Busted by the art police
I received an email from "Kaye" with an interesting question. She also sent an illustration by Howard Pyle and another by Edgar Degas. Her question is as follows, "I don't know how clearly this illustration of Howard Pyle will come across, but note the figure on the far right, only a sliver of him is visible. This is called 'cropping', a technique introduced by the impressionists over a century ago. the purpose is to give the impression of a larger reality than the canvas, and to make the composition more interesting and intriguing. Since I was rejected from a show recently for employing 'cropping' I wonder if we are going backwards in art. Or if the gallery 'experts' are even aware?"
Kaye, I've always thought that the impressionists were probably influenced by the camera in this regard because as one looks through the view finder this larger reality becomes pretty apparent, so this was new to them. As I look at the Degas example I feel like it may have been cropped by an editor, I'm not saying it was, just that it makes me feel that way because of all the annoying tagent points of the first figure's foot to the frame and well as hand, shoulder, and foot of the secondary figure. If this was done on purpose it did more to distract my eye than any good it might have done. The Howard Pyle example seems very crowded to me so if anything the cropping is to close. The negative spaces seem very tight to me. Cropping can be used successfully just as you've stated, but when it is used one has to watch very closely the negative shapes you are affecting in the process. The French and others after them did use this very effectively and sometimes not so effectively. So judge this for your self. Each change in the composition makes a larger change on the rest of the painting, and if that change isn't for the good of the whole then it will be unsuccessful. Remember a trick isn't magic until it works.
It may have been, that you were successful and that the gallery person or judge may have just finished reading the Official Art Rulebook, and decide to write you up in violation of art code #43798b or you have some how inadvertantly drawn her attention to it. The rule book that I use has only one page in it and on that page are the words, There are no rules in art. All one has to do is make it work.
Don't use pure white, don't use white it will make your color chaulky, never use black, don't put anything in the middle of the canvas, don't run anything off the canvas, never use white in watercolor, never use an orange in a still life, we need to do away with the legislative branch of the art police. For evey one of these rules I can think of thousands of examples where each was broken sussessfully.
There are laws however, such as the laws of light, color, value, perspective, etc., and even they can be broken given a good enough reason. When they are however, be careful not to raise more issues than you can answer to.
The art police would have given Picasso and Braque 20 to life for shattering the laws of light and perspective as they did.
Wm. F. Reese
Kaye, I've always thought that the impressionists were probably influenced by the camera in this regard because as one looks through the view finder this larger reality becomes pretty apparent, so this was new to them. As I look at the Degas example I feel like it may have been cropped by an editor, I'm not saying it was, just that it makes me feel that way because of all the annoying tagent points of the first figure's foot to the frame and well as hand, shoulder, and foot of the secondary figure. If this was done on purpose it did more to distract my eye than any good it might have done. The Howard Pyle example seems very crowded to me so if anything the cropping is to close. The negative spaces seem very tight to me. Cropping can be used successfully just as you've stated, but when it is used one has to watch very closely the negative shapes you are affecting in the process. The French and others after them did use this very effectively and sometimes not so effectively. So judge this for your self. Each change in the composition makes a larger change on the rest of the painting, and if that change isn't for the good of the whole then it will be unsuccessful. Remember a trick isn't magic until it works.
It may have been, that you were successful and that the gallery person or judge may have just finished reading the Official Art Rulebook, and decide to write you up in violation of art code #43798b or you have some how inadvertantly drawn her attention to it. The rule book that I use has only one page in it and on that page are the words, There are no rules in art. All one has to do is make it work.
Don't use pure white, don't use white it will make your color chaulky, never use black, don't put anything in the middle of the canvas, don't run anything off the canvas, never use white in watercolor, never use an orange in a still life, we need to do away with the legislative branch of the art police. For evey one of these rules I can think of thousands of examples where each was broken sussessfully.
There are laws however, such as the laws of light, color, value, perspective, etc., and even they can be broken given a good enough reason. When they are however, be careful not to raise more issues than you can answer to.
The art police would have given Picasso and Braque 20 to life for shattering the laws of light and perspective as they did.
Wm. F. Reese
Bill, I am really enjoying your musings! I have found all of what you say applies to my form of art as well.
Reply to this
I'm not surprised since the tradition of pictorial art in the western world has to do with the esthetics of beauty and this pretty much covers every thing. Everything from painting, sculpture, interior design, automotive design and on and on.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Bill you are great. Thanks for providing a forum for people to express themselves honestly, and thanks for your honest answers. I, among other artists, sometimes become quite frankly frustrated with the ambiguous pronouncements of the "experts". Here is another case in point. Several years ago I was entranced by an Indian boy on horseback herding horses. His fluidity with the horse and their movement together was like poetry; he was dressed only in a breechcloth, as he would have been in times gone by, in the searing summer heat, the dust and sweat. I painted this. Since I have lived in Indian culture for almost twenty years, I have absorbed everything from experience. When I presented this painting, I was told by a top gallery owner, "You can't just BE an Indian painter. You have to study it for years. "I am not naiive enough to not know what he meant. He meant that he wanted the white man's romanticized version of the Indian, the beads and feathers syndrome, The regalia. I have talked to a number of Indians who have said, "When we went on a raiding party we stripped down for purposes of easy movement." It made sense to me. A cowboy wouldn't put on a tuxedo or his Sunday best to bring in cattle. Here is my question...are gallery owners now defining a culture to artists, in opposition to what the Indian people know to be true? In opposition to what the artist sees and feels? Who gave them this power and in your opinion, what IS an Indian painter? Sincerely, Kaye Guerin Y.
Reply to this
Kaye
During your career as an artist you will receive more advice than you can ever hope to follow. Some good, some not so good, and some completely without merit. Some of the best advice I have received sometimes came from very unlikely sources. So you do need to listen, but one needs to always remember after you've pursued an endeaver for a good while, you will probably know more than most of your so called advisors. So once you've heard them out don't be afraid to follow your own council. Half the people you meet were in the bottom half of their class anyway, so be selective who you listen to. You were the observer in this case so that makes you an expert in your own right. Were I in your shoes I would have asked why they wanted beads and feathers you would probably find out that they sell better. So if they spent a little more time learning their own trade and leave you to your's you might both be better served.
The most important quality an artist can have is integrity, be true to your own convictions, and paint what is dear to you. If you were a writer or musician you would have to appeal to people in the thousands. As painters we only have to appeal to two people, yourself and one other person. If you were one in a million there would still be 6000 more just like you.
Those with a position of power only have the power we give them. You also asked what is an Indian painter, well it might be either one who paints Indians or an Indian who paints. Lord I don't know In either case I don't think they require a license.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Thanks for your thoughtful,wise reply. That makes total sense. I guess I put too much credence in The "prestige" factor of successful art merchants;you are so correct in saying we must be true to our own convictions.I needed to hear that again, because there are legions of people who believe in the "create what sells"philosophy,(and that is pragmatic) which seems to rob the artist of the "create what inspires" motivation.I believe we all have a unique way of looking at the world based upon our soul and our unique life experiences, and staying true to this is the key to powerful, expressive art.A friend of mine said recently "With enough money, I could go out and open a gallery. It doen't mean I know anything about art."This really brought it home.What amazes me is that after all these years in art, I'm still learning important lessons...it never stops...and still refining my own expression.I like your comment"Those with a position of power..." I will be more confident in my own knowledge hereafter. Sincerely, Kaye
Reply to this
Kaye
Artists are expected to be leaders and to show a vision that is unique to them and a vision concerned only with sales is a long way from being a unique vision. While at the same time we must remember we are practicing a form of communication so to become completely self indulgent and gratifying is equally off base.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Hi Bill,
Again, so glad you are doing this! Also, it's great to see other contributors whose names I recognize.
Since Kaye's question had to do with jurying, I'll post my question on this thread.
Do you think the pendulum has swung again in the old William Merritt Chase/ Robert Henri dispute over skill vs. content? It seems to me as I view shows or catalogs of major competitions in the last few years that there is an increase in the technical finesse, especially in the figurative work. Much of it really knocks my socks off, but I can think of at least two top winners that were figurative that left me with a nagging feeling of "there's something wrong with the drawing." Since both were mother and child subjects, I wondered if the jurors chose the message, not the means.
Best to all,
Susan Greaves
Reply to this
Dear Susan
What a great question!
I was raised around livestock and I don't ever remember a horse or cattle show ever being judged by someone outside that industry, or heaven forbid people's choice. Peoples choice isn't that how they judge fast food? Can you imagine escargot being judged by people's choice? My wife's sister has been raising and breeding orchids for more than 40 years and had to under go a great deal of training to be qualified to be an international orchid judge. So I have never understood why magazine editors, gallery directors, and who knows who all is any where remotely qualified to judge an art exhibit. I've always believed that should only be left to artists and only the best of them at that. It just takes so much time to develop knowledge of the skills required and even more time to understand the importance of content. Proper technique and good skills should be expected so that one can be left to concentrate on the artistic statement. You mentioned that something seemed to be wrong with the drawing and that goes a long way to prove that drawing and the other skills should be expected. Which you did and when it's wrong shows how much it is to be expected.The skills really should count against you when wrong but only expected when they are correct. We really only notice someones manners when they show they don't have any, the rest of the time we expect proper manners. I suppose there is a point when like Fechin the drawing goes above and beyond, so at that point you might get an extra gold star and a smiley face but most of us needn't worry about that.
Can you imagine judging a book or a poem by the typing skills, font selection, and paper choice, and paying no attention to what the author said, or vice versa?
The problem is that we have been led to believe that drawing, painting, and sculpting is art. Not so they are the crafts of art, just as carpentry and masonry are the crafts of architecture. At the same time how impressed should we be with a beautifully designed building when the bricks are falling off and the plumbing is leaking.
A work of art is like a three legged stool.. concept, design and execution, and taste. The lose of anyone of the legs and the whole thing collapses.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Wm. Zorach, in his book "Zorach Explains Sculpture", Dover Press, talks about the problem artists have sustaining themselves financially while creating art.On page 277 he says, "Portraits, if done occasionally, and sincerely, have no unfortunate effect upon one's art. I do not approve of commercial art as a means of supplementing income because the point of view necessary to do commercial art successfully is very harmful to the serious artist. Nor do I approve of trying to make a living outside of art and still do sculpture. One cannot so divide one's energies successfully, unless lucky enough to have some minor means of support that requires little or no thought and not too much time."Wm. Zorach.This is a big issue for artists in a time of rising gas and food prices, not to mention high commissions, high cost of materials, and the proliferation of prints and giclees.I remember in your book you suggested doing smaller "bread and butter" paintings.Given the changing times, do you think this is still a viable option for an artist who wants to make a living as an artist?Zorach says about teaching:"The only danger is in absorbing your own teaching, by this I mean, thinking of problems from the point of view of a student and not as a mature artist."My question:Does teaching halt the growth of the artist?Somehow detract?It seems to me that it would consolidate one's knowledge by having to explain concepts to students.What is your opinion on this?Also, it seems to me that teaching is a spotty type of income in todays world where we need "benefits"and "retirement".Sincerely, Kaye
Reply to this
Kaye
Much of what you have quoted from Zorach I believe to be true. I haven't read this book as of yet, so I'm interested. Does he suggest what whe then should do to keep a roof over our family's head? He is correct in stating that the point view of commercial art and fine art are quite different.
I remember Ben Stahl explaining to me his feelings on the difference between fine art and commercial art. Commercial art has a need for the narrative to be more important than the form and fine art the form must be more important than the narrative. So I think if one can understand this well enough then working at commercial art can serve as way to refine and enhance your skills. Looking back at my years in the sign business I believe it raised my skill level a great deal. Unless one is independently wealthy your energies are going to be divided somewhere along the line. What could be more distracting than trying to feed your family.
When I quit the sign business I had already been showing in galleries for seven or eight years so I had somewhat of a following. I had $3600 in the bank and we were living on a net of $400 a month so I had enough to last 9 months so every $130 I could raise selling my paintings I could hold out another week. My plan was to work until the money ran out and then go back work and save up another $3600 and start over. Fortuneatly we didn't have to. Every once in a while I would teach a one week work shop and make $200 to $300 which helped quite a bit. I'm not mentioning any of this as a, "I walked ten miles to school up hill both ways," kind of story. Because this didn't seem anymore difficult to my wife and I than anything else we had every done.
You mentioned my "bread and butter" paintings, I think I referred to them as pot boilers. The reason I did them was to get my butt to work in the morning and past the guilt of not really having a job. Believe me trying to make a living as a painter in those days did little to raise the public opinion as to the level of your IQ. Consequently the guilt I felt for not having a regular income was no small thing. So every morning I would grab a couple of pieces of fruit from the refrigerator and off I would go to my studio to paint an 8x10 still life. I would then sell them for $35 a piece and after the gallery took a third I had close to $24. Once I had painted one in the morning I would take my french easel and go into the field to paint for the remainder of the day. I did this faithfully every day six days a week and at the end of the nine months we had $2000 in the bank and at the end of a couple of years we had $4000. There were a few times in the coming years when we would be down to zero but by then I knew I could do it and we would just work our way out of it. Yes I do think it is still a viable option the times have changed the numbers but their relationships are still the same.
What Zorach says about teaching can be very true. I know I quit teaching so much for that very reason. I felt frustrated by the fact that my mind was so involved with fundamentals and the veiw point of the sturdent that I was know longer reacting to what I was painting. Basically I was spending too much time in my left brain and not enough in my right. Does teaching halt the growth of an artist? No I don''t think that is necessarily so unless you teach to much. For the younger artist I think it might actually help by forcing them to organize their thoughts as they themselves break the chains of their own teachers and start to think for themselves. Students then give them a place to express these thoughts. Imagine what damage might be done to the mind of research scientist if he were to spend three days a week teaching junior high school science. One day a month might actually be energizing but three days a week would probably destroy him.
You say that teaching is a spotty type of income. Is there some kind of income from art that isn't spotty? I was raised in an agricultural environment so I learned that when you do make some money you save as much as possible because you won't see another nickle until spring and theres is no guarantee there will be anything then. The other thing I learned was how much money you make or don't make the cows still have to be fed and the crops still have to be harvested. As far as the benefits like retirement and medical you have to consider yourself a small business and set this aside as you go. So if you just keep producing eventually the peaks and valleys find a way of leveling out.
Kaye I think this was a particularly good comment and I'll be interested to see if what others might say. I don't know if anyone knows the answer I know all I know is what I've experienced, there has been so little written on this subject it certainly is worthy of some sort of discussion.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this