Thoughtful work?

[Amy on Salt Spring]

I find this thread both enlightening and disturbing. There is an undertone that an artist needs to have a vision and a motivation that trancends the desire/need to make an object that is aesthetically appealing, technically challenging or personally rewarding to the artist... or what?... you don't qualify as an artist???

My impression was that Catharine was asking each of us what our process was--that there were no right or wrong answers, just what your particular approach is.
I have to say a big thank you to those who expressed their difficulty in talking about their work and even an argument for why its not always a good thing to do. I've had my struggles with that, trying to put things into words and felt like everyone else must be so good at it, its nice to know I'm not alone and that I can now justify the work speaking for itself.
-A

[Gale aka artistefem]

It's all valid, Amy......... You're absolutely right in saying that there is no right or wrong. We all work for different reasons.

One of my friends works in a very abstracted manner and she refuses to discuss her work. With anyone (even gallery directors)! Her creative motivation is personal. Once a piece is finished, it is up to the viewer to manage their own responses and provide their own interpretations of what she has made.

I have great admiration for her ability to stick to her guns on this subject.

[Bert Weiss]

I find this thread both enlightening and disturbing.
Tony

Tony

Relax, forget about this stuff and your soul will emerge through your work without trying so hard to make it do that.

Focus on the enlightening part, and the rest will follow along.

For some people the media is the message. For others the message is the message. For others there is no message.

An interesting approach is to just do it and let it speak back to you. It is the excersise of listening to the work that widens your understanding of where it is taking you and other viewers as well.

[Kathie Karancz]

Hey guys: When I first started reading this thread, it scared me. My thoughts are - how am I ever going to be "accepted" as an artist within this group if the only thing I have the energy to do now is work on technique. I have taken numerous courses in the last 2 years hoping that one of them will give me an answer as to what I need to do and where I need to go with my art but am still terrified to show my first piece. One minute I think I need to practice technique to get it right and then now I think "I can't put my work out there cuz I have no explanation for what I did" other than I hope someone out there likes it. I think it's easy to say you need "meaning" in your work when you have had numerous people and galleries tell you what a great artist you are. Now I am struggling cuz I don't have a way to properly cold work my pieces, so how can I show you guys my plates (or whatever), if my edges aren't right??? In the beginning, I was only striving towards not getting the dreaded bubble. I like what Tony said:
"I find this thread both enlightening and disturbing. There is an undertone that an artist needs to have a vision and a motivation that trancends the desire/need to make an object that is aesthetically appealing, technically challenging or personally rewarding to the artist... or what?... you don't qualify as an artist???"
I too am my own worst critic, but why do I have this feeling that when I finally show you guys my first piece, it better be right, or I will be judged?? Is that just me feeling insecure, or do other people feel it too?? I think I need a shrink....

[Brock]

. . . I too am my own worst critic, but why do I have this feeling that when I finally show you guys my first piece, it better be right, or I will be judged?? . . .

How do you know? You WILL be judged, but it doesn't have to be harsh. Constructive feedback is extremely important and the word critique doesn't mean that everyone gets to take pot shots. Brock

[Amy Schleif-Mohr]

I agree Brock, a good constructive crit. often does an artist wayyy more good than all the praise.

Amy

[Brock]

I agree Brock, a good constructive crit. often does an artist wayyy more good than all the praise.

Amy

Yeah, there was a motif at BECon that I found extremely disconcerting. It was posited by more than one person, actually by several, that you can NEVER criticize a student. I found that ridiculous, why are they taking courses and studying with people? The only other (vocal) supporter of the side that crits are necessary, nay, essential was Richard Whiteley. I'll stand in that company anytime. Brock

[Cynthia]

I am doing the work I do because it is fun and commercially viable. I suppose many may say that's a sell out. Well, that's not the only reason, but that has to be a part of my focus. My thought behind my work is still concept and process bound. My work is non-objective. I focus on balance, color and the play between transmitted and reflected light rather than subject. It is an exercise that gives me pleasure and that is a simple answer as to why I work in the way I work.

Researching my premise? No, I suppose I haven't. I have a pretty good understanding of the history behind the decorative arts and my place and stance within that scope...I also pay great attention to the formal aspects of my work. I pay attention to line character, and color theory, I pay attention to design concepts when I compose the work...but specifically I have not researched my approach. I know what it is I am playing with, which is usually a design, color, light and composition exercise. This work is the bread and butter stuff that I can count on for sales. Part of doing art for me must also be about making a living...so I don't get to do this for kicks alone... so I have to have the stuff that sells. I still feel like the luckiest person on earth though to be doing what I love...even when times are tough and sales are slim.

I am also working on getting back to my roots as a painter, but in glass. This has been harder since I am trying to be more conversational in this work yet remaining nonobjective. Maybe I should go back to working figuratively for this work.... but a part of me says I should simply paint it then. I've been struggling with this and perhaps it's because I haven't answered well, or explored well enough my thoughts behind this work and my medium. It is more personal, and that makes it more difficult for me to execute without inhibition. When inhibited, I don't do my best work.

Do you love what you do? Is the imagery of your own conception and execution? Does the process speak to you and keep you interested as well as the finished work? Then I say you are on the right track. Not every one has to be perusing an art path to do this work, nor do you have to persue using your work as a vehicle for making a statement. Not all painters are artists, but that shouldn't diminish their persuit to paint.

I believe that finding your direction, what ever that direction will be, comes from asking yourself these same questions you pose Catherine. This is a way to find your "voice" and to foster it and keep it evolving, it's a good tool to employ if you want your work to evolve and grow into a cohesive body of work that is distinctively your own.

What I have to remember is that my voice is just as valid if my intentions are to explore line, color, balance and beauty as it is for someone else to explore a social or political or personal statement.

Miro and Moore weren't talking social reform. Like Kandinsky they thought more about color, line, texture and form. Sargeant painted his patrons to be stylized beauties with impossibly long necks and limbs... that had nothing to do with reality. His motives were profit...and to be a good painter. He got jobs because he made his patrons look good. Then there are those guys like Hopper who painted about society during the industrial age and how isolated and alone he felt. I adore them all, among others. I value their accomplishments in technique and skills, their ability to succeed and work how they chose to work and to portray and explore those concepts. I simply like these works regardless of their intent, as they succeeded in their execution.

I also have a print that is the most accomplished in its sincerity I have ever seen. Therefore it speaks to me and gives me joy. I am thrilled it is in my collection. It's done by an adult with Down's Syndrome named Joe . It's called The Marriage. It has two potato shaped people lying side by side in a stick rendered bed. Eyes directed at each other, they are smiling...BIG. He didn't put a whole lot of thought into what his intentions are. He simply drew an image of something that he wanted to depict. His focus was happy I assume since the painting is happy. He's done another print (actually these are Giclee prints...he worked collaboratively with a print master artist) he created another, titled Your Dog, My House. There is a dog in the foreground. The dog is in 3/4 profile and smiling big with his eyes averted. In the background is a house with a little pile of poop in front of it. That dog is simply enjoying the basic pleasures of life; a good, yet illicit poop.

This might not be what you were looking for in terms of discussion. But when I feel stuck, arrested and insecure. Joe helps show me the way.

[jerry flanary]

From Amy:
I am certainly not saying formal education is better, there are many examples of where this is absolutely not true. But, usually that person knows the "rules" from somewhere either inherintly (sp?) or some other kind of education.

This made me think of Carl Jung's quote, "Religion is man's defense against the experience of god." Or something like that. Meaning that a set of rules or pattern of behaviors can be passed from one group of people to the next so that they can act as if they have been enlightened without all of the work that is require to have a mystical enlightenment. The obvious analogy being that rules taught in school can show people who are not artists how to act as if they were. I think it is a credit to most art schools that they at least tell the students to break the rules.


My motivations when creating are various. Usually w/ Blown vessels I think about shapes I find aesthetically pleasing and challenging. If there is no challenge then there is nothing to hold my attention. Why stand in front of a freakin' gloryhole? What's my motivation here? Each vessel builds on the one before in terms of what I learned from the last. If I wasn't such a dimwit who knows how good I could be now. Vessels I generally regard as color studies, formal studies, potential money makers. I don't look at them and say, oh this is my ART. F***, it's a vase. Nothing more. Nothing less. This frees me from wondering if I should make it or not. Does the world need another vase? No. Do I like making them? Yes. Oh my god, am I starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld? I'm sorry.

With sculpture. I make. Most of the time I get an idea and then look around. I can fab just about anything. Some times I just make stuff to see what I can do w/ a certain tool. But when I am really sculpting I have a definite idea of what I will make. Then later, as bert suggests, I look at the thing and go, "what the hell is that all about?"

I struggle with the why at least once a year (usually around tax time) but I do know that some of the artists i really enjoy don't give two tiny poos about why they make their work. They just enjoy the process and the challenge. Let the critics and curators earn their keep. Make them write about why.

Also, from Tony:
Is it possible that my glass is speaking to others in a "voice" that I cannot or do not hear?
Sometimes things can happen that are dismal failures. just not what I wanted what a waste of days of work, pounds of glass, lots of resources and work shot to hell. And that is what you see when you look at said piece. When you look at the thing in hand, all you see is how it is not the same as the thing in mind. Often though if you relax that desire to make thing in hand into thing in mind, you too may find that object attractive. If so many people liked it this may be providence's way of trying to get you to reevaluate or even value this experience. I'll bet you have already done a lot of problem solving towards thing in mind. Maybe you should also evaluate thing in hand to find what qualities people find attractive about it. The glass talks. Usually has a valid point.
j.

[Rob Cleve]

It seems that this discussion topic has been a great tool for everyone to converse about what we all worry about! Thus the original question has served it's purpose. Why do we do what we do?
What I was trying to convey before is that motivation can be purely primal, it doesn' have to be deep seated from childhood baggage (or adult baggage). It can be totally about the experience of creating.

The websites that I've viewed are astounding. Tony, yours in particular! An artist? absolutely, by any definition of the word. What is conveyed through the airwaves to me by your work is someone who loves what they do. What could be better motivation?
=)

Rob

[Cynthia]

...why do I have this feeling that when I finally show you guys my first piece, it better be right, or I will be judged?? Is that just me feeling insecure, or do other people feel it too?? I think I need a shrink....

My advice would to be to skip the public critique on the forums. It's scary to be critiqued, and to be honest this isn't the best place for it. You may get criticism that isn't valid from someone who isn't capable of offering a constructive critique. You could be shot down, or be told how fabuous the work is and you wont learn a thing. Typically you don't know that the person giving the critique on the forums is even qualified. A poorly crafted critique is as harmful as unwarranted praise.

A constructive critique isn't about praise, it's about learning...and learning includes finding out about what is strong as well as what is weak in your work. A constructive critique should be offered with formal observations and geared toward making you push toward creating better work. It should be full of questions that drive you toward thinking about your work critically as well as pointing out what is weak and what is strong in your work, and why. A good critique tells you where your strengths are as well as your weaknesses. If you don't see the whole picture, you won't be able to learn how to look critically at your own work.

Only ask for a critique if you are interested in moving your work forward, rather than seeking praise. But also be sure you ask someone you know has the skills and ability to provide you with a valid critique to teach you through the process. When you post your work on the forums for input, it becomes a free for all and that doesn't usually provide you the information you need.

I feel that work is always a process that you aren't finished with until you are finished. Catharine speaks of putting her piece in the kiln for the twentieth time. If she works at all like I do, she is looking critically at her work every time she fires to see where she needs to strengthen the image, if it is getting muddy or lines are getting lost. Maybe the composition needs a little tweaking. Depth of field is wrong...whatever...it is a form of self critique that is a skill that can be developed along with cold working and firing schedules.

Wanting a crit should come from the desire to improve your work, and part of that is being willing to hear when something about the work isn't succeeding and why, just as much as you want to hear that the work is a success.

[Brock]

. . .But also be sure you ask someone you know has the skills and ability to provide you with a valid critique to teach you through the process. . .

Who would that be? Brock

[Gale aka artistefem]

"Letting go" of our visualization of perfection can be the hardest part in making art.

When I was much younger, I felt like a failure if my finished pieces did not perfectly match my inner vision and I would discount and usually discard these "failure" pieces. It took me years to come to terms with my own critical self.

I still continue to raise my bar, but now I'm far more willing to allow myself to listen to the terms of the glass, letting it have a hand in guiding my development. Some of my biggest evolutionary steps forward have come through the "accidental" pieces. Work that I would have thrown away in earlier days.

Knowledge of technique is important to produce strong, stable artwork within any medium, but equally important is developing your personal vision. Many times this means risk-taking - bending the rules you have learned - pushing the edges - bringing to light new techniques.

Critique - from others whom you respect and who's eyes and motivation you trust - is a great tool for growth. Finding a place of critique is like buying shoes. You must find the right fit in order for all parts of your psyche to work in concert and support your forward momentum. Stay away from pot-shot-ers - their motives are suspect and certainly not pure!!

[Catharine Newell]

I have to admit to some confusion here...

How does one achieve "voice" (which seems to sound safe to a number of people on this board) without the involvement of research, intent, content, and means of expression? Aren't they so intertwined that "voice" would be considerably weakened (or even absent) without all these elements? Doesn't this call for some examination, even a cursory look, as to what you're doing in this work, and why?

Catharine

[Brock]

I have to admit to some confusion here...

How does one achieve "voice" (which seems to sound safe to a number of people on this board) without the involvement of research, intent, content, and means of expression? Aren't they so intertwined that "voice" would be considerably weakened (or even absent) without all these elements? Doesn't this call for some examination, even a cursory look, as to what you're doing in this work, and why?

Catharine

To me "voice" is a state where you are comfortable with the material and process and can express yourself with them. Now, once you have a voice . . .

. . . you still have to have something to say.

Brock

[Bob]

I really identify and agree with Gale's comments above. I have a personal set of beliefs that seem to mirror Gale's comments. They summarize how I try to "value" art.

1) Do what you do well. It has to be technically "sound".

2) Do something different. Break the rules. Make your work distinctive and recognizable.

3) Have something to say. It doesn't have to be profound ... just be able to discuss your work if someone asks you... "So what's this all about".

I think the three go together as a package. If one is missing then there is a problem.

Cheers,

Bob

[Cynthia]

I have to admit to some confusion here...

How does one achieve "voice" (which seems to sound safe to a number of people on this board) without the involvement of research, intent, content, and means of expression? Aren't they so intertwined that "voice" would be considerably weakened (or even absent) without all these elements? Doesn't this call for some examination, even a cursory look, as to what you're doing in this work, and why?

Catharine

I guess what I view as ones voice is the part of their work that makes it discernably theirs. It has to do with a vocabulary that gets repeated and reused in the body of work that makes it distinctive to the artist. Typically this is exhibited in a style of imagery. I know a Leatherbarrow piece when I see it without having to look for a signature. I know your work when I see it along with an Abbot and Leva piece among many others. I believe that which makes ones work distinctively theirs has to do with "voice".

Are you asking if one can find their voice without first addressing their reasons for doing the work?

Perhaps I am not sure what you mean by research, intent, content and means of expression. I have a definition, but I am not sure it is the same as yours. What do you feel terms these mean? I would like to better understand what it is you are mulling over.

[Judd]

1) Why are you doing the work that you do?
Although I have had only one formal art class (figure drawing), I have always liked creating things. When I was younger, I started making quilts (hand dying my own fabric, etc). I still enjoy doing that, but it's very time consuming. One day, I wondered what a stained glass quilt design would look like. I have been playing with stained glass for 6 years now and have just started fusing glass. I love glass fusing. Sharp objects and 1500 degrees - ooh, pinch me baby.

2) What is your thought process behind your work? IS there thought behind it?
Honestly, I love geometric designs, then breaking the pattern with random colors and shapes. I love the idea of using raw materials (I use a lot of bottles, marbles, etc in my artwork) and showing the beauty of the object. I believe we are surrounded by industrial beauty, yet fail to see it.

3) Have you researched your premise?
No. My art is a) what speaks to my heart and b) very different from my 9-5 job - very right brained with NO research.

4) a) What is it that you're saying, b) are you saying it clearly, and c) why are you saying it at all?

a) I guess that there is beauty everywhere. That in order there is chaos, and that element of chaos add beauty (that sounds more wabi sabi/feng shui then intended).

b) Probably not. Otherwise people would not ask how I color the plastic.

c) I love creating. If I didn't play with glass, it would be something other medium. Glass is simply a means to and end (expression).

Judd

[Kathie Karancz]

Thanks guys: I know that everything I said earlier was my insecurities. I do believe that I have to be happy with me and my work. I could put a piece out there for your critique and you could you say you loved it but I still wouldn't believe you. It's me and yes I do need a shrink. Thanks again.

[Pat Watkins]

Kathie, no more than anyone else...we are all searching. Maybe it's like when we were kids and first blowing bubbles through the little plastic circles from a jar....the enchantment. It was different for all of us...some of us liked to make big bubbles, some made many bubbles, some twirled to make bubbles, some to pop the bubbles but all of us would come back again to blow bubbles to compare, to change and to remember.

And probably at some time, we would have wished we could made the bubble be something more...because we thought someone else did.

Tony, it's your clarity of subject, it's striking, sincere, and well thought out.