Julie T. Chapman - ArtBlog

In the lively discussion sparked by my prior blog post/question, one of the responses reminded me that this is another meaty topic I’ve meant to blog about.

I firmly believe that one’s work should be, first and foremost, for one’s self - meaning that I, the artist, must be happy with the work, must see continual growth in what I’m doing, must take chances and experiment. If I were only painting for sale, I’d have settled in to mostly rendering drippy bears and foregone the journey I’m taking now. You can probably name artists who paint ‘for sale’ - who have found a formula and simply flog that repeatedly. Their work looks the same from year to year, and so does their subject matter.

That said…I’m not ‘pure’ enough to paint only for myself, pay no mind to sales, and keep painting even when pieces stack up in my studio, house, and basement forever. I personally need the feedback that comes with sales; when a gallery tells me a piece has sold, I get a fresh jolt of energy and am back in my studio with renewed enthusiasm. When things aren’t selling, I’m lower on energy, even a little depressed, and will busy myself with almost anything other than painting.

So…what about you?

Since we’re less than 2 weeks away from the U.S. general election, this seems a great time to stir up some controversy.

Recently, I received an email from the Americans for the Arts Action Center which offered me a “report card” on the various candidates for office and their stance on arts / arts education funding. The purpose of the email is to help me make “arts-informed decisions” at the ballot box.

Given the number and size of some of the issues facing the U.S. right now, how much should an artist let this kind of information influence his or her vote? …because…?

I can’t help myself. Really, I can’t. When there are luscious, sinfully colorful oil paints left on my palette at the end of a week, and I have all this nice slick blinding-white yupo lying around … what the hell. It’s a license to spill (oils, that is) onto a slippery surface.

I hadn’t messed around with my bear material in a while, so pulled out a slide binder (it’s SO last century, sadly) and fired up the lightbox and started slathering paint with knife and large brush onto a little (10×10) square.

Even though it’s all in done in the name of experimentation and play, I rather like the result. This is your semi-occasional reminder to loosen up and PLAY, with no particular expectation of outcome.

Another library find - this one based on lecture and seminar notes a student kept from several years’ worth of study with David Leffel. The version I have is older than dirt (published in the 1980s, I think) and many reproductions are in B&W (blech).

HOWEVER…his handling of light is intriguing - clearly influenced by Rembrandt - and so far the element of the text that is sticking with me is his repeated discussion of “concept”. His theme here is that the subject is not the painting - the concept is. Is your painting concept about a certain direction of light? a particular thrust of action you want to emphasize? Too often, as animal artists, we can end up being slaves to our reference material. Leffel’s point is that our paintings are NOT about our reference material - they’re about our unique concept.

An example: my piece “Painted Night”. I had a rather blah noonday photo of a wild stallion with striking pinto markings, and wanted to use it in some way. One night when I was lying awake noodling on art ideas (does anyone else do this besides me??) I was thinking about that handsome boy, and this bolt from the blue - this concept - came to me … and the painting you see here is the result. I assembled all the reference material I could - none of which was nocturnal - spent time outside at night during a full moon studying colors and values, and then went to work.

There’s much in which I disagree with Leffel (particularly his handling of color - natch!), and others do as well (check out the Amazon reviews of his books)…but I thought this takeaway worth sharing with you.