Posted by Karl Zipser on June 4th, 2006
There is a mode of painting that I’ve experienced, where paint becomes something beyond paint.
I make paintings based on drawings, some combination of life studies and imaginary composition. Because the various drawings contain a lot of information, the first job in painting is to translate, in oil paint, this information onto the chalk ground of the panel. Until I have gotten the painting up to the level of the drawing, the drawing remains the source and I do not look beyond that.
The interesting part comes when the painting begins to reach a certain level of realism that it takes on a life of its own. The drawing is no longer the source. The source is in the mind of the artist. At this point I can look at the painting and begin to make judgments about what the faces or figures should look like based on memory of the real person, memories that I could not normally visualize so easily. The painting in a sense allows new access to the mind or memory.
The key here is that when the painting reaches a certain level, I no longer have to look at it as a paint. Instead, I can look through it to a new reality (an inner reality I suppose, but externalized on the panel.) This is a mode of working that gives a strange feeling of being transported to a different place. Working in this mode gives unique results I think. It takes a lot of effort to get into this mode, however. Usually I need to paint for most of the day to get there.
I’m sure that other artists have this experience also, where they no longer feel as though they are painting, but doing something different where paint brush is almost forgotten. I’m curious if there is a name for it. It is not “flow”, which is simply an intense focus on the work at hand. Does anyone know a name, or have a suggestion for one?
Posted by Karl Zipser on June 3rd, 2006
I asked Arthur Whitman about his secret for blogging success. He denied he has had much success, but his advice was interesting nonetheless:
I would just say write well, in your own voice, about things you know and care about.
I’ve been consumed with my artwork lately and all but stopped blogging. I realize though that this might be the perfect time to write on what I “know and care about.” I’m going to try picking up the blog again, with a focus on what I am doing from day to day with my painting and sculpture.
Posted by Karl Zipser on May 3rd, 2006
Painting
From Life vs.
From Photos
Why is it so difficult to be an artist? CB responded:
How can any one living in the developed world, with enough money & free time to waste it dicking around with a website and on [an art discussion group], in anyway consider their life or even their work “hard”? Living in Iraq would be hard, farming in Sudan would be hard, having a degenerative painful disease would be hard. But for artists to pretend to be in the same boat is just self-involved nonsense. Certainly it was true prior to the 1900’s ( when no sales amounted to starvation), or for those who had to face down a Stalin or a Hitler or a Mao, but now? just suck it up and quit yer whining….
Here is what CB makes me ask myself:
- Do I wake up before sunrise to put my best into my art while most people are still sleeping?
- Do I paint as though my very existence depended on it?
- And if not, why not?
CB does not aim at popularity with his writing style. But I think his advice — “just suck it up and quit yer whining” — is valuable. The reason is that I think “the art world”, as we know it, is about to fall apart. There are going to be tremendous opportunities for artists in the near future, but it will take some guts to make the most of them.
____________________
Related: Why is it so difficult to be an artist?
Posted by Karl Zipser on April 29th, 2006
Painting
From Life vs.
From Photos
To be an artist today is to confront continual uncertainty. There is economic uncertainty, and also uncertainty of purpose. Modern society seems to value art — art is preserved in museums, and purchased for large sums by “collectors.” And yet the normal artist is strangely disconnected from the top levels of success. Compare this with other professions. A competent pilot, trained at a good flight school, is more or less assured of a successful career. He or she might not get the opportunity to fly the biggest and newest commercial planes, or fancy jet fighters; but a stable career is a reasonable expectation, certainly compared to what an artist can hope for.
The profession of art has not always been so uncertain. For example, Cennino Cennini discusses the motivations of those entering the profession in the 14th c. “There are those who pursue it” he writes, “because of poverty and domestic need.” In 17th c. Holland, parents would encourage a talented son to pursue art as a profitable and respectable occupation. Nowadays, “poverty and domestic need” would better describe the results of becoming an artist, rather than causes for becoming one.
There is far more wealth in the world today to purchase art than in any time past. The difficult position of artist today is therefore something of a mystery.
If there is a general appreciation of art, and money to buy art, then why is it so difficult to fulfill the role of artist?
________
Related:
Is art school worthless?
Fall of the Art World
Posted by Karl Zipser on April 14th, 2006
Painting
From Life vs.
From Photos
The title may seem to say the obvious, but in fact, it is not so simple. The problem comes because of the way we think about art and education today.
In the Renaissance, an artist received training from a master by working on the master’s projects. The master had a strong incentive to teach, because good assistants were essential for making a major artwork. Teaching was thus not separate from the master’s work. Instead, it was critical to the productive success of the studio.
A similar method is used for teaching at the highest levels of education today. For example, a graduate student in biology will do research in a specific laboratory, under guidance of a recognized scientist. Only a small part of the student’s education comes through “classroom teaching”. The scientist has a strong incentive to teach his or her students how to do real research, because a group effort is necessary for major research projects.
But art education today is a completely different story. Artists get paid to do “classroom” teaching. But teaching in this mode does not contribute directly to the artist’s own work. Instead, it becomes an impediment.
Why should the wonderful (and profitable) job of teaching be an impediment for artists? I think it comes from the way we think of art as a solitary endeavor. An artist can teach others, but is expected to work alone. This prevents the artist and his or her students from working together. It separates art from art education. A functional connection between art and education would benefit both.
__________
Related:
Posted by Karl Zipser on April 14th, 2006
Painting
From Life vs.
From Photos
If there is one thing that gets in the way of productivity, it is a studio that is too cluttered to even walk into easily. How can a painter get into such a situation?
Easy. Take up sculpture.
Studio organization is always a challenge, even if I’m only working on painting. I think the reason is that when I’m feeling creative, I do not feel like organizing things.
But ignoring the need to organize can bring creativity to a halt. Paintings take up space, and so do the materials. But sculpture — in my case, clay figures and small portrait busts — causes a much bigger problem because the three-dimensional pieces take up a lot of room. Plus, they are fragile.
I’ve just about gotten the studio back into shape today. I realize now (once again) that keeping it that way is the difference between working and not working.
__________
Related: On being an artist, secret #2