Not that I get called a “wood artist” too often, but in light of some recent comments here about how much I just love wood, Joanne Mattera’s post today – “The ‘Adjective’ Artist. How Do You Define Yourself?” – seemed perfectly timed. The idea:
I’ve come to this point of view over time: The more narrowly we define ourselves, the narrower our opportunities will be.
It was once suggested that I give my approach to artmaking a name. It was bad advice that I followed when I was young and naive. Who remembers “Organic Minimalism”? I even titled my first solo show, “Studies in Organic Minimalism.” Yuck! I quickly learned, though, that in defining myself and my work, I was simultaneously limiting myself. Since opportunities are so few and far between for artists, it makes no sense to limit ourselves. Others will be more than happy to do it for us, we need not help.
As an aside, when I think of my work and what label I would give it (if I were so inclined), I always lean most to painting. I’ve told people in the past that I see my work as about 60% painting, 30% sculpture and 10% drawing. And this is the wood works I’m talking about. That’s why unless I am absolutely required to do so, I self identify as an artist, one who most often uses wood as medium.
I know I pounded on the wood thing. Sorry about that. I don’t think of you as a wood artist, either. I tend to think of you as a sculptor, even though you don’t. Fact is there’s no good word for what you do aside from just plain artist.
Which is good enough.