I wanted to take a quick break in the VSC experience posts to talk about something that has been on my mind lately. I’m not sure what I expect to come from this topic, but I feel the need to write about it. I think I was finally prompted write this when I read the following on Lenny’s blog today:
As an art student and years afterwards I was always very attracted to the geometrical minimalism of Piet Mondrian. Then, a handful of years ago, I recall the massive Mondrian exhibition at the National Gallery, and what happened when I walked into gallery after gallery full of works so similar that they were almost indistinguishable from each other.
Mondrian had found a formula and stuck to it. He never went on “trying other things.”
While I am sure that artists all over the world find their own formula and stick to it, I feel like I see it quite a bit in D.C. I don’t fault any artist for doing so as it typically only happens when the work is selling well. And who knows, maybe if one of my bodies of work sold like crazy, I’d just churn out product over and over again. Since that isn’t my current reality, I feel it’s important to try new things whenever inspiration strikes. I feel comfortable moving on because I feel that I own the past work and can revisit it at any time. Over the past 10 years, I’ve worked in following ways:
- Derivative paintings of established art stars %
- Spray paintings on MDF %
- Hand-drilled holes in wood #
- Ink drawings on scrapbook paper #
- Traditional landscape photography %
- Altered digital photographs #
- White paint on wood constructions #
- Clearcoat on wood paintings #
- Paint on plywood paintings #
% Work that informed my practice, but I will not revisit
# Work that I feel is significant, that I own and can revisit at any time
All of the work above has helped me get to where I am today. I feel that except for the first bullet, all of this work is related. However, I do think they are all quite different.
What I mean by own is that I feel this work is in my distinct voice. I don’t think the work would be confused for someone else’s (I say this based on years of looking, but maybe I just haven’t found similar artists who are out there somewhere). Once I feel that I have established ownership, I feel that I can move forward and pursue new ideas. I keep in mind that should the need arise (or the desire) to revisit past work, I can do so and leverage all that I’ve learned since last working in that way.
I’ve been thinking about this specifically because a wonderful opportunity has recently presented itself. I have been asked to bring my work to New York City for a meeting with a Chelsea gallery. They are most interested in my Holes in Wood body of work. As first I was concerned about this since I haven’t worked in that way (except for last year’s Artomatic) since late 2006. Given the potential opportunity before me, I realized that it’s not at all an issue to revisit the work. I’ve always thought it was significant work. And I feel OK coming back to it now. In fact, it’s exciting to begin working this way again and leveraging all that I’ve learned in the past 3 years.
Personally, I feel it’s better for me to pursue as many different bodies of work as possible and to own as many of them as possible. Later this year I will be participating in a variety of shows (more on this and the Chelsea gallery development later) and will be showing work from three different bullet points above. Had I simply followed the Holes in Wood line of art making non-stop, only one of these opportunities would exist today.
For those of you who don’t sell everything you make, what do you think about this? Do you pursue a variety of bodies of work? Or do you follow the same line year after year? What’s your thought process for your specific approach?
Congrats on the Chelsea gallery meeting – how exciting!!
As for bodies of work – I’m just a humble commercial illustrator, but in school we were encouraged from Day 1 to “find our style” and then, above all, stick to it. It’s hard to continue getting jobs if people don’t know what they’re going to get when they hire you. Though I can see there’s SOME correlation in fine art, I think the great thing about being a fine artist (vs. a commercial one), especially these days, is that in theory people are buying the idea first, the execution second (maybe I’m wrong here). If your materials change, your audience is hopefully still interested in what you’re saying.
Illustrators, for the most part, are just repeating what someone else (the writer, usually) is saying. (May all of your illustrator readers now rise up in defense).
In an ideal world, the fine artist is making the art for himself. In truth, I think you have the right idea. You own what you’ve done, and if revisiting it can broaden your audience, then go for it.
Ribbu,
Thanks for commenting. I totally get what you’re saying about illustration. If you work in many different styles and a client hires YOU (not knowing the various styles), they may be shocked by the result of your work. But does this really happen? If say you worked in a hyper-realistic way and in a strange cartoon style, would they not ask for one or the other?
I think by owning the hyper-real and strange cartoon styles, you might be a fit for twice as many jobs. But, if your hyper-real work is in such demand that you do it full-time, perhaps you don’t need to explore the strange cartoon work. My concern is about those folks who are now boxed in to making the same thing over and over. I wonder if they actually want to try something else, but can’t because of the demand on their other work.
Gerhard Richter comes to mind as someone who has pursued wildly divergent paths and has been successful in both. I know there are many others.
In thinking about D.C. specifically, I’ve just grown so tired of seeing the same thing over and over again by some artists. But if people are buying it, who cares about me?
Thanks again for commenting. Hi to A & K, and M too!
J.T.,
Congratulations on the Chelsea development. I hope that works out.
I am one that believes in develop bodies of work. Sticking with a style that sells may work for some, but seems to me to be drained of passion. I would lose the drive to create if that was my only goal. In undergrad, my painting teacher once said, “consistency is the hobgoblin of the simple mind.”, and that has stuck with me. I’ve always been more attracted to the artists that re-invent and re-imagine their work. Not totally abandoning their “style”, but talking little detours. When you look at their overall body of work, you can see it was created by one person, but that they have let the work lead them down their path, rather than rigidly sticking to a look. That’s how I feel when I look at your bodies of work that I am familiar with. Same artist trying different paths parallel to the original route.
I am going through all this right now. I have been immersed in painting landscapes for 6 years and that way of working is right for me. Making more subtle shifts and changes within that body of work all these years has been challenging to me and I will continue to work like that in the newer work I have going. But in the last year I have been finally feeling burned out on landscapes and have worked on developing other bodies of work, none of which particularly appeal to the galleries that currently represent me. I have definitely been pigeonholed as a landscape painter, which is not even how I see myself. I can see that it’s going to be tough to change that and now I totally understand why, when an artist has an a lot riding on one thing- income, reputation, kids going to college;)- it’s hard to give it up.
I am lucky that I am not the primary wage earner in our household so I have some time to start over again. Nevertheless, it was damn painful to tell a Boston gallery that was interested in my landscapes that I am not doing enough of them anymore to commit to another gallery.
Steven – Thanks for the comments! I’m looking forward to your show next month. I hope things are coming along well for it. Have you found out which gallery you’ll be in?
Tracy – I hear you! Good luck pursuing new directions. I’m sure it will work out.
There is nothing wrong with revisiting earlier bodies of work or having separate bodies of work going on at the same time. I think it is interesting to see how different bodies change over time and influence each other, things you learn doing one thing can be very helpful in advancing another style. I also think it is interesting to revisit older work and see how it has changed as you learn more. Personally, I just work on things that interest me and since I get bored easily, I tend not to repeat myself. I think the source of the inspiration is important, if you think there is still something to explore with an earlier series the work will probably be interesting; if you go back to an earlier series just because of its marketability, it is less likely to be successful. Good luck with the gallery, I think there is probably plenty to still explore with the hole series and I look forward to seeing more of it.
JT, I thought this might be a good post to include a link to an artist working right now who seems to have an affinity with some of the things you’re thinking about: http://acidolatte.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-roth.html?zx=454a42b43cda2adc
MB
Thanks Matt! I’m quite familiar with Richard’s work and I think it’s fantastic.