Today I was working and trying to push my work to another level. People who came into the studio were surprised that the work had changed so much. One thing I like in painting is that the possibilities are endless, and that goes for all plastic mediums. I thought I would start adding some studio notes to get more discussion going. Since process is on the table. So in art, can one move forward faster and faster propelled by ones momentum? Not just the speed of working, but the speed of the mind. I bring this up because I suspect why I am so destructive of much of my work is that the newer work progresses ahead of the existing work.
One big barrier apparently is imagination, how many ways can I move the paint, how many variations, surface, color, and mark making. Another is experience, the process begets new levels within a process. Things are learned, gained, and some things shed.
8 responses so far ↓
maryrobi // December 9, 2007 at 12:01 am
I have a hard time relating to speed as a goal in my work. The only times I have desired to speed up my work or my mind is when I’ve tried to finish a certain number of pieces by a certain date, and then the goal of speed is usually a distraction and detraction from the process. What value do you see in speeding up your mind? What are you racing toward? How would speeding up your mind keep you from the tendency of destruction of your work?
mkwick // December 9, 2007 at 12:43 am
Ah, maybe I am not making myself clear. What I meant was, the work seems to progress quickly, and that movement ahead of previous work creates the impression that the earlier work is lacking. The work may be good in a overall sense, but is lacking in power in relation to the newly completed work. This seems to be the phenomena I am wrestling with.
It is not speed in the sense of production per-se but progression in terms of artistic weight in a work. In a discussion today another artist and I were looking at the new work in relation to recent work about 6 months ago and one could feel the newer work had much more power.
Thanks for the comment.
loujoseph // December 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Well, looking at your work (online, as I haven’t seen it in person since 2005), it seems like the progress you’re citing seems almost glacierial, all the moves very deliberate… it seems to contrast your claim of speed in developing your work. Like I could picture a show of work from 2005 to 2007 and it wouldn’t be *horrifying*, or look like a Richard Prince show.
Do you think you think about your work this way as a way of discounting older work, not having to explain it? I get that feeling when doing slide talks, like that work was done by someone else, and by explaining it in the past tense, I am not responsible for it.
Also, I was wondering if what your intention is in talking about your work in mock-heroic terms. I mean, it makes me want to move to Berlin THIS WEEK, as I rarely have good conversations about art here, but it feels really weird reading it, like you’re building an art persona/self-mythogizing, like the stuff you’d write about washing ashore in Holland with only the shirt on your back, etc. I guess I want to know if you’re doing that on purpose, and if so, why?
mkwick // December 9, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Well thats good, non-horrifying is a good goal. Maybe experiencing the progression in a work is far different than actually what is happening for the viewer.
Maybe I am paranoid. Exactly the feeling like in a slide show. Oh- thats 2004, thats oooold stuff.
In reference to mythologies. The story of the expat, moving to europe, overcoming odds and progressing is a classic one. It used to be done in 50’s with paris, other mythologies are interesting such as NY, anything where one moves from one location to another, overcomes struggles and achieves. Its a larger story of the artist in general I guess. I thought it was a good thing to share with friends and family.
I heard recently a good discussion about Bob Dylan and his constant mythologizing and story telling about himself and then weaving it into his work. Seems like it is an old tool.
And I have noticed in Berlin, that stories are woven around artists by themselves and galleries. When does mythology and factual life divide? When do these tools become useful?
mkwick // December 9, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Something worth looking at. On the notes of identities and mythologies.
Tim Van Laar in Active Sites: Art as Social interaction/ looks at 5 myths that artists use to define themselves. But most artists use a combination. If I can remember… one was)artist as intellectual, two, artist as Shamen (or societal healer), three, artist as Charlatan (beuys) ,four, artist as genius, and I think the last one was the outsider artist (the insane)
Its not to say that each mythology does not have power or use. In an age where anything goes we can like Dylan move in and out of things.
I think its interesting that lou brought this up regarding how one writes about him/herself as an artist. It also could perhaps merge with visualization on some level. (ie) the artist as intellectual frames himself in this mode, and plays the part, this influences community, which re-frames himself and then reinforces the artists role.
Now some might be upset in thinking of their reality as part played, but from what I have been reading lately all of our experiences and consciousness is like role playing and our perception of reality is completely individual.
loujoseph // December 10, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Well, michael, I was pretty certain you were aware of all of that- what I want to know is, knowing all of that, and all the options out there of personas to adopt, why that one? It seems fairly consistant in your writing about your studio practice and artist’s statement…
I mean, is it motivating in some way? Or a comfortable way of approaching self-promotion?
mkwick // December 10, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Ah, sometimes things are much simpler than…
I think assuming a role helps in both areas. For me identifying myself as an artist who struggles through material and ideas as a way to come to final conclusions seems to be method and in return motivational. Destructions and constructions in the act of working define all of my practice.
I think a frame work of mythology can be very useful in self promotion. So for me my persona arose out of life experience and methods of working. I wondered aloud to a friend the other day if some of us fit Archetypes. I seem to be in some vein of expressionist artists that resonate with my studio practice.
The resonation propells action and method and the resulting work reinforces persona. A cyclical process. In that sense it is comfortable, or at least more comfortable than developing a totally new identity. Its easier to let people see me as I am.
The old saying of staying true to ones nature seems valid in my case.
Is there some connection with Archetypes/ Protyptical production and Evolution?
How about you Lou, or the others in the group, is there an identity that resonates with you? Or one that the community around you sees you having?
Good discussion.
maryrobi // December 11, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I’m sorry I’ll be out of the discussions for awhile. Tomorrow morning, I’m headed to southern India with a backpack, sketchbooks and digital camera for 6 weeks. I look forward to continuing discussions in January!
You must log in to post a comment.