Despite current economic trends, how do you view painting? Having had a show revovling around the identity of scotland and artist influenced by a painter that represents scotland on an international level, where do you view the status of painting?
As a painter, i can not escape it. i have constructed collages, assemblages and i have taken photography. I want to do film/video installations. all of the aspects come back to painting. i need to feel that process, the act of the brush smearing pigment across a surface. The smell, the act. i do not need validation. it will not help. the need is still there. one art form is not more important than another. Intent is intent. the message is what is important.( an easy arguement can be had there...but if the artist is not responsible for how they are used then they will be used out of their control.)
there is something inherent in painting that people can access. it is a physical act that anyone is capable of doing, but don't feel like they can do.It is different than other art forms that they can avoid. ie photography, film/video, sound or installation. the same happens with painting...the switching off..but when people go to see art they go to see paitnings. When a painting goes beyond their comprehension whether it be by intent or by technique they discredit it. when i say intent i mean that the piece may have come across as simple but may be of relevance of an art historical substinance that they, the masses, are not privy to.( who cares what they think?)
i back step from that statement. the public may not always get what a painting means, but they will always fall back on the cliche" i don't know if it's art, but i know what i like." no one talks about painting. I am not looking for stallabrass' comments on what is 'incorporated'. i have similiar takes on the power of the pound or dollar and their investment in the art market. i need to finish it first. if it is dead how does it reoccur? not to mean that people are not continually doing it. it cannot keep up with the technology of printmaking that mass media utilizes. It does not cease to exists. even weekend painters still exists when they could just take a digital photograph and print it out on their specialized 'dock' printer. i am looking for a point of view that can help me grow... we all need to learn. "the unexamined life is not worth living."(socrates) just ask bill and ted
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
from uncle snuggly
First I must get past the personal and wonder what brought on this little tirade (that word seems a little strong but my thesarus is in the shop) it seems to have twinges of self doubt, a tad of loathing and a teensy wee bit of resentment. If my analysis is wrong then don't read on .
Painting will always be revered in its own light. not everyone can paint as you say and it has nothing to do with fear of trying and more to with ability If everyone could paint then it would cease as an art form and become a communique. perhaps doing away with the written word as a more pleasing way to tell a story but history did not go that way. A photograph is in a way a watered down version of a painting using light to brush the canvas(film digitalback) in the photographers own unique fashion but just as the painter not everyone can control and direct the light as good as others in there field or translate their vision on to film as others do in specific unique style Copying some one elses shot or even re- shooting one of my own shots from previous is the hardest thing i have ever done and it never ever comes out exactly the same. Can a really good master painter put the exact same mix, shape and texture in two different spots with two srokes I think not
each stoke has it's own unique texture and color albeit a minute difference. the master is consistent and closest to reproducing the same stroke twice and that is what makes him better than the the simple at home painter. photos are done daily by almost everyone on the planet and technology has made them great photographer's but they are not artist in so much as the person who paints something or even the photographer who gathers the subject and mold's it and places it in front of the camera and lights the scene adding in relevent props to complete the message. How you choose your process is as much a part of what makes us unique from each other as is what we think see feel or even taste. art seems to prosper in happy times and we are currently not in those time(don't get me wrong things could be much worse and probaly will) when a society prospers we celebrate in art and they invest in art. when a society suffers we produce our most prolific art and console ourselves in art and try to bring back the prosperous happiness by expressing our views thru our art in hopes that people will learn from us and correct their mistakes and bring back their investments in our futures by embracing not only our ideaology but also our pieces as well.
As for the market Photos as art are a much harder sell than a painting first of all is time. paintings go back to long before photos and the antiquity value adds to the value. second you have the "trying" factor everyone tries to take photos not everyone tries to paint. this makes a painting more valuable in that we covet abilities we do not have and revere people whom can do it well. Intent is intent but peoples perception of how we get our message across is at the hands of the masses (whoever that asshole is) and the masses are antiquated and are hard to waiver from their single mindedness. painting and music are the oldest form of art and not just anybody can make them.
Post a Comment