julie. How do you get your dog to run those gates like that? do you have to show her how to do it? Must be exhausting training dogs.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“I believe some people look down on it [wildlife art] as little more than illustration.”
Again, it’s kind of humorous that one of the greatest American wildlife artists Bob Kuhn — spent most of his career as “just an illustrator.”
There seems to be a lot of snobbishness in the art world. People like to believe that their art is the only “true art”. One artist friend of mine actually frowned on the fact that I was painting with acrylics. It’s a bunch of nonsense. When it comes right down to it, ART is pretty much ALL subjective.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Being an artist of wildlife I was dissheartened to find that art snobs are in abundance, very competitive and jealous.(But not all!) Wild life art is a wonder to behold. How else can an average citizen observer be nose to nose with a charging bull elephant and feel that artful interpretation. Some of mine have ended up under landscapes because I usually create a scene of their habitat. I do think wild life should have its own catagory.
I also was subscribing to Wildlife Art Magazine and just paid a renewal! Has anyone heard of how to get refunds?
July 28th, 2008 at 6:09 am
If you look at the definition of “figurative”, it means “representing by means of a figure or likeness, as in drawing or sculpture. Another definitions says “humans or things”. I would think that wildlife art would fit into both the figurative and landscape category. Just try it though……Ha.
As with everything else, if enough people wrote and complained to OPA perhaps they would change it, especially since a lot of their artists belong in the wildlife category. Seems strange to me that events such as the Southeast Wildlife Festival held each year in Charleston, SC draws more artists and people than any other art event I know of. Wildlife art has always been at the bottom of the list in almost all museums, galleries and shows, yet wildlife art and western art are huge sellers, bringing in mega dollars to the overall art sales each year.
Wildlife Art Magazine was a wonderful publication. I don’t know what went wrong there. What bothers me is that their website is still up and says nothing about it no longer publishing. plus, it still allows you to subscribe. This means that if you pay for your subscription online or by mail your money is gone forever.