Musings: Recent Comments

Comment on Who's opinionated?

William Reese — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:00:42 GMT

Hi Jerry,
I am certainly no expert when it comes to economics or seeing into the future, but what I do know is for every mile of road there's two miles of ditch. As landscape painters we all know that between every mountain range there's a lot of flat land. Beyond that all I can tell you what I've seen during my life.

I quit my day job as a sign painter during a time of an unemployment level of 20 or 21% in Washington State. The Boeing Co had lost the Super Sonic Transport project, Congress had pulled the plug on the whole project and suddenly 100,000 Boeing workers in Seattle lost their jobs and before you knew it 21% of the work force was in the unemployment line. Should a job come up most were so over qualified that no one would hire them. So you can imagine just how crazy my friends thought I was when I quit my job to paint pictures for a living. I was so young and dumb that I just said that meant nearly 80% were still working. It's true ignorance is bliss. I had $3500 saved and we could manage on $400 a month so we could last nine months if nothing sold.

Looking back nearly 40 years now I've seen good times come and go, so that I've come to realize that during good times art is the last segment of the economy to thrive and the first to dive when it slows down. During good times you can barely produce it fast enough and during slow times it piles up around your ears. The lesson I've learned is this: first try to build up a cash savings account of at least enough to live for 6 months a year is even better. Second don't slow down just because things aren't selling, continue to produce from your heart the sales will come. The next time sales get real good don't spend it all, it is amazing how a savings account can give you the freedom and independence to paint what you want.

When I started my career there really wasn't an art business so every place you would turn was unchartered water, by the late 70's you couldn't make it fast enough. Paintings could literally be sold over the phone. When Reagan became President interest rates on savings was over 20% so drastic measures had to be taken and US economics went through a lot of changes so art was nearly impossible to sell for about four years.

When the oil prices dropped to the low teens per barrell it also had a big effect on art since Texas oil money had been driving the art market along with many others. Later on the Savings and loan debacle had a big effect on the art market.

I was raised in an agricultural background so it always seemed natural to me to save during good times and live off of your savings during slow times and to keep raising crops through good and bad times. Above all make the process of learning and painting the real pay off and the money the bonus.

Wm. F. Reese

Comment on Who's opinionated?

Jerry Markham — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:49:30 GMT

Hi Bill,

Recently I have been hearing about the economical woes that we are in and all the talk of an unavoidable depression. I could not help but wonder what this has done to painters in the past through other such times. How in your opinion did this affect painters in the past and how will it affect us now if at all? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,
Jerry

Comment on This world we call art

William Reese — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:25:39 GMT

Let me set your mind at ease. I've been painting since I was 12 which was before you were born, and I don't think I am going to live long enough to learn all I want to know. In fact I know I won't live long enough because every day I discover a deeper and deeper deficit in my knowledge. So then we just do the best we can and enjoy the process.

I've talked to a lot of people who discribe how they picked the style that they wished to paint in usually it is one that others have made successful. I wasn't exposed to any successful artists when I was young so I just painted in the manner that I had learned to see. So I never really thought of my style and still don't for that matter. I am not saying that I was never influenced by the work of others because I was and continue to be influence by others to this day. Most of these painters that have affected my thinking all walk different paths. So my style is the sum total of all these folks plus the influence of my own eye and sense of esthetics. I also believe in allowing the subject to dictate how it will be painted so my work has many variants from subject to subject and medium to medium. At the same time I can see a thread that goes through it all.

I have admired the work of realists, impressionists. abstractionists, and expressionists and they probably have an affect on me depending on my mood and subject matter. Over the years I have been labeled a realist, impressionist, expressionist, and even once even an abstractionist, and I never really agreed with any of them. So now after all of that I guess the answer is "I don't know."

Your reference to Sergei's workshops being discribed as romatic. I suppose this may be due to the fact that in many ways Sergei was in a way a bigger than life individual. We've all know those who turn heads when they walk into a room, Sergei was such a person. His students idolized him and in a way he loved it, and who wouldn't.

He was a genius at bringing a student to a certain level in painting in a relative short time, unfortunately he was so dogmatic in his teaching that few went beyond looking like Sergei. I don't mean this in a negative way because once the student reached a certain point they should have searched for their next master. I'm a firm believer in having many masters each one chosen to cover ones most immediate weakness. Having only one master makes it almost impossible not to imitate. The more cross pollination the better.

You also asked how I would compare my style to Sergei's. Sergei believed in seeing spots of color where I am more interested in searching out the form. Sergei worked almost entirely in broken color I do too but not nearly as much. He also worked fairly large seldom smaller than 24x30 he felt it was impossible to work smaller and still be able to express your self. He did do a few 12x16's after I forced him to it because that was all I had available one day and he did actually admit to enjoying it. I really enjoy working small especially in the field. I may start every painting different than the last sometimes light to dark and sometimes half tone to light and dark, I love to experiment. Sometimes changing palettes sometimes adding a new color or two. Sergei was much more systematic in his approach.

There is no right or wrong each must find his own way.

Wm. F. Reese

Comment on This world we call art

Paula Ann Psarros — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:00:02 GMT

Dear Bill,
I miss your musings. You haven't posted since May 31st! I'm reading Sergei Bongart's books and I've ordered yours. For the first time in my 52 years I am worried I may not have enough time to learn all I want to.
I have several questions, please. (I hope they are not too naive):
How would you describe your painting style to someone who wasn't an artist? How would you compare it to Sergie Bongart's style? Is there a critical review of your work that you felt was especially insightful?
Those workshops with Bongart are so romanticized in the book...one might expect a bit of exaggeration. Then one sees the magical paintings!!! Please muse again soon.

Comment on Working towards the essential

William Reese — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:01:43 GMT

Wow what a great question.

I'm not even sure I can answer it because everytime I've thought about this sort of thing I feel like I would have to undo all that happened because of what I did do. My life has been a series of choices that led to unintended consequences that were better than the intention of the original choice. So if I were to apply a bunch of do overs I would make a mess of my life for sure.

I have been blessed with bad news and events that led to wonderful things so I wouldn't even do them over.

So I will at least try to answer your question in the hypothetical sense.

If I were a young artist of a "certain age" I would find a very good painter or sculptor and offer my part time free services as an apprentice. I would do this while working a regular job to support myself. On my days off I would paint in the field, from live models, or still life. I would carry a sketch book everywhere I went, if I owned a camera I would use it only for family photos, if I didn't own one I would save my money for more art books and paint. Spend as much time as possible in great museums. I would start building my own library of art books. Join a live model sketch group. I would resist working with a gallery or even signing your paintings until you know your own mind and direction, and have the skills needed to express yourself. Network with other artists preferably those who are better painters than yourself and who are willing to offer honest critiques of your work. Above all remember you only learn the arts by doing them.

If you are an older artist of a "certain age" like myself you can use much of what I have said earlier except at our age it is a lot more difficult, everything is harder to learn and easier to forget. However sometimes the financial end is easier. The big warning here is do it for the fun of it. Every hour you spend trying to sell you work is an hour you aren't painting. If one can afford to chase this sort of rainbow forget about the pot of gold and just share your efforts with your friends. My wife makes quilts and a friend ask her the price of one that she admired and my wife said, "oh that one is sold". The lady was so disappointed until my wife added, "because it's yours."
My wife said she wouldn't have traded a thousand dollars for the next five minutes. When you give someone a gift that can't be bought the value is beyond money and words.

Last of all follow your heart and paint what pleases you and in a way that expresses your feelings.

Wm. F. Reese

Comment on Welcome to my blog

William Reese — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:19:53 GMT

Susan,

This has always interested me too. I don't really think it is entirely a birds of a feather thing because so many times it seems to happen in a very small geographical area like in the case of the French Impressionists. Sometimes you see outstanding athletes from the same high school. So I've often thought it had more to do with the influence each had on the other. My mother used to say, "You will be known by the friends you keep." I believe she meant to take care in choosing friends of good character, but I think friends with great skills would be just as influential. There is another old saying, "If you want to be a better golfer, golf with better golfers."

Another component may be that people of like minds seem to enoy each other's company and while doing so are bound to have a positive effect on each other. In this respect it may be a birds of a feather issue. People like this also seem to have very strong individual personalities. While they are influencing each other in many, many ways they still maintain their own individuality. So even though they influence each other their work has its own signature. Hence they can share information and then each will expand it to the point that once shared again it cross pollinates making for a great explosion of ideas each time it is shared.

Quite often these groups grow out of the influence of a single person, like an exceptional teacher, coach, or mentor of some sort, and this person will have a very strong sense of individuality, as well as great knowledge and skills. Like Ilya Repin for instance he was more or less the common thread in the so called Russian Impressionist movement.

As far as the Royal families of Europe are concerned I don't think much of this applies, I mean since they are all cousins how do they do they not know each other. In the case of our own founding fathers this had to have been devine intervention that brought them together if you ever doubt this just compare them to the 545 politicians that we have selected out of a 300 million population to take their place. Maybe they're all cousins too.

In my case I have been fortunate to have known so many exceptional and talented individuals that have all been a big influence on my life and career that it would be very difficult to try to name them with out leaving someone out. The important thing I think is to remember that everyone you meet has something to teach you. They have some good to teach which you will want to learn to use, and some bad to teach which you will want to learn not to use. Both are worth remembering. The other thing is to always be willing to trade everything you know for what someone is willing to teach you. It may not seem like a fair trade but it will be a good trade for you, because in the end you will have been exposed to everything worth knowing.

My thoughts on this are purely through observation so I would be interested to hear what others would have to say about this. Let me know.

Wm. F. Reese

Comment on Working towards the essential

Paula Ann Psarros — Fri, 30 May 2008 06:47:26 GMT

Bill,
I am a women "of a certain age" but young and untouched when it comes to oil painting. I've just completed a workshop with Susan Diehl and she opened the door for me to the world of Sergei Bongart, Ron Lukas and (of course!) you! It feels others have been living in a dimension I never knew existed. Can you image seeing all this work for the very first time? It is late at night but I can't tear myself away from the computer. I am awe-struck by tiny pictures on the internet! Here's what I would like to ask you (the first of a zillion questions): If you were just starting to paint...but knew what you know now...what would you do differently?

Comment on Welcome to my blog

Susan Greaves — Wed, 21 May 2008 03:24:27 GMT

Hi Bill,

As I was perusing my new California impressionists book and reading the artists' biographies, I was smacked in the face again with life lesson #46, "You don't grow in a vacuum." Most of the prominent painters in California in the late 1800's and early 1900's knew each other. This seems to be a consistently repeated pattern through history, not only history of art, but of science, technology, and many other fields.

There were the geniuses of the Renaissance in from Leonardo to Galileo, the politically powerful royal families of Europe including the Habsburgs, Windsors, and Romanovs, the French Impressionists, our own founding fathers whose friendships ebbed and were reestablished according to America's and their own political fortunes, and the atomic and rocket scientists of the 40's. More recently, what about Jobs/Woseneac/Gates and Spielburg/Lucas and Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton(maybe)? No strangers to one another there. It goes on and on.

From friends' names you've mentioned, I know that you have had a lot of contact with many, many artists. What impact did these associations have on you and how did they influence you? What lessons can we learn from that experience?

Best,
Susan

Comment on Like being paid to eat ice cream.

William Reese — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:59:57 GMT

Susan,
I'll take this question a little at a time. First off we often get critiques and don't know it, and from people we don't necessarily think are qualified. Yet if a pedestrian off the street looks at our work and doesn't get it. You've just been critiqued and it's time to think about what you've said and how you've said it. Now this person can't tell you how to fix it but they will let you know when something is wrong. I used to take my horse sculptures to the race track and have jockeys tell me what they could see that was wrong. I would have the horse shoer check them out, as well as the veterinarian. Any one I could think of even the UPS driver. What I found is that they each had a valid view point. What one needs to always be aware of however, is the fact that to a hammer salesman everything looks like a nail. Each will see what they know and that is all they will see. So our job is to reach a state of correctness and a form of communication that reaches and satisfies them all.

I'm sure however what you are looking for is a critique from another artist hopefully one you might consider a mentor. I've found that if tell them what I want, is to find the negatives for me, I can identify the positives by my self, they will at least try. Painting and designing signs for 13 years helped me learn to be aware of how the eye was tracking the surface of the painting. Where the eye was allowed to move and when it was stopped. When, where, and how the eye became trapped and when and where the eye wanted to get out and move on to the next painting. What element will be read first, second, and third. It taught me that when something appears wrong it may indeed be right, if you correct something else instead.

In general my feeling about giving critiques is first of all it is a gift and must always be given that way, It should always be constructive and personalities should always be set aside. This is not about building self esteem in the short term at least, if one is honest self esteem will be improved down the road when it matters most. I have always thought that false praise was about the cruelist thing one could do. Besides mentioning the positive is like preaching to the choir unless of course it's the first time they've ever got it right. Mostly I am looking for mistakes in execution or more importantly errors in the thought process. Once the errors are identified I like to recommend exercises that will change this.

In short all critiques can be good but we must always factor in the source when we decide whether they are correct or not.

How should we weigh critiques by artists in whose works we can see blatant errors? I would say listen to them as well after all just because they got it wrong doesn't mean they are not correct about your's. If they have already stepped in that puddle they may just be right when they tell you to step over it. I've seen mistakes in museums by master painters that I would welcome listening to if I just had a time machine.

You also asked about ones ego getting in the way. I can see two chances for that, if we find our ego stepping forward when we are giving a critique then we really aren't presenting knowledge and insight as a gift, we are instead merely rubbing their nose in their own failure. Don't be surprised if they quit asking for any help. If our ego becomes involved when we are receiving a critique then we weren't really looking for help, we were looking for false praise. When I see this happening I just tell them to call their mother because she'll be happy to praise their efforts and she would probably love to talk with them anyway.

One of the best sign painters I ever worked with taught me this. When ever you have a question ask everyone you come in contact with because you never really know which one will know the answer. He would even ask the janitor. Because of this lesson I have always been willing to trade every thing I know for everything everybody else knows eventually I will have access to more knowledge than I will be able to remember. Thinking this way leaves absolutely no place for an unhealthy ego.

Wm. F. Reese

Comment on Like being paid to eat ice cream.

Susan Greaves — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:29:36 GMT

Thanks, Bill. Another article we all identify with because we all struggle. It's amazing how deeply satisfying a little bit of progress can be.

You touched on critiques. Please expand on that. Your critiques are always incisive, honest, impersonal, and worth gold, but getting a good critique is difficult. First, it's hard to get others to agree to a critique and then many artists are so steeped in the self-esteem philosophy that they won't cite anything negative. How do you think we should weigh critiques by artists in whose works we can see blatant errors? And most of all, how do we know when our own ego getting in the way?

Best,
Susan Greaves