What spawns this post is another library book (in this case, “Contemporary Women Artists”, by Wendy Beckett - Universe Books, 1988…30 years ago contemporary, anyway) celebrating Post-modern artists of the female persuasion.
There’s a piece in the book titled “Dark Green Painting” by Edwina Leapman, 168×183 cm (about 4 1/3 x 4 3/4 feet) which is pretty much what you’d expect: a dark bluish-gray-green surface with, possibly, some slight variations in hue (hard to tell) and texture (also hard to tell). Here’s a fragment of what the author says about the piece:
“‘Dark Green Painting’ can certainly hold the attention for a long period…there are hidden colours, an elusive pink that only reveals itself to the attentive eye; there are almost imperceptible brush movements, soft clouds that seem to drift to and fro on the surface and to swim up gently from the depths. Unforced depth is Leapman’s special gift. She has said: ‘The surface is both above and below’, a very profound observation… Alan Green, a Minimalist painter…has said of Leapman’s art: ‘Each work exists as a demonstration of human frailty…their strength lies in the doing. These paintings actually have to happen…the time actually has to be spent and mistakes actually have to be made.’ ….if the making of a work demands such ascetic concentration, it is not surprising that this manual prayer, as it were, soaks deep into the canvas.”
There’s more, but this seemed enough for our point.
So. If this same critic were to confront one of my rodeo or grizzly bear paintings, would she be in such raptures of bemusing description? (I’m guessing not). Which begs the question, is non-objective art - with no particular center of interest, and no drawing or other skill required besides manipulation of medium - perhaps more engrossing for a viewer? Does it allow for more interpretation on the part of, and therefore more involvement by, the viewer? And, ultimately, does that make it more worthwhile, or give it more longevity?
Tags: meta stuff
Entries (RSS)
August 13th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Hey Julie,
This is something I wonder about a lot too. It’s all so subjective. I am trying to incorporate a bit more mystery in my work but without losing the subject. People seem to like it, but then again there’s plenty of folks who like my older, more straight up stuff too.
Bruce Baker had a great line when confronted with people who didn’t respond favorably to his work (at shows): “Yes, well, my work isn’t for everyone.” I love that. And it’s true. You can’t please all of the people all of the time and why would you even want to anyway? You have to please yourself first!
Rosemary
August 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The very first thing that comes to my mind is that we dont know how “enhanced” this critic might have been at the time of this viewing. In my younger days, I worked in a cultured marble plant. At one point I took some of the uncured stuff and put it into a 1 pint paper container. Once it had cured, I peeled away the paper to expose all the swirling black and white.
At that time, friends were apt to use a controlled substance recreationally. Now and then someone would pick up the fake stone and begin to pick out different shapes - a horse’s head, a woman’s face, etc. Some could spend half an hour just turning the thing in their hands, looking for new things. It was kind of a “hidden pictures for dummies”.
A few people in the art community have been known to imbibe now and again, I think.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think one reason why some people like modern art is that everyone can feel like an expert when they view it.
They can feel like “hey, my viewpoint is worth just as much as that smarty-pants art critic’s viewpoint” ( because there is no right answer)
Realistic stuff is a whole other ball of wax.
I think that’s why you get the typical “It looks just like a photograph” comment. Most people have never seen an elk and they are quite honestly afraid to say anything other than “it looks just like a photo” (even though they have never seen a photo of an elk) for fear of showing their ignorance: “That’s a very nice dear painting” . (Oops!)
People love to feel like they are as smart as (or smarter than) the next guy/gal (why so many people voted for George Bush, I believe)– and they certainly don’t like to appear as bumbling idiots.
So, there you have it. A psychoanalysis of art criticism (from someone who believes that most psychobabble is utter nonsense) .
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I enjoyed reading the various viewpoints here - Don, I had to laugh at the ‘controlled substance’ thought! I’m pretty sure the author of the book in question is actually a nun…
Larry, I wonder if there isn’t some truth to what you’re saying; sports-men and -women know big game pretty well, but that’s about it. Considering how some very poorly-drawn wildlife art still sells, ya have to believe that ignorance could be part of it.
And Rosemary, I do believe that some mystery makes a work more intriguing or compelling. I’m moving away from the straight representationalism I used to paint, and doing more with abstract or interpretive elements. I’m also messing around with really wild interpretations. (See next blog post). Probably your more conservative art buyer likes straight representation, but the next generation of art collectors seems to be moving more contemporary…a subject for another time, worth exploring in its own right.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I’ve read this post, and the comments, with a good deal of interest, and thought I would weigh in with my two ‘bits:
I have degrees in Fine Art and Art History (not that this makes my opinion any more valid - I’m just trying to provide a bit of context for my take on this conversation) and I think that many of the non-artist art collectors I’ve met have been drawn to abstract and non-objective art because it is valued by the “art experts” i.e. art critics and art historians.
If art criticism is the “description, analysis and interpretation of art” http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/artsed/visart102030/vaglos.html then I honestly believe that anyone who can see and think is eminently well qualified to tell you what s/he sees when looking at art and what thoughts/feelings it raises for him/her. However, the preconception (or, perhaps, misconception?) many people have with abstract and non-representational art is that while anyone can tell you how a work of art makes him/her feel, only an art critic/historian will be able to make an intelligent commentary on what a work of art “means”.
And as long as people continue to believe this, I think there be a large population of art collectors who will allow art experts to convince them that abstract and non-representational art is valuable because it is the very art form that “requires” expert interpretation.