Posted by Karl Zipser
Hanneke can’t post today, so I am going to post about her work instead. Here is a detail from a painting. Can you guess what this is?
Hanneke has diverse talents. She makes both still life paintings and paintings like this one. The question is, what should Hanneke focus on? It’s a question we discuss from time to time. Hanneke paints still life because she loves still life. Ironically, still life, which in some ways is marketable, may be standing in the way of her making art that could get her more recognition. Should Hanneke paint “challenging art“, artworks speaking to terrorism, racism and other -isms of our time? Or is humble still life the real challenging art of our time, something which no serious avant-guard collector or dealer would dare to exhibit?
I’d be curious to hear what you think. Terrorism and social ills are not really Hanneke’s thing, but perhaps she should be practical and make less acceptable paintings. What do you say?
And don’t forget to look at the rest of this image…
One reason to move back to Northern Europe – fresh white asparagus in the early summer.
I would not call this a conventional still life. Don’t the asparagus gleam surrealistically?
In terms of marketable, are expensive contemporary homes in US semi-rural areas suitable for hanging small pieces of art? Aren’t they built with giant rooms, few walls, and ridiculously narrow hallways? Perhaps, small still lifes are more for city dwellers?
Birgit,
What a meta-answer! Except for fresh asparagus, you did not express a single opinion of your own. What do YOU think?
It’s hard to beat doing what you love if it also pays well. What’s the value of recognition? Are you talking about a calculated risk that this recognition could be translated into much greater economic reward? Not worth it and probably unlikely if she doesn’t enjoy it. How about occasional experimentation on the side? If something new speaks to her, try it then!
I would like to hear a follow-up about Hanneke’s show at Ploem’s gallery. What was it like exhibiting at that unique space?
Steve,
It was uniquely unprofitable. It’s easy to make vague statements about doing what one likes to do. If the paintings don’t sell, it is a problem to solve: find the place where they sell, or paint something different.
These asparagus are truly spectacular.
The last galleries that I visited on the main drag in Boston had no still lifes that compared in quality to Hanneke’s work.
I don’t know what people buy. For the last 5 years, I had the social life of a laboratory rat.
I have an idea for a future post with theme of ‘the emperor does not wear any clothes’.
These asparagus are truly spectacular.
Yeah, they are spectacular. Hanneke is my partner/wife, so I am biased — I tend to be hyper-critical of her work. Still, I am amazed at what she does. This picture was sitting in a corner in her studio, turned to the wall, forgotten. I brought it to our apartment, framed it and put it on the wall. I’ve ended up as a major collector of Hanneke’s paintings. I have some of the best stuff and I don’t think I will part with it. A few excellent pictures got away from me. To be honest, I’m kind of happy the exhibition did not go well. The idea of random strangers walking off with her paintings did not make me happy.
But if Hanneke could paint some horrible challenging art and get rich and famous, I wouldn’t complain.
I guess I misunderstood, I thought marketable meant it was doing well. Maybe “needs to be marketed”, because I can’t believe this great work wouldn’t sell well in the right places.
I’m wondering about adapting this still life skill to, let’s say, social-political commentary, using the juxtaposition we’ve been talking about. Imagine a tank with an asparagus for a gun barrel! An airplane dropping apples! Maybe paint on photographs so that she’s only actually painting traditional still life objects.
Back in ’93 I made a drawing of a figure from the background of a Caravaggio painting that was apparently destroyed in World War II.
I always thought that would be an interesting painting project: Details from Paintings Destroyed in World War II.
Karl (and Hanneke)
I’m not sure that it’s possible to _decide_ to make social-political art — I know I can’t. And Steve’s quite right — who’s to say that machine guns and tanks would sell any better than ginger pots and asparagus. As we quilting artists are wont to say — the grass is always greener on the far side of the paint brush. Or some such.
The issue of marketing is different than painting what you imagine the market wants. You can show the market what it wants, if you have the energy and ambition and luck.
For example, you would imagine that someone who does large textile pieces could sell to these McMansion owners who have all those vasty drafty great rooms — but my experience is that they want wide screen TVs first and foremost — and then are feeling too broke to cover up the monsters with a nice work of art. I have neither the energy (nor the luck) to change the minds of McMansion owners, but then I also don’t have to make a living with my art.
No, I think if you are serious about Hanneke making money from her art (and you seem to be), you need to take on the job of being her marketer, her PR flack.
A book that comes well recommended (and always gives me a stomach ache when I try to read it) is “How to Survive and Prosper as an Artist” by Caroll Michels. It’s US-centric, of course, but might translate. There’s also that Texan who writes in Art Calendar (Jack White?) who markets his wife’s stuff. He’s a Texan, so I can’t say I’m fond of his rhetoric, but he insists it’s possible.
Or, perhaps we should all pitch in and suggest ways to use Hanneke’s still lifes in social political contexts — broken teacups, broken societies? Asparagus with worm holes — o rose, thou are sick? Warning labels about transfat pasted above the Queen’s cupcakes? Oh dear, I think I’m drifting off…
I like the asparagus — its color makes me smile.
Karl, I never meta-answer I didn’t like.
I’m a little confused about this post. Are you asking what Hanneke should paint because she’s torn between choices, or is it because you have some ideas about what she should paint and are trying to get her to change what she’s doing? My feeling is she should paint whatever she wants to. If she’s actually going around asking people what she should paint, then I’d say she’s pretty lost.
And as far as still lifes being less marketable than political art, that goes against everything I’ve observed out there. Still life may be considered a traditional and non-edgy genre, but it seems to me there’s a much larger market for that sort of thing than the supposedly edgy stuff. The key is finding the right places to sell her work. In addition to galleries you might do a search for private art dealers.
David,
We have got to find you an agent for that TV show. I think you should have a backup band and some guy to laugh at your jokes. I guess I could do that job since I am doing it already. The David Palmer show.
Sorry to cause to confusion. First of all, of course I have ideas about what Hanneke should paint and I’m not afraid of sharing them with her. She also has ideas about what to paint, and those ideas are not always the same.
Hanneke has never been into “edgy” if I understand the term correctly. She is into her own brand of Hanneke-weird, but she decided to focus on still life because it is a combination of something people want and something that she also loves doing.
The problem, if there is one, seem to me that by trying to do the practical thing and paint paintings that relatively normal people might want to buy, Hanneke is throwing away the opportunity of becoming a really successful artist in today’s art world.
Hanneke’s still life paintings sell themselves. It requires real talent to not sell them, I think, which was what happened in her recent exhibition. Lisa Hunter, if she were asked, would probably say, be wary of artist art dealers. In contrast, the other day a friend of a collector came over and wanted to buy a painting like one she had seen by Hanneke at the collector’s house. So yes, still life is marketable with a small m.
Also, in this post I’m so much saying what I think she should paint, but asking what you think she should paint. To answer “whatever she wants” to is the easy answer. The better answer, which none of us have for her yet is, should she paint that she wants to paint that would also get her the recognition that someone with her talent deserves. Hanneke could do many different things. Right now she is in this still life grove. She has made some wonderful work. But should she stay with that for life, or break away? Every painting she sells gets her more tied to the still life, perhaps makes it harder for her to choose something different. She seems to be at a decision point now, which is why it is interesting to look at the various options.
Okay, here is what I suggested to her recently: I said, paint the still life, but when you do that, focus on things that people really would want to buy — based on what you have already sold; also, paint whatever weird stuff you want to (crazy stuff, maybe even a self portrait with a bird on your head or something) because the more strange and obscure less marketable with a small m, the more likely it is to give a real future as an important artist rather than some middle aged woman who paints still life. Are these suggestions nuts?
Steve,
As I wrote to David, Hanneke’s work is marketable in the context of middle class people trying to find something nice for their homes. Her success in selling through referrals from collectors is an unplanned test of an idea we discussed earlier about distributed galleries.
Your idea of social political commentary sounds really terrible, I mean, for Hanneke. But thanks for trying.
D.
So much great art has been destroyed. Most of van Eyck’s work is lost. It is a wonder that the Ghent Altarpiece survived the 16-17th centuries. As it is, only one panel was stolen and never recovered.
June,
PR flack, that sounds interesting. Those books that give you a stomach ache are usually the ones worth reading, aren’t they? That’s a bit how I felt about Lisa’s book, especially the first chapter. Thanks for the recommendations.
I chose the topic of social political art simply because it is so widely off Hanneke’s interests. All I’ve done is cause confusion. She is more interested in psychological/spiritual personal kind of issues, maybe a Dutch version of Angela.
Now, it gets interesting. What weird stuff does she want to paint?
Karl,
You and Hanneke sound as if you have one of those symbiotic relationships — when you talk to her, it sounds like she might be talking to herself.
Down deep (and alongside of marketing) I think that the best art comes out of what the artist is most deeply involved in producing. But all art can’t be the “best” art, so Hanneke can almost certainly continue with her lovely still-lifes while she is also doing awesome “psychological/spiritual personal kind of issues, maybe a Dutch version of Angela.”
It’s not an either-or; the light-hearted stuff feeds the more deeply understood work. And, Hanneke also has other small things tugging at her skirt, but these will grow into larger and less tuggy personages, so she can revisit the question any number of times over the rest of her life. And come up with different answers each time.It isn’t a question that has to be answered, only pondered.
Lost? Hmmm, some lucrative possibilities are suggesting themselves. Maybe she should forge van Megeerens or something.
Now, it gets interesting. What weird stuff does she want to paint?
Birgit,
As Hanneke’s PR flack I have to say, no comment.
You and Hanneke sound as if you have one of those symbiotic relationships — when you talk to her, it sounds like she might be talking to herself.
Steve,
It’s more like this: I talk to Hanneke and she ignores me, so I am in fact talking to myself.
So, what should I paint?
I love your fairy tales
Birgit,
Are you talking to me? If so, please include the appropriate smiley face symbol for me to decode your comment.
[Talked to Birgit on the phone. Fairy Tales refer to my paintings…]
Karl, I still think Hanneke should paint what she feels most compelled to paint. If she both wants to paint still lifes and do the stuff you characterize as wierd, as well as strategize for the market, perhaps she can find some way to innovate within the genre she’s chosen and do all three things together, rather than having 2 or three separate directions going.
I don’t think it’s bad to be aware of the market, but I do think it’s a mistake to base your life’s work on what you think it (the market) wants. The odds of making it in that big NYC artworld are slim, no matter what kind of work you’re doing. My opinion is that if an artist is doing work they don’t believe in, then they’ve already failed, no matter how successful they get.
Karl, an oracle does not explain herself.
Birgit,
Oracle or not, you are on the internet too much and Hanneke can’t reach you by phone.
My opinion is that if an artist is doing work they don’t believe in, then they’ve already failed, no matter how successful they get.
David,
Do you still believe in Santa Claus also? Don’t you know that belief is a very versatile material, and that it is always possible to believe in success?
Hey, do I get the job on your show as side-kick, or do I have to audition?
Hanneke says:
“My still life art is like a musician who plays a good piece by another composer.”
Karl, I do believe in Santa Claus. I see him in the stores here around Christmas time. Though he often seems to be in several places at once, and I’m beginning to suspect something is going on.
Thing is, it’s okay with w/ me if Santa Claus believes he’s successful, as long as he’s doing something that he believes in. But if he’s just being Santa to please the market, and he’d really rather be the Easter Bunny or an Abstract Expressionist or something, well then I’d say he’s got some credibility problems.
As far as being my sidekick, I’d never make you audition. You can have the job. But you know, I don’t really watch tv, so one of us (not me) is going to have to do some research and find out what a sidekick does.
I don’t have a TV, but I do have a Wikipedia and the sidekick article is interesting, for example:
“In science fiction a subtype of sidekick has been established – namely, the Alien sidekick.”
Hanneke paint what you love the most, whatever is in your heart, and always believe in yourself…your intuition will lead you through and your soul will be rewarded!
“Only that which is loved is beautiful. . . . The necessary essence of art is Love. . . . Love must be the mother of the arts, not architecture, not structure, not function. True art always involves the observer in the participatory gesture of being, or what we call love.
Avatar Adi Da Samraj ”
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/art_is_love/index.html
Okay, Karl. You are my Alien Sidekick :)
Karl,
I would have no idea how to answer your original question without a long look at all of Hanneke’s work and an even longer conversation with her in person. And then probably not even then. When I have met with grad students, I try to stimulate more questions than answers and give them time and space to sort it out. I don’t think what to paint can be answered by anyone else and that it is a very precious thing for an artist. Not to say the question isn’t interesting as an intellectual exercise, which is perhaps the spirit in which you write this.
It seems like you are focused on the market and she is focused on what she is compelled to paint and there is some sort of tension (not bad, more like challenge) in between where your interests meet. And that is where you two are having a conversation and are inviting us to join in, as we have witnessed her wonderful work (as much as we can on the internet) and process.
For the record, I believe in Santa Claus too, although how he is in LA and St. Louis at the same moment is still a mystery to me. And I wholeheartedly agree with David’s statment:
“if an artist is doing work they don’t believe in, then they’ve already failed, no matter how successful they get.”
And I am not sure I get the connection to Santa Claus, except if you are saying we are ridiuclously naive for believing such a thing. The fact is I don’t think an artist CAN be successful if they are not painting what they want to paint. The product shows lack of interest and it usually ends up exploding in one’s face to try to tailor to the “market,” whichever market you are interested in… I am not clear if you are most interested in Hanneke selling, or what she is most interested in. Does Hanneke herself have these questions for us or are these more your questions? I am interested in part two of this conversation from her point of view. Maybe when she has time and energy and feels like discussing it. Otherwise it gets very abstract and more like an intellectual exercise detached from real life(to me).