Conundrum

I am nearing completion, I think, on a latest painting. See In Tangle on my website, http://www.lanceeldert.com/. It has been an interesting process and frankly is going in a different direction than planned, but not off topic. This is fine, in fact, welcome. It’s a piece of the method I enjoy even, the unknown and the exploration. Also, one hidden benefit of working a painting beyond the original scope or intent or design is running into problems that inevitably crop up and solving them. If enough of these problems crop up and enough solutions are found, a style emerges on its own, a sort of characteristic of one’s method. This is seen in treatment of edges, surface dialogue, and the like.
The Conundrum then is that those things are the details, the gears and structures, not the overall impact or concept. When you step away from the painting after working on the small bits you take in the whole picture. The picture in this case is an amalgam of nudity and insinuated sex, crotch shot and all, with gravitationally pummeled breasts. I have been fine with this all along, but if I am no longer just painting for me, how much utility does this particular painting possess? Nudity is one thing, but full frontal with an exposed, um, gap, is possibly quite another. For a brief moment I considered the idea of pulling a Klimt. He would often paint the whole body then cover it with his constructs of design or renderings of clothing. It isn’t thought he was doing it to amend his original intent in anyway, just that he was finding the dimensions and placement of parts before continuing. My brief consideration was not this at all. It was a thought to make my painting palatable to the public for display. This, of course, flies in the face of artistic freedom and license and is presumptive of me to even think this would ever be an issue, but that then is the question, what can the public tolerate or better yet, what is appropriate today? Where does our mainstream lie? Nudity for the Greeks was normal, nudity for middle America, not so much.
Granted, my first response is, “there is no issue, nudity is natural and makes a better narrative,” and I still think this. It’s the second thought that is causing the problem. The third thought? That one is Ok too; it’s the second that gets in the way. If I were to craft a painting a day I believe the issue would go away. So does this mean the question is economic? Enough time and energy is spent on each one that each one represents a larger share of the aggregate and it is this that determines the viability of a career. To be clear, I am not talking selling out or buying in necessarily, I am talking omitting some subject matter until I can adjust my production vs. time ratio into more prolific territory. That would happen with more success which, in turn, translates into more time to paint by replacing the day job. More paintings mean more freedom.
If there is an economics professor or coffee shop philosopher or fellow artist I would love to hear from you. If you are a dry cleaner clerk or chicken kicker your advice may require a pinch of salt. Yes, I just wanted to say chicken kicker.

California landscape painters need not worry

Occasionally a topic strain comes up from one of the groups I am a part that deserves repeating for one reason or another. This is one.


I wrote initially:

"Change is in the air. It feels as though we are in the midst of a tidal change, not necessarily a sea change, in the art world. More and more books are making their way to the shelves pronouncing the end of art and the end of the art world. With varying rhetoric, the message seems eerily similar. At first glance a panic sets in, but in further delving it becomes clear that the vibe is not that painting is dying, but that the art world has become so detached from art making that a crisis looms. In many ways I agree. It is a business and really always has been, but historically it was more a business built on Art rather than a business with a product it labeled with an art logo."


An interesting response:

"Hi Lance, welcome on board! Fortunately the writing you cite haven't crossed my easel, and I see no danger among my contacts. Luckily none of my work goes to market and I don't depend on income from it, although many artists in Northern California are selling works, in landscape mostly, though thoughtful work appears in galleries and public places for which artists are reimbursed. Painting shows no disease signs here, and room for all of us exists. The last book I read, Art and Fear, David Bayles, and before that The Art Spirit, by Robt Henry, as pertinent today as it was half a century ago, both offer insight and hope for all artists. Keep on painting!"


Optimistic yes and that always brings a smile, but rarely illuminates.


So I mentioned this:

"Some noteworthy literature deserving a look; the End of Art- Donald Kuspit, The End of the Art World- Robert C. Morgan, Post Modernism A Guide to Cutting edge Thinking- Richard Appignanesi & Chris Garratt, The Philosophy of Art- G.W.F. Hegel, The Artist's Reality Philosophies of Art- Mark Rothko, Ways of Seeing- John Berger, and This is Modern Art- Mathew Collins. I did not mean to suggest that anything was in danger of not selling; rather I meant to suggest that everything is in danger of selling. Of the art world: it may no longer be a trustworthy authority on talent or art for that matter. The disconnect between the spectacle that drives it and the lack of discourse that used to, is great enough to warrant looking about for the real authority, a new set of experts outside the art world buffet. I agree, landscape painters in California will never fear for lack of commercial attention in this 'market'. Plastic cup makers in China will never fear for a lack of demand either and the world will miss the irony of the little gold sticker on the bottom of the green plastic plate that says China on it. Not to say ALL California landscape painters are cheap plastic cups either, just that it is the skewed market that makes so many and currently it is the skewed market that determines ones success, not quality or innovation or dialogue.And no, this is not bitter. This is me kicking my feet over the edge of the bed and rubbing my eyes as if in the morning, about to see if the coffee is ready... metaphorically preaching. =) Understand though, it is not the artists or even the art I am taking to task, it is the system. And yes, I know how cliché' that sounds all, stand up to the man and all that, but in reality, the flaw is palpable and the discordance worthy of revolution, if even silent or slow. The art world performs taxation without representation and though I do not in the least think that art nears the analogy of democracy, I do believe it deserves recreating the system in order to better discover a real Ben Franklin or Whistler or a Greenberg."


Now, that may come off a bit harsh perhaps, but not if you know me. Also of importance, this person was an innocent responder on a mostly supportive art group forum. We go there to say how great each other's work is and to say, "you go, keep on keepin on," and the like. I do too I think. But it has to be pointed out that it can't be any more obvious the depth at which we are all buying into the industry. If you go the book store and pick up, oh I don't know; How to Get Hung A Practical Guide for Emerging Artists- Molly Barnes or Taking the Leap- Lang or any number of other vampiric tomes you really start to get the idea that artists or artiness in people is but a commodity. I challenge anyone to walk into a Michaels (if you know what that is, that says enough) and not think that art has not been assimilated into capitalism. It is no big leap to imagine that at higher prices and margins that this isn't the case in the art world.

Sure, it would be easy to see that a Michaels shines out of convenience and that they are doing no wrong...what the market will bear right? I say, sure, there really is no problem with that until we start buying art from Michaels and those market pressures determine what art is by what is selling. Wait, that's happening. I don't mean to say that Michaels is the art world either, I mean to say the art world is doing the same thing, they are the same animal.

Take that for what it is.


And yes, selling through galleries should be fine. As mentioned, it isn't the artists or the art I have a problem with, it is the galleries creating the illusion that they are the authority where I have the problem. The art world is not in galleries, disco show openings, or behind glass, it resides in studios, with artists.

It IS a tumor!

Is painting dead? I have seen this question a lot lately and in fact, by association, it is addressed in many of the books I have been consuming. There is a discussion circulating through the public veins that began as a tumor elsewhere in the body of the art world. The tumor was the notion of “art for art’s sake”, embedded in the whole post modern era. The claim that art was art simply by claiming it to be, effectively stripped all things that made art, well, art. It was saying that anything was art, as long as you called it that. This was no off the cuff nickname that happened to stick because there was an element of truth to it either, rather it was the culmination of decades of pressure to stretch the limits of expression and limitlessness. Someone had to say it and no one knew what to say in response, so it lingers like a good comeback or punch line, mistaken for poignant revelation.

As for Post Modern, it is often referred to as a movement and paintings are described as being post modern, but post modern really refers to the time after modern or after WWII when the hinges came off of aesthetic rigor in the art world and when the spectacle was born as a replacement for true artistic dialogue.
The symptoms leading to the tumor however started well over a hundred years ago, or further, when artists really began liberating painting in public acceptance from just being a craft or vocation. Much like symptoms that lead to tumors like excessive drinking or smoking, the things that lead to this disease were expressions of exploration and celebration and innovation. Many movements were born that enriched art as we know it and that have informed society, philosophy, and advances of all kinds since. We are better for our art. We are worse with this tumor.

I should clarify though, the tumor is in the ‘art world’, not necessarily in our art or in the act of painting. The two realms are different and it is in this observation that saying painting is dead becomes erroneous. Painting is not dead. I highly doubt it ever will be. We have been painting for 40 thousand years and the cover of Art News last month points out that the industry is in the 25 billion dollar a year range today. No, it isn’t painting, but the art world that is dying as we know it. It will fight however, as it is no longer a community, but an enterprise or an industry, a corporation essentially, with profits. People fight for money. The problem is, it is killing itself by feeding on itself. If it were still a community supporting artists it would be adapting and evolving in a sustainable manner. But it isn’t. It is a business and a business makes pictures, not art. Sure it will struggle, but something will have to give. I won’t go as far to suggest the industry will actually die away. It is far too large and possesses the illusion of grander content to just go away. It will have to change from propagating the tyranny of the gallery system and the requisite lackies therein driven by market forces and the subjugation of profiteering however, if it wishes to survive. It is a system still riding the coattails of the likes of Warhol, assuming that his formula was evidence enough that movements could be replaced by trends and conversation could be replaced by spectacle. Sure there may always be the Thomas Kincaids and the random ‘abstract’ canvas around to match your couch, but in this age of information proliferation and distribution contract emancipation (as seen in the record industry as of late) the animal we call the art world will have to change, not because I want it to, but because it’s blood is contaminated with the cancer cells of thoughtless art.

If you are afraid to fail, do so.

If you are afraid to fail, than that is just what you should do, fail. All things in moderation is my follow up word of wisdom however. Too much success at failing only leads to failing to succeed so don’t get good at it, just embrace it long enough to lose the fear of it. This is no different than any other fear, with the exception of the fear of dying, that one has to be resolved by proxy.
This is my new qualifying creed for my art. I say new as if this is my first attempt at curing a fear of failure, truth be told I have embraced failure before with my art and seemingly every time it yields something interesting, arguably a form of success too.
I should be more clear, by failure I mean to say that I reach some form of dejection or doubt with my art in terms of marketability or as a career choice in general. I get to a point that every now and again I wonder what the hell I am doing. Of course, when my head clears days later this is only verification that I am on the right track because if the path is too clear you are no longer exploring. At the time however, it stinks of real concern. The problem is, when you are truly exploring you occasionally feel lost. Feeling lost feels like failure to someone exploring.
This happened this weekend, I felt a little lost. So what did I do? I embraced it, said f*it, opened the wine and just started painting. It was freeing. I wasn’t painting for anyone or to any end. If I were metaphorically lost as an explorer in the woods, I had stopped, made camp, built a fire, and was downing the whiskey while running through the forest nekkid singing Jimmy Crack corn and I don’t care (does Jimmy, crack, and corn imply nudity by the way??). From this heightened technical approach to hunting creativity, I bagged my game, the painting I am tentatively calling, In Tangle. See www.lanceeldert.com.
This painting captures a lot from one night without the usual endless mulling, deliberation, and layering normally taking days and weeks. This painting was a one night stand. It was born of a spasm of emotion and freedom only found when embracing demons like failure and feels that way in it’s atmosphere and heat and struggle. This painting also represents a return to the In the Towers style that sparked this whole line of work that has been my narrative for the past year, but with an evolved edge. Making this one felt more like passion and wet sex than some of my slower attentive pieces of late. Sometimes that is just what you need.
So I say release the structure of daily demands for success occasionally. I say Carpe Diem (or Carpe Noctem)! I say, “exist for tonight!” – ala Zack Hudson c. 1991. I say f*it, get lost, get drunk (metaphorically if you don’t drink), get wet sex, and sing at the top of your lungs nekkid in the woods, then get back to work.