Other people sometimes express better what I mean to say, so as a follow-up to last night's blog I give you a quote from Chuck Palahniuk's novel Diary. It's a kind of semi-surrealistic story where the main character is failed art student Misty Kleinman, and this conversation takes place between her and her boyfriend-to-be Peter Wilmot on their first date:
---
Peter gave her the blank canvas and said "Paint something".
And Misty said, "Nobody paint paints. Not anymore".
If anybody she knew still painted at all, they used their own blood or semen. And they painted on live dogs from the animal shelter, or on molded gelatin desserts, but never on canvas.
And Peter said, "I bet you still paint on canvas".
"Why?" Misty said. "Because I'm retarded? Because I won't know any better?"
And Peter said, "Just fucking paint."
They were supposed to be above representational art. Making pretty pictures. They were supposed to learn visual sarcasm. Misty said they were paying too much tuition not to practice the techniques of effective irony. She said a pretty picture wouldn't teach the world anything.
And Peter said, "We're not old enough to buy beer, what are we supposed to teach the world?" There on his back in their nest if weeds, one arm behind his head, Peter said, "All the effort in the world won't matter if you're not inspired."
---
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
"Be yourself, no matter what they say"
This could have been said (and probably have, too) by many people but I had Sting's line from Englishman in New York in mind. It sounds so extremely simple and logical, so self-explanatory and sensible. To put the words into practice is another matter.
How do you keep the balance between getting inspired by other people's work without unconsciously trying to imitate aspects of their work? Is it really possible to take part in the art world by working entirely in your own little bubble, shutting out any outside "noise" that would affect your ideas or make you reconsider your project entirely? And if you do choose this path, is it valid to work up a confidence about what you're doing, or is it a sign of naivete? Should you take control of your work, or let your work control you; that is to say, go wherever your work decides to take you?
These and other questions have been crowding my head lately - my facebook friends may already have noticed that I don't exactly have the best of confidence in what I've been working with the past few months. A long period filled with lack of ideas and inspiration, paired with inexperience with a new medium, hopeless dabbling with other techniques and topped off with a diabetes diagnosis that drained me of energy for a lot of the summer, culminated in a sort of mini-breakdown this past week. I felt completely lost and like I had nothing to do in an art world where originality and provocative qualities are a must - just the fact that I slap paint on a vertically placed canvas is enough to make me reactionary according to some. So the question that comes to mind is: Is it better to keep doing what I'm doing with a conviction that after all I'm following my heart and then nothing can go wrong, or should I move onto something else, in the hope that I'll have better chances of "making it" if I give in to what the critics, curators and experts consider to be groundbreaking and important in art-making?
Just by the phrasing of the dilemma I'm giving myself away - I feel like I have no choice but to go for the first option, but still I would ideally opt for something in between the two. The problem is how to get from here to there.
Lately I've been working on a painting which started out as an experiment in blurriness and abstraction, but turned out to be more of a figurative study reminiscent of something I could have made years ago, and it upset me more than I expected. Had I worked so hard for years just to end up at the starting point? One could argue that yes, it is just one painting and it is just a part of a long, experimental process; results aren't as important as the ongoing journey...and so on. Of course I can see the point in such statements, but as I am approaching my 26th birthday and people who are younger than me are already graduating from the Academy, I begin to feel like my chances of any accomplishment in art is next to none. And it worries me beyond words.
That said, I will try to update my web site soon, but as I've transferred the site files to a new computer and I can't remember my FTP password, I can't promise anything as to when it will actually happen..I'm also considering re-building the site in another software which makes it more low-maintenance. However since I'm also studying for 3 exams (last one will be handed in Dec 16) it might take a while - at least you know what plans I have for the site..I haven't given up yet.
How do you keep the balance between getting inspired by other people's work without unconsciously trying to imitate aspects of their work? Is it really possible to take part in the art world by working entirely in your own little bubble, shutting out any outside "noise" that would affect your ideas or make you reconsider your project entirely? And if you do choose this path, is it valid to work up a confidence about what you're doing, or is it a sign of naivete? Should you take control of your work, or let your work control you; that is to say, go wherever your work decides to take you?
These and other questions have been crowding my head lately - my facebook friends may already have noticed that I don't exactly have the best of confidence in what I've been working with the past few months. A long period filled with lack of ideas and inspiration, paired with inexperience with a new medium, hopeless dabbling with other techniques and topped off with a diabetes diagnosis that drained me of energy for a lot of the summer, culminated in a sort of mini-breakdown this past week. I felt completely lost and like I had nothing to do in an art world where originality and provocative qualities are a must - just the fact that I slap paint on a vertically placed canvas is enough to make me reactionary according to some. So the question that comes to mind is: Is it better to keep doing what I'm doing with a conviction that after all I'm following my heart and then nothing can go wrong, or should I move onto something else, in the hope that I'll have better chances of "making it" if I give in to what the critics, curators and experts consider to be groundbreaking and important in art-making?
Just by the phrasing of the dilemma I'm giving myself away - I feel like I have no choice but to go for the first option, but still I would ideally opt for something in between the two. The problem is how to get from here to there.
Lately I've been working on a painting which started out as an experiment in blurriness and abstraction, but turned out to be more of a figurative study reminiscent of something I could have made years ago, and it upset me more than I expected. Had I worked so hard for years just to end up at the starting point? One could argue that yes, it is just one painting and it is just a part of a long, experimental process; results aren't as important as the ongoing journey...and so on. Of course I can see the point in such statements, but as I am approaching my 26th birthday and people who are younger than me are already graduating from the Academy, I begin to feel like my chances of any accomplishment in art is next to none. And it worries me beyond words.
That said, I will try to update my web site soon, but as I've transferred the site files to a new computer and I can't remember my FTP password, I can't promise anything as to when it will actually happen..I'm also considering re-building the site in another software which makes it more low-maintenance. However since I'm also studying for 3 exams (last one will be handed in Dec 16) it might take a while - at least you know what plans I have for the site..I haven't given up yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)