Thursday, September 13, 2007
I've often said that there is an art movement happening at any given time but we wouldn't know what it was until an art historian in the the future has defined it. And I also thought that there would be extreme changes at the turn of the century. What I didn't know was that the art movement which is happening at this century's turn would be uncharacteristicly evident to us -- even as it is occurring. Is this what happens when art and the masses collide? And although we may find ourselves obsessing over the artists who painted in context to thier times.. what about the ones who didn't and ended up impacting art history anyway. Is it enough for an artist to be honest.. seeking only his or her own path, regardless of the trends or movements? Just a few questions and insights to get us started.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Check me out…the first to comment.
When I read your post, the first thing that left to mind was this article in the NY Times, that chronicles some of what might be considered Knopf Inc.’s publishing blunders. Not those book they chose to publish, but those they passed on including Anne Frank’s diary and Nobokov’s Lolita.
I thought of it because I think that no matte how prescient and erudite we strive to be…there will always be those things we can’t quite get a handle on because we are living through them.
I also go to thinking about your comment about context…I think artists inherently work in the context of their times. Even if someone is working with 14th century methods in the 20th century, they are reacting to or against their times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
Best of luck with the new blog. I look forwar to reading more.
Linda Blondheim
www.lindablondheimartnotes.blogspot.com
www.linda-blondheim.blogspot.com
www.lindablondheim.com
Thank you Madeleine for your comments.. I enjoy your writing and am so happy to have you as my first post. When I spoke of artists working out of context perhaps that could've been worded differently. Who came to mind when I wrote this was Lucian Freud who continued to paint the human figure in a rather classic way regardless trends and movements of his time. All those years... he must have been felt out of sink and was quoted as " drifting out of the mainstream of artistic development" while his fellow artists hockney and francis bacon dominated the british artworld. It wasn't until the late eighties that freud gained international recognition. I personally see fine and wonderful friends/artists get discouraged because they are under appreciated adn disenfranchised. I like to remind them of the freuds and rousseaus of this world.
I went over to Linda's blog. It is very interesting to read the choices she makes as a painter. As artists we have to juggle what we paint to sell and what we want to paint. It's nice when these are the same but Linda (if I understand correctly) has offered up some solutions on how to balance her painting life. Did I get that right, Linda?
Sorry if this sounds dense, but what is the art movement that is going on that everyone is aware of? How would you characterize it? Is it different from other self-aware movements such as Surrealism or Futurism or the pre-raphaelites in that it isn't formally organized, or how?
jnfrazer, I love it that you've asked this and there's nothing dense about your question..just the opposite in fact. I've seen a similarity in whats coming out of the schools and an attitude of the younger artists. I'm unable to put words to what I'm seeing and was hoping someone else could describe it... but its there and its causing some division. Pedestrian (Jacksonville, FL) has an exhibit, Portent, I Said Portent, which hints at the new movement but has had some criticism (as most new movements do)...I don't mean to be vague but I'm really hoping someone will jump in and describe this thing. Thanks!
Hi, Sharla. Congratulations on your new blog!
In reference to your last comment, a good way to
define this post-post-modern expressionism is
a misdirected sense of entitlement. A healthy respect
for the craft of painting, & the discipline to pursue
it should be a prerequisite to any shown art. Even if the work is good, it needs to seek its validity in the
synthesis of true creative expression & craft.
That's why'painting is a process, not a destination',
That's why artists go to their studios to make art!
margo buccini info@margobuccinipaintings.com
Sharlatv,
I am making the attempt at balance of course but we all must make a living. The fact that I get to wake up everyday as a working artist is th main thrill in life for me. I found out that I am the only working artist left from my art school graduating class. A sad commentary I think.
I'm not very philosophical about the world of art. I jut do it, but I enjoy reading about my more intellectual friends and their musings about the world of art.
Love your blog.
Linda Blondheim
www.lindablondheim.com
www.linda-blondheim.blogspot.com
www.lindablondheimartnotes.blogspot.com
You Go! Margo! I'm so glad to read these words...especially about it being a process not a destination. After painting for over 10 years, I feel I've hit just the tip of the iceberg. Take care my friend and thanks for your wise words.
Linda, it’s sad to read that you are the only one still painting from your class... I have seen the most talented artists from art school fall away and I began to think that people have their peaks at different times in their lives and the ones I was so impressed with perhaps peaked early. But I never thought I learned how to paint in art school... what I did learn was art history and a philosophy that keeps me painting today. And just doing it IS enough-- it's what Margo was talking about...the process which breeds excellence like the Japanese potters who throw the same shape over and over and there's just something so sublime about those Japanese pots from the masters who are national treasures over there.
SharlaTV,
For me it has never been about peaking as an artist. Art is a way of life for me. Good bad, or ugly, I'm there at the easel each and every day. I believe that artists get tied up in the politics of art. Am I good enough? Do I show in the right galleries? How often do I get rejected?
None of that nonsense means anything really. It is all about me and the canvas. Nothing else is important.
Love,
Linda
Post a Comment