I would like to address a common question that I hear over and over again.
Why don't you make "contemporary paintings"?
I'll try to answer this in brief:
As far as we know, man first painted on cliff and cave walls 40,000 years ago. These images were design/pattern oriented without an attempt at the illusion of three dimensions - i.e abstract. Throughout the entire history of painting, man has only attempted to compose within the illusion of three dimensional space for less than 1,000 years cumulatively (that's if you count the Greeks, but we only have stories about their paintings, not actual paintings).
Take 39,000 years of abstraction in one hand and 1,000 years of illusionism in the other and tell me which one has been thoroughly explored.
Or if you prefer: I as an artist am a product of contemporary society. Ergo, my work is contemporary.
6 comments:
I wonder why you feel the need to claim the description of "contemporary."
Sure, you can make a dictionary-based argument that you painting today, therefore it's contemporary. But that's like a house painter saying, "I'm a Fine Art Painter because I paint, my craftmanship is between ok & good, and my name is Art."
Or, to be a little less silly, it would be like me saying "I'm a Post-Impressionist because I'm an artist and working in a style that is after Impressionism."
Post-Impressionism describes a particular style (and one that I'm not doing) just as Contemporary describes a particular style (and one you're not doing).
Why not be proud of what you're doing rather than try to argue you're doing something you're not?
Thank you for the comment, I see your point. Please bear with me, I know the comment below is a little abrasive, but It's not really pointed at you... I'm just a little irritated with the subject.
However, "contemporary art" is not associated with a particular style. (I'll stick to painting for the sake of simplicity) Take a look at Neo Rauch, Jeff Koons, Jenny Saville, Inca Essenhigh, Julie Heffernan, Cecily Brown... all of whom are considered "contemporary" and all have vastly different visual styles.
What they have in common is that they are addressing a dialogue, in that they deal with subjects currently favorable to the social conscience in the art world or in larger culture. So, the claim that my work is not "stylistically" contemporary reveals that the person making the claim has the equivalent view of the art world that one would see through a paper towel tube. I'm not saying that their opinion is invalid, I simply bristle when they assert that it is the only valid view as if they have command over the art domain and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Maybe I'm being a bit defensive, but I simply encounter it very often... and from the same types of people - semi educated "hipsters" in their 20's who have a BFA from somewhere and move to the trendy neighborhood so that they can be in the "scene". That's great that they choose to participate in the art world, but their pretense is unwarranted and unnecissary.
As far as my work is concerned, I am simply a bit tired of hearing people saying my work is not contemporary because of it's stylistic attributes. If they want to say that the subject matter or themes I address aren't really of interest to greater society right now, that's fine.
You don't forge a successful art career by rushing to whatever style or subject is popular at the moment - you'll always arrive five minutes late. You have to be ahead of the game. If you do what you love, you will do it better than anything else and eventually public opinion will go through its cycles and come around to you.
But I didn't really answer your question directly. Why do I feel the need to claim the description of "contemporary"? You're right that it's kind of a blanket claim.
I, personally, feel the need because otherwise some people attempt to write me off based on it. They claim that my work is "derivative" because it stylistically references what has come before. My response is: show me art that does not refer to something that has come before.
They can't write me off based on technical skill, and they can't say I have no content... so they call me old school. But maybe "old school" is the new "new school"... I mean grunge is coming back into favor.
Well, I certainly agree that Contemporary Art doesn't hew to a single style. And there are Contemporary Artists who paint in a very traditional/realistic style (e.g., Gehard Richter on occasion).
What would cause one to say you're not working in a Contemporary Style would probably be two things: 1. you seem to dislike Contemporary Art 2. You art doesn't seem to be grappling with the issues Contemporary Art typically does or have an intent beyond the traditional.
Frankly, people working in a more traditional style have an easier time of it (e.g., their art is more easily appreciated by the general public, they have more opportunities to sell, etc.). That being said, traditional skill with contemporary approach is a very powerful combination if that's what you wanted to do.
Well, perhaps I come across as disliking contemporary art, but I certainly don't. What I don't like is the oppression I feel from the institutionalized "contemporary art" clicks - which you especially find in university art programs across the nation.
I like some of Richter's work, and actually enjoy his non-objective paintings more than his photo-realist. I enjoy John Currin, Cecily Brown, Eric Fischl (with whom I studied)... and a great number of others. But as with any time period, you always have about 5% good art, 10% decent, and the rest will be completely forgotten. (I think I'm being generous)
Although, I see your point that some of my work doesn't address the issues typically addressed in contemporary art, I do think that some of my work does address them. I don't know if you've looked over my website: http://www.memoreejoelle.org
Yes I study the old masters and often work in their techniques, but some of my pieces relate directly to contemporary social discussion. Like The War of Northern Aggression, Self Portrait as a Pin-head, and Reconstruction. Some of them are much more subtle than what you would typically find in a contemporary gallery, but I think that subtlety gives art richness.
Maybe some traditional artists are more commercially successful, but I certainly haven't seen the money. I'm still struggling along with the rest of you.
By the way, if your interested in having a further dialogue check out this collaborative art blog I started: http://artbabel.blogspot.com
There are many artists who are members and we encourage diverse opinions.
What I don't like is the oppression I feel from the institutionalized "contemporary art" clicks - which you especially find in university art programs across the nation
Well, full-disclosure, I'm a university studio arts professor... That being said, I have to wonder whether this oppression you're feeling is something that is self-created. I mean, how often are you really having personal interactions with these university cliques which result in them oppressing you? (I mention person largely because the internet is full of rude people--and I appreciate this being a civil discussion :)--so I hope that no group would be tarred by the typing of some netizen.
I guess what gave me the presumption that you don't like Contemporary Art is how you gave that installation on Ed Winkleman's blog a bad critique. I'm assuming you haven't seen it in person, so giving it a negative review seems to be jumping to judgment. I don't know if you had been continuing to follow that discussion, but I likened judging it via photos to be like judging a painting via a black & white photo (something I'd never want to do).
You have a good point there. I am certainly willing to admit when I'm wrong. I was jumping to a conclusion based on the many similar installation pieces that I have seen in my life, few of which I liked. (Though I was intrigued by some and even moved by one).
But perhaps this will put it into context for you.
I attended the University of Georgia for undergrad. This is where I first encountered the various cliques to which I refer. Being nearly the only figurative painter in a school of a thousand people was somewhat alienating. I was surrounded by the mind set that "everything is good art", well, everything except what I'm doing.... This came from much of the faculty as well as the students. So, yes, perhaps I grew a little cynical, and a bit too quick to judgment.
Later, when I attended the New York Academy of Art for my masters I found that a lot of the students had a similar experience at their respective undergraduate programs. We even had professor at the academy who gave us the same song and dance. (In the interest of full disclosure, I learned much from her, especially how many ways I disagree with her.)
In undergrad it wasn't just the school, it was the entire town and pretty much the whole state of Georgia. Unless you were in Atlanta, there were two choices: Thomas Kinkaid and conceptual art (in the Universities). Many people I knew could get an image of their work beside a press release in the local paper - I only got a brief sentence, repeatedly. And it has been my unfortunate luck to encounter the same paradoxical elitist attitude cloaked in "anti-elitist" rhetoric in Chelsea (though fortunately not to the same degree). I don't claim to be better than good contemporary artists, I simply claim that I have the potential to be an equal.
Post a Comment