My paintings aren't finished, they are hung

We are all, no doubt, aware of Vincent van Gogh's infamous signature. However, in viewing a recent show of his work, my father brought to my attention that some paintings were not completed with his signature, "Vincent." This observation then led to a question I have asked many times: when is a piece of art finished? In regard to my own work, I say that my paintings are not finished, they are hung. My father does not consider a photo or drawing finished until he has signed it. So, could we then assume the same for van Gogh? Imagine how art history could be reinterpreted if we stop assuming that all of these works were finished. Just because we would feel more comfortable knowing that the paintings we have studied are finished does not mean that the artist felt that way.

I find myself always revisiting work. As an artist, you must grow to some degree or cease to call yourself an artist. This is because the word "artist" is synonymous with "student." As I "finish" one painting, I have already started on another. Especially in working with the figure, each painting is likely more successful than the last and I constantly wish to change the one before. However, the reason I say my work is hung, and not finished, is because I have to just move on. It is completely possible to paint one painting for an entire year and not even begin another. So many times artists paint numerous paintings on one canvas in hopes to "complete" the original. What I now realize is that although my paintings may not be finished because they are not perfect, it is imperative to move onto the next in order to progress.

All this makes me wonder is if the great painters of the past may have struggled with the same things. Maybe then, I have an explanation as to why Vincent did not sign all of his paintings. And maybe we can humanize those great painters that have become immortal in history.

Teacher! Teacher! He's Cheating!

If you copy an answer off of a test or from a paper you found online, you will get in trouble.  You cheated and you undoubtedly know that.  Yet somehow, art makes a simple, cut-and-dry situation complicated...again.  What is "copying" in art?  What is the artistic equivalence to citing your sources?  And when can you say that you have made something your own?

I am sure that everyone has heard about Shepard Fairey and the legal issues that have resulted from his "HOPE" painting of President Obama.  If not, the Associated Press is suing Fairey for using a photograph taken by Mannie Garcia, an AP freelance photographer.  Now, the problem we must address is, at what point are we copying art?  One could argue that clothing is art.  And by these standards, a fashion photographer is plagiarising the clothing designer by "copying" the design.

I do appreciate the argument that the painting is a direct representation of the photograph, but it is not a photograph of a photo.  The painting in and of itself is original because it was created by the artists hand.  Not to mention, the graphic technique and other changes make the new work a unique piece of art on its own.  At the very least, Fairey is not the first.  Apparently many have forgotten about Andy Warhol.  We do not assert plagiarism on Warhol's work.  Apparently, we believe that Andy Warhol changed enough of the image to "make it his own," but Shepard Fairey did not.

Fairey used an objective, practical photo and created his own image.  This image became the icon for the Obama campaign.  I do believe the artist should give credit where credit is due, but... HE DID!  The AP did not even know that he used one of their images until 7 months later when he said so!  At most, the AP lost the licensing fees they would have charged for the actual photo, which Fairey offered to pay.  As an artist who sometimes works from photos for reference, I sympathize with Fairey.  I think that his intent was for his HOPE painting to help Obama's campaign.  He just so happened to be one of those really lucky artists who got his big break.    

Craft...a four letter word

If there is one thing I know, it is bad to be crafty in the art department. Well, let me start by saying..."I'M CRAFTY!" After countless classes learning about technique while simultaneously developing coherent concepts, it's nice to sit down and crochet a scarf or or play with doilies and construction paper to make cute little Valentine's Day cards.

Now, craft can be just for fun, but why is it so often looked down upon in the fine arts? Fibers has been a huge influence in my concepts, my paintings, and how I see and use my materials. Everyone thinks of fibers and thinks of basket weaving. They also believe that that could not be fine art. But what makes something fine art? Why is it that in our contemporary art scene fine art can be made of traditionally unrelated materials, but not from "crafty" materials. The image above on the left is "Eight Women in White" by Ghada Amer and it is acrylic, embroidery, and gel medium on canvas. The piece on the right is one of mine. I used craft materials such as embroidery hoops and needlepoint canvas to create a corset with horribly unrealistic measurements (34"-10"-34"). From farther away it is beautiful, but the paintings on the silk are actually overlapping pornographic images, similar to Amer's embroidery.

I guess my question is "why are craft based media looked down upon in regards to fine art?" If an artist can use old car parts and spray paint to create a piece of fine art, why not pipe cleaners? I think that it is all in how the materials are used and the concept behind them.

Balance

balance...Something they don't really teach you about. Aside from your 2-D Design class where you learn about balance in your drawing or painting, they don't teach you about balance in your life. How do you balance your readings and analysis in Art History, creativity in Painting, and a presentation in Marketing? Well, maybe most art students don't have to deal with that last one, but I'm sure they have something similar, whether it is Global Connections or Earth Science. How do you balance all of that...and then your job...and you boyfriend...and your friends...and every other responsibility you may have?

The hardest thing is switching gears. When you have 3 tests to study for, you can plan your time and set study times for each subject. But how do you plan creativity? How do you say, "hey, I'm going to paint at 6 pm and it is going to be wonderful." Maybe it's just me, but sometimes you just don't have it in you. And sometimes, you have that mind-blowing idea that you just have to get out. My solution? Art comes first. Keep a sketchbook and a camera with you at all times. You never know when you will be inspired. You can always make time to study, just make sure you fit it in and don't put it off until the last minute. Sometimes you have to put your art on hold, but if you keep that sketchbook with drawings and notes, you will be able to conjure up that inspiration when you are in your studio.

For those who are not in school, the same applies to you. Unfortunately, we can't all make a living as an artist. Life gets in the way. Stay on track and draw, write, or record any ideas you have whenever they come to you. Trust me, you don't want to forget your best idea for a painting because you were at work and too busy to write it down. Remember, it's hard being an artist...but it's harder not to be one :-)

Art and Originality

I remember my sophomore year in college when one of my teachers said, "each generation thinks they are the first." At the time, this comment was made in response to a conversation about how young kids are experimenting with sex and drugs. Although that topic has nothing to do with this post, the idea that we seem to believe we are original simply because something is new to us, is relevant. One of the struggles of art is that it is not about getting the right answer. A + B does not = C. In fact, in art there are no set variables. We get no equation and there are no rules, limitations, or instructions. Instead, we are given a toothpick, a piece of string, and some duct tape and told to build a house. I think that many artists strive to be an original and to make their mark on the art world. More often than not, however, we find ourselves "doing something new," only to find out that over a dozen known artists have done the same thing.

I am not saying that there is no originality anymore because that would be impossible for me to prove and definitely something I do not believe. But our definition of originality may have to change. On one hand we can argue that originality is in the eye of the beholder; if it is new to you, it is original. No one other than yourself can know whether you are referencing other artists or if you have been naive and have come to these conclusions, or questions, on your own. On the other hand, we can acknowledge that of all the work an artist will make, only a small percentage of it will be shown to others (not including close friends and family). Editing becomes key here and after self doubt and harsh self-critiques, only the best (and original) work gets chosen. Because of this selection process, I think that more original work is likely to be shown.

Now, there are undeniably countless theories on originality and I have only mentioned two. Personally, I agree with the first option. All artists MUST be well-versed in both art history and contemporary art. Find artists that share your interest either in painting style, subject, or concept. Learn from them, but do not copy or abandon your work because you find it is not completely original. It is your own and your ideas and even your imperfections are what make it yours. Do not be discouraged if you think that other artists do it better. Do not forget what you bring to the table; something fresh and completely yours.

The reason I am writing about this subject is because it is an issue I have difficulty dealing with. It is easier said than done, but hopefully I too can get past my own insecurities.

Back in the Swing of Things

After a crazy month of last minute creativity cramming and a nice 3 week vacation to follow, it is finally time to go back to class. I have always found myself to be that annoying dorky kid who actually gets really excited about a new semester with new classes and new teachers. With 1 more year to go, however, I seem to have misplaced my enthusiasm.

Tomorrow is my first day back and I am already stressed thinking about all that I have to do. After a misguided semester of indecisive concepts, I am struggling with my direction for the semester to come. As of right now, I think that I will continue to address our judgments. It amazes me how we manage to harshly judge and ignore certain people at the same time. I think that right now I am having a hard time because it seems that I can't think of many female characters. One that I am planning on painting is a stripper.

All I can say is that I definitely have my work cut out for me. I have tons of research to do and a whole bunch of painting to work on while balancing everything else. If only there were more hours in a day or days in a week. But I guess I will have to take what I can get. I can't complain, though, because as much as it stresses me out, all of the work and all of the pressure is extremely motivating.

If you have any comments, feel free to post or email me at heatherg@jerrysartarama.com :-)

Father-Daughter Outing (September 20)

Julie Mehretu, Charioteer, 2007, ink and
acrylic on linen, 60 x 84 in., Collection of
Nicolas Rohatyn and Jeanne Greenberg
Rohatyn, N.Y., © 2007 Julie Mehretu,
Courtesy The Project, PHOTO: Steven Gerlich.
Photo taken from: http://ncartmuseum.org/exhibitions/current.shtml

Last weekend, I made my monthly trip from Charlotte to visit my parents in Raleigh. I find that every time I go back there I am increasingly impressed by the great strides being made in the art community.

When I was younger, we lived in Queens, NY, and our weekend trips to the city introduced me to the Met, the MoMA, the Whitney, the Guggenheim, and countless galleries. In 1995, I can’t say that Raleigh had much to offer in comparison.

The North Carolina Museum of Art is currently showing Julie Mehretu’s exhibit, City Sitings, until November 30. According to the NCMA website, “Mehretu draws on a dynamic array of popular imagery accessible to diverse audiences—maps, urban grids, graffiti, calligraphy—and configures these into an unanticipated, irresistible personal visual vocabulary.” (Art, 2008)
Her monumental-sized works reference Miro’s combination of blocks of color and intricate line, as well as Pollock’s expressive mark-making and Matisse’s cut-outs. As a whole, they seem to be so free, gestural, and intuitive, but when you get up close, you find the surprise of tight, intricate pen work and the crisp, sharp edges of color.

What I loved most about this exhibit was the time I had to spend with my father. One of my professors once said that you could always tell the difference between the artist and the art appreciator in a gallery or museum. Those who appreciate art stand back and admire the work, while the artists get as close as they can to see how the artist made the piece. Well, my father and I were definitely the latter. We jumped back and forth debating the technique. Did she paint it? Did she cut it out? Was it all done by hand? Was it all done by her? How are there no snags from the technical pen she used? Where are the mistakes? Where’s the hand of the artist? There is nothing better than two passionate people discussing what they love.

Most people are passionate about at least one thing in their life. And my passion is art, not only the art itself, but the community as well. Whether you are a professional artist, a student, an artist-wannabe, or just an art enthusiast, we are all part of this art community. Let me know what kind of exhibits you’ve been to and the discussions you’ve had. I would love to post your stories or questions and connect our art community a little more.