I ran into Art & Perception quite by accident – when I was doing one of those interminable searches that we are accustomed to doing on the internet for all things ‘art’, I remember skimming through some of the contents and I slowly found myself thinking that this was a bit different from other artist-group-hangouts that I had seen. Most would either fall into a category where a bunch of art students would get together to discuss class projects or the others were those that really did not stimulate thinking or original flow of ideas. I knew that I had found a group with tendencies to originality in Art and Perception and decided to keep up with the posts and little by little started commenting on the posts. I was very surprised and happy when Karl wrote to me the other day and asked if I would like to become a contributor to this site and asked me to write a guest post. I mulled for a coupe of days on how best I present myself and thought that the best way to get this going was to talk a bit about myself and a bit about questions that have been plaguing me with respect to art. This way it will serve both as an introduction and as a post that will serve to fuel further discussion (which is the objective of this group – right?)
First and foremost, I am not really one of those ‘trained’ artists. I have a background in Mechanical Engineering and have been working for the last fourteen years (a good 4 years at the Indian Space Agency and most recently about 8 years on Wall Street). I spent about two years in between getting a Masters in Mechanics. Even though I did not get a chance to express myself as much as I do now, I had a lurking genie in me that always wanted to experiment. I experimented with poetry, writing, drawing, cooking and even marathon running. I found out that I was fairly good at some and used to suck at some of the others. I even remember resigning from my job with the Indian Space Agency and devoting myself to the ‘arts’ but could not really manage the monthly bread effectively. In fact at one point I even decided that I will throw it all away, join med school, become a doctor and go away and work for doctors without borders.
Sensible advice prevailed (from my family – primarily my wife)… The one avocation that stayed consistently with me through the years was my love for painting. This was pure joy as in the kind that you experience when you are with your son or daughter and do things sincerely even if you do not expect anything in return because your heart tells you to just do it. It seems right from the point of view of virtue, truth and beauty.So much for the high road and myself, but I think that it is precisely these qualities that seem to be divorced from the current art establishment. Discussion setups like Art and Perception seem like a good mature place to exchange a round of ‘straight from the heart’ delivery that seem to be missing from today’s politically correct world.
That said, the issues that seem to be nagging me are as follows:
- Why are art schools in the United States so devoted to churning out people (read artists and I have a vision of the video from Wall (Pink Floyd) that has children rolling off the meat grinder) that are focused towards how best they present their work at major galleries and how best to please and amuse collectors and curators when schools should really be looking to foster the creativity of the individual involved? Why are we trying to get sensibilities that are more at home in an MBA program into art schools?
- It looks like money (read hedge fund managers) is the new art critic. Are all of us collectively turning stupid in the sense that we sometimes (blindly) follow/collect worthless styles/pieces of art because that is where the money is headed? Why do we display a pack rat mentality when it comes to appraising the value of art and an artist by extension?
- Why is banal art on the rise? Why do we see instances where artists (and some fairly famous ones) give opaque descriptions that seem to be craftily tuned towards appeasing the ears and the sensitivities of the art establishment and try and explain that the significance behind a couple of squiggles on canvas is life in all its forms when it really looks a muddy footed poodle accidentally walked across it?
- Do you think that a movement can grow from the grassroots in the United States that restores art to what it really should be – ‘art for arts sake’ or is this too lofty a goal to think about especially in this industrially advanced age where today’s fads in one part of the world may already be obsolete yesterday in another part?
Here was a forum where I could ask questions like this and people would take some of these issues seriously or give it the attention that it merits – but nevertheless answer from their hearts.I also think that this might be a suitable forum where I can get to show some of my artworks to an audience that I seem to like and respect. So here goes. I am including four paintings that I have done over the last year in this post and I will continue to post as and when I feel the issues burn and well inside of me or when I turn out newer works. None of these paintings are for sale and I do it primarily because it brings me peace. My wife and my two year old son also enjoys some of my paintings though not necessarily my opinions…
Do you think that a movement can grow from the grassroots in the United States that restores art to what it really should be – ‘art for arts sake’ or is this too lofty a goal to think about especially in this industrially advanced age where today’s fads in one part of the world may already be obsolete yesterday in another part?
Sunil, I’m not sure I agree that “art for art’s sake” is what art really should be at all. Who is this “art” for whose sake I should be painting? I think art should be for the sake of the person who is going to be looking at the picture.
Sunil.
I disagree:
1. I think MFA programs can be a great place to focus and to impart and gather wisdom, which, by the way, I also believe in. (I also think that artists can improve their presentation skills, though I would not recommend spending too much money for just that.)
2. Money and Art? As my daughter says: Whatever.
3. Banal Art? This has not been my experience at all. I find the breadth of work being made today… almost exhilarating (Josh Dorman!).
4. Art for Arts Sake? I certainly prefer a broader perspective. I think Art that refers to itself and its own domain becomes easy prey to formalist thinking by a narrow audience.
Karl,
How do you know who’s going to be looking? And how about for the sake of the painter?
Sunil,
I hope you’re not expecting to resolve all those questions and discuss your art as well! I find your pictures very compelling. I hope you won’t be offended if I say some aspects remind me of things I’ve seen on computer images when manipulating the color scheme (look-up table) in various ways. Do you use any personal methods to create your color schemes? Do they just develop as you paint?
Steve,
Who said the painting isn’t for the painter in some cases?
Is it silly to think that a painting can be made for a person or group of people? Isn’t this how art used to be done in the past? That’s better than painting for an abstract concept, like ‘art.’
Thank you for the comments – very interesting to read the viewpoints expressed here…
Karl,
OK, it does look like I have ruffled some feathers here and I would like to clarify:
‘Art for art’s sake’: In my view the beauty behind an artwork executed should be reason enough by the artist to pursue art. Definitely the artist is hoping that the expressed sentiment would culminate in appreciation or scorn, but ultimately the art that we do is because we feel a passion to do it, a certain energy inside of us to create… In addition, I said ‘art for arts sake’ to bolster my argument that people should continue to pursue the arts for the pure love of painting or photography or any other expression that can be construed as art… I know of some people (and very talented ones at that) who have been dejected by not finding ‘wealthy’ donors to support their aspirations and have consequently given it up completely – such people do not in my view follow or believe in the art for art sake dictum… (Might be a little bit of a controversial viewpoint, but that’s me ;-)
D,
1. You say “I also think that artists can improve their presentation skills though I would not recommend spending too much money for just that” – I tend to agree with you for the most part, but I find programs like the MFA to be very commercialized and expensive and I was referring to that. In some aspects the ‘sell yourself’ ‘sell yourself’ sentiment behind MBA programs seems to be seeping into MFAs also… By the way, MFA programs are the best thing out there to have artists follow a formal path, but I guess it is the market aspects of the program that gets to me – hmmm – need to think some more..
2. ??
3. While I definitely do agree and am a big supporter of the breath of the artwork that comes out nowadays, (which opens up new vistas in our imagination), I have experienced exhibitions where pictures of the splatter patterns of bird poop is exhibited and called art (In my view this is banal – Charles Long at Tanya Bonakdar).
4. Agree with you on this “I think Art that refers to it and its own domain becomes easy prey to formalist thinking by a narrow audience.” I should have defined it a little better.
Steve,
Yes, you are right in your observation. I transform the original picture using graphics software to develop tonal patterns that I like produces the sentiment that I would like to give to the final painting. I then use the manipulated image as a starting point to build the canvas.
No, I am not offended at all and I am glad that you bought it up. In fact that might be a good idea for a later post.
Sunil.
1. Of course every MFA program is different; I was fortunate to attend CCA during the 90s when the transition to multi-disciplinary curriculum was happening.
2. My Whatever comment was too blunt. Sorry. Over the years, I have rarely come across a critic, curator, collector or artist driven by the Money. I guess I have been “fortunate”. In the end, I only want to dismiss artists because of my relationship to their work.
3. Hey! I’m amused by Charles Long’s work. Thanks for the tip.
http://www.tanyabonakdargallery.com/exhibit.php
4. Ahhhh… some Common Ground.
Sunil,
Yes, I’m very interested in the visualization topic as a future post. I recently posted on the use of computer visualization in an experiment with textile artist June Underwood. By the way, ruffling feathers is not bad.
Karl,
I was responding to your statement “I think art should be for the sake of the person who is going to be looking at the picture.” But I realized you probably didn’t mean it in a limiting sense. I’m all in favor of creating art for a particular person or known audience. But I agree with Sunil that an artist may want to work without conscious regard for that, possibly deciding on an appropriate audience later, which might differ from work to work.
What a discussion. :) I can tell this is a great place to waste a whole LOT of time, and thus procrastinate starting my latest painting! Thanks Sunil for leading me here!
bioephemera,
Blogging does take time, that is for certain. Each participant has to figure out if it is a good investment of time or not. For my part, I’ve been exposed to a lot of interesting ideas on this site. Some of them have been helpful, whereas others have mostly been helpful in helping me see my own approach better.
Another important aspect is the opportunity to get feedback on artwork. I know that Hanneke van Oosterhout has benefited much from the critiques of her work here.
D,
I did enjoy that link you sent on Charles Long. On this related note, you should definitely check out this link (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n10_v83/ai_17418212) to relize the extents to which art techniques can take new directions. I am not so sure if this is art at all, but then when Jackson Pollock did ‘his thing’ people seemed a little confused. Maybe the choice of bodily orifices by Keith Boadwee is the next stage…
Steve,
I will be happy to do a piece on visualization. In fact I use it to a large degree even in finishing up some parts of my painting. I also use visualization to form ‘alternate endings’ for my paintings which I then use to complete the painting.
Bioephemera,
I have been a big fan of your art for some time and I am glad I could led you to Art and Perception.
Karl,
Your comments on the investment of time and effort involved in blogging is useful and reminds me that I have to get back to work..
Sunil,
Gosh that’s a lot to respond to! Good post!You forgot to ask about how to achieve world peace :) First off, I like your paintings, especially the digital look and artificial color fo the second nad third ones – what is the medium and sizes? The connection to digital imagery is interesting to me. You might like the artist Michelle Forsyth: http://www.michelleforsyth.com I am interested in you talking about the subject matter. The first woman looks like a model, well, they all do in that posed, glamour shot kind of way. Are they supposed to and are you making some commentary on images of women, or am I way off in left field?
Your questions:
1. I got a BFA and then spent 9 years in the “real world” before getting my MFA. I had a real suspicion of MFA programs. These were my thoughts:
1. I’m a practical person – why would I go into thousands of dollars into debt for something that is often referred to as the advanced waitressing degree?
2. I got sick of the academic critique in undergrad. The position of art in the academic environment feels so awkward at times. Some professors try to intellectualize art to the max, put it into boxes, do a lot of critical theory, at the time and expense of making the work itself.
3. I found lots of stuff outside academia to engage with and had a chip on my shoulder about spending two years “contemplating my navel.”
So I had lots of biases walking into the experience. I decided to think of it as an opportunity to focus on my work for 2 years and try out teaching. What I found when I finally decided to go was
1. I didn’t have to go into debt. I went to a lesser name program and got a free ride, opportunity to teach, with a stipend.
2. I found incredible mentors and colleagues there amongst the faculty and other students.
3. The intellectual side of the arts was also really engaging and did not have to be pretentious.
4.I adore teaching.
5. I found ways to stay involved in community issues and activities. That part of me did not have to die.
6. I got very little practical advice about marketing, job stuff, survival as an artist, etc. Everyone basically said soemthing like “jump in. The water’s cold, but just do it!” So i could have used more of that, not less!
Question 2
I’m not sure I agree. But your explanations and other comments have covered that ground.
Question 3
I’m not sure I agree in that I think it has always been this way, since art has relied on patrons. It’s that whole need to bring home the bacon. The best art survives the test of time so we are not as aware of the “sell outs” from the past. Just my theory…
Question 4
The art for art’s sake is a little nebulous to me. If you mean the way that you make art – for your own self and not for sale and to bring you peace? I make art for the same reasons AND I like to sell it AND i love to show it AND I am sure I get influenced by all those decisions which may take it out of the realm of art for art’s sake? What do you think?
I don’t mean any of the above as confrontational, just trying to dig into the ideas behind your questions which are provocative. thanks for writing!
Leslie,
The primary focus of my work is to capture aspects and emotions of the human face. Simple or adorned, the face projects the essence of who we are and who we are not sometimes consciously and at other times unconsciously. My technique is to use saturated oils thickly applied to canvas at spots that accentuate certain tones to amplify desired color ranges. I use a range of tools to achieve the necessary effects on software before embarking with the brush. Even during the painting, I have ‘multiple image based endings’ that I then play around until I am satisfied with the final approach (maybe I will use another post to explain this in a little more detail like Steve suggested)
Why women’s faces – I am not too sure, but I guess they appeal most to me.
All of these painting’s are 48 inches by 36 inches and are oil on canvas. If you mouse over you will see the names of the paintings (which I consider to be as important as the painting itself).
It was a very inspiring reading about your trepidations heading out to the MFA program and then coming out with such a positive state of mind at the end of the MFA program. Very uplifting and I am sure that some of the non-big-city colleges definitely maintain the ‘idyllic’ notions of painting schools that we secretly harbor…
Your theory that the best art survives the test of time so we are not as aware of the “sell outs” from the past is spot on. We should definitely elaborate on that some more in the future…
Art for art’s sake has me drinking sake at this time ;-) Only kidding. What I meant was that I create art primarily to bring peace to myself. Period. In that sense, I do art for art’s sake – not for pleasing or displeasing anybody. Of course it is a useful tool in my hands to send out a message about issues I feel strongly about, but most times it remains a vehicle for my relaxation in the evenings (actually after 10pm when our son goes to sleep and my wife is busy with Law and Order).
I think Steve put it better than I could when he said that an artist may want to work without conscious regard for creating art for a particular person or known audience, possibly deciding on an appropriate audience later…
Sunil:
I like the idea of relaxation but more as a topic than as a limited ambition.
Have you attempted to capture that subtle emotional life in a Self-portrait?
Or here is an idea for a painting (check first though with your wife): Self-portrait (Relaxing with Gisele). I can imagine an entire series of Supermodel Paintings, each model extending more than their lovely visages into your regular life. Going For A Run In The Neighborhood, Changing A Diaper, Cooking A Meal For The Family, Watching The Tube With The Wife.
First, Sunil, welcome much more officially to A&P. Very well thought post. Big questions. Bold, exciting artwork. Great to have you.
Like you, my credentials are in technical fields. This seems to create in my style a certain methodical approach and a tendency to simplify problems by eliminating variables, and like you (I think) I am an artistic soul in a mechanistic world. The conflicts and paradoxes are a metanarrative that many, I am sure, experience.
I would suggest that with regards to question 4, this is already occurring. The figure is back. A new Humanism is on the rise. We are seeing the swan song of the system of training and exhibiting artists dominant for only a century or less. It only looks strong, but that is an illusion. The illusion dissipates the more small, local galleries one visits and the less one reads in the papers or sees on television.
It’s fine with me if many people still go to school and aspire to the gallery system though. Less competition.
Sunil,
Your questions are evocative and certainly will get commented on, wittingly or not.
But I would like to focus on the paintings. Do you begin with a standard digitized image – a photograph, for example? Or do you start with a painting, which you then digitize? Do you use live models? Do you know the women you use in your paintings?
I am always fascinated by titles, so I looked at yours. Next time I hope you write them out for us. They, like the paintings themselves, seem to range from the provocative (…mea culpa) to the descriptive (long neck with ornaments).
You do these out of an irresistible love of doing, as you say. But what goes through your mind as you are making decisions — do you change your ideas as the various elements and tools that you use come into play? Do you, for example, move from something you thought was merely descriptive to something that is social commentary?
I suppose I’m asking these questions because of the nature of the process. Your process has so many twists and turns to it that it seems like it might easily have the same kind of twists and turns of thinking.
Rex,
Sorry for taking time to reply – I was on a vacation for the last five days and did not get the chance to catch up on this…
Thanks for welcoming me to Art and Perception. Looks like I see a kindred spirit here and am happy to note this… Like you have said (“the illusion dissipates the more small, local galleries one visits and the less one reads in the papers or sees on television”), I will need to visit some more of the small out-of-the-turn art galleries – I am sure there is a lot of artwork that is flourishing, alive and well out there, just a matter of discovering it. I found a quote from Banksy this morning on Art New Blog (http://www.artnewsblog.com/) that I found very instructive and reproduced here verbatim…
“The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Any fame is a by-product of making something that means something. You don’t go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit.”
June,
Glad to see that you have enjoyed my paintings. At least someone is giving this a close look… I am planning on explaining the technique in an upcoming post very soon (in short, the subjects for my paintings come from photographs (photos that are either my own or already published) and as far as the women in the pictures, (I know some and the rest I don’t). I do not use live models – should start to look into this, but not too sure where to start.
I wanted to expand a little more on thought behind the titles for my pictures – which I once said were as important as the pictures themselves. I usually have a final ‘commentary framework’ in mind that I would want my pictures to project (even before I dab paint on the canvas) – they range from the descriptive kind to social commentary (In fact I am working currently on a picture of our President titled ‘Stuff Happens’ – that famous two line quote by Donald Rumsfeld on surveying the destruction of museums in Iraq’s capital). I have also noticed that quotes like that tends to stick on in the collective conscious and serves as an easy explanation for things horribly screwed up. Quotes like that also define and hurt a generation and sometimes you need pictures evocative enough to portray the perpetrators (just my humble opinion).
Every once in a while a face captures your soul so thoroughly that I just want to paint it and describe a significant aspect of the same – and that is when I develop one of my descriptive pieces.
Sunil,
Did you read the recent article in the Science section of the NYTimes about our proclivity to recognize faces? And how a woman making a grilled cheese sandwich overcooked it and in the blob leftover, she saw the face of the Virgin Mary. The episode apparently achieved some publicity and the debris was sold for $28,000.00.
I am still curious about how you choose your models. The more closely I look, the more confused I get. You say you know some and others, not at all, but beyond the exercise of painting what pleases you, I sense that you want the Gisele or Da Vinci to be more meaningful. Treating them equally to your style is, well…oomplicated. Are you looking for a middle-ground?
As for working from models, drawing one’s child while sleeping fits well into busy lives. And besides, what could be a sweeter time spent?
D,
I missed out on that article in the Times, but I have read some papers on the neural basis of face perception (called the fusiform face area in the fusiform gyrus in our brains) that talks about how we are naturally wired to recognizing faces and attendant expressions (our recognition of Mooney faces is another example in this regard)…
You do bring out an interesting viewpoint when you state that “I sense that you want the Gisele or Da Vinci to be more meaningful” – I do not think that I wanted to give Gisele or the virgin in Da Vinci more meaning. I would rather say that I read more in these faces than some other people and I paint them in a way to give the expression that I sense more meaning.
with. worth seems Nothing bothering ,