"Modern Houses", oil on linen, 46cm x 36cm, 2009
The other day my wife read on FriendFeed that “a society without a stable arts base is a parking lot”. I do not know who it was that said that but they nailed it. I began writing this blog (first article posted originally in April 2007) with this essential core thought. I mean what in the hell are we thinking of. Art is today exactly whatever you want it to be from a pile of rocks, a dead cat, to you name it, n’importe quoi.
A good many years ago I read Estelle Jussim’s excellent book about F. Holland Day: « Slave to Beauty ». I recommend it if you can manage to get your hands on a copy. (It has evidently been reprinted link). It is an excellent account of a prevalent frame of mind that is divisive in the world of art. Most artists, I think, would deny this influence, but it is implicit in the “decadence dialog” that dominates most contemporary commentary on art. More will be said about this in a future article.
I believe we need to get past it and move on to more important issues. Otherwise, art has the risk of becoming irrelevant. It clearly already is for all but a very small number of people. And I’m not at all sure this is a healthy sustainable situation. But, then again, progress in art is not a straight line. It has often moved in reverse.
Published in french as Esclave de la peinture Partie I
Much, if not almost all of my writing in this blog has focused on the large issues. While they are important I’m always reminded how removed they are from the actual life of the artist. The daily toiles, the comfort of the workplace, the economic situation, the interaction with patrons and society as a whole, freedom of expression exercised, the quality of training received, many such questions go begging. By far however, these are the parts which make up the whole with philosophical, theoretical and historical considerations playing a small role.
Originally posted on April, 17, 2009 Technorati imcjydb62g
"Ventoux Spring", oil on canvas, 30cm x 24cm, 2009
The rule that there are no rules is the appeal of what some understand as the Zen approach: the anytime anything goes ethic, or non-ethic as it were. We get into difficulty, it seems to me as painters by applying this “beat? philosophy (i.e. this is not classic Zen) in a rigid manner. Properly understood the Zen perspective gives the latitude to “think? in terms of right and wrong in a limited domain such as painting; This, even though the world at large is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not put into a frame. But without some form of intellectualizing each painting’s outcome is as precarious as a throw of the dice.