A Quote for the Weekend

Artist Peter Halley (example above) said, "Learning to draw a coffee cup in perspective is simply a technique. The craft tradition has never been interesting to me. Oil paint, brushes, brushwork..."

Although I'm not a huge fan of Halley's work, I must admit I identify with his statement. Spending a long time learning technique, then learning to see to draw... Could a person learn how to see just as well making art in that same timeframe?

Comments

[Lenny]

Don't be fooled by statements by lazy artists who can't draw and make excuses... for every statement like that you'll find a dozen statements saying the opposite by names much bigger than Peter can ever hope to be.

The path of least resistance is never the answer...

[J.T. Kirkland]

Lenny,

Peter may not be the greatest artist, but he has had quite a bit of success. Is he a good artist? Who knows?

I find myself wondering this... the vast majority of art ever created has clearly been drawing of some sort. Just recently did the possibility arise that art doesn't have to have anything to do with drawing. This history is a part of us.

Most artists have had a great deal of formal training that has been grounded in drawing. Years and years of education (drawing) are what most artists have experienced while growing up. This education, I propose, is generally intended to teach artists how to make representational art.

With this in mind, I wonder how many artists would bring themselves to say that drawing was not vital in their development. Say someone has spent years learning how to draw, and their art now is drawing... of course drawing is going to be important to them.

Another scenario I think of is the value of studying math and english in school. Most of us spent about equal time studying both. However, in our everyday, grown-up lives, we use reading and writing much more than math. Honestly, most of us really only need and use a grade school level of math ability. So, ask the average Joe (artist) which subject was more valuable, they will say english (drawing). However, someone who works with numbers everyday will say math was more important to them.

So I wonder, is drawing viewed as important because of the time spent learning to draw by artists, and that most artists work in a representational style? Do video artists, conceptualists, minimalists, etc, really need a deep understanding of drawing to be successful? Maybe not. How about an illustrator? Of course they do! It's an unpopular opinion to say drawing isn't a necessity. I don't know if we can answer this question with absolute certainty.

As for path of least resistance, I don't think there is one path for all artists/styles. Although, I believe each path has the same resistance. If you are going to draw, you better be good at drawing. If you are going to be a minimalist, you better be good at conceptualizing and composition. If you lack the skills, you will be exposed.

[Lenny]

In your last paragraph:

As for path of least resistance, I don't think there is one path for all artists/styles. Although, I believe each path has the same resistance. If you are going to draw, you better be good at drawing. If you are going to be a minimalist, you better be good at conceptualizing and composition. If you lack the skills, you will be exposed.

You said very elegantly what I meant to say in my comment!

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Skills and Craft. Lately I've been thinking about those words in relation to my work. As usual, I have no answers, just questions. Do these words deal with the manipulation of material only? If so, is repetition of certain prescribed movements using certain prescribed materials in certain prescribed ways a recipe for excellence in craft. Is craft just a physical ability? To be a master craftsman, does one have to study from another master? When I hear the word craft, I think of rules and materials.

Or is craft and skill rooted in the mind. Does a good craftswoman make choices before she lays the brush to the canvas? Is it the "correct" choice that makes a pleasing craft. What happens when she makes new rules? What happens when she uses new materials? That has to change the rules. Is craft overcoming resistance, or just adhering to accepted rules?

Perhaps skill and craft is the ability to manipulate your chosen material. But where does that leave choice? If I choose to sand a part of my knife's wooden handle is the "art" the result of where I chose to sand and the "craft" the result of how I sanded?

Which leads us to the question of "quality". I really like quality. Most people do. But what is it? How do you know when something has it? Read Robert Persig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and his follow up novel "Lila". It will help you think about these things.

If I lack "skills" in the material arts will you still love me? If I lack "craft" in my concepts will you show my art? We all have boundries. As an artist it's my job (and desire) to get past them.

[J at simpleposie]

This is a great question for debate. Here's my two cents:

If you practice drawing long enough you will one day realize that nothing is beyond the scope of representation. If you discover that you can make anything materialize, anything you want to see happen on the page happen, then you have to start to make choices. The choices you make may debase or exceed the traditional sphere of drawing but it will never be far from your work whether you decide to build a bridge or shoot a film. The pain, the groping, awkward hours...the strangeness and eventual certainty, the accumulation of discoveries, the love will all be embedded in whatever visual project you undertake. Drawing is the first place I ever got lost as an artist and I hope to find myself in that place everytime I go in the studio, no matter what I make that day.

[Kevin]

Sure, and anyone--especially writer's-- can do it because there's nothing to say they can't. Duchamp opened it up to everybody earlier. It's art if you say it is--who's to say it isn't? Peter Halley is one of the more literary artists of our times. Without his lectures and theories regarding his work, would it function? His work is the beneficiary of his writing. By definition, how many minimalists can you have? He borrows a lot from Barnett Newmann--kind of more color filled. (couldn't resist the pun). I'd like to view his work from a security cam to see just how many people commit time and energy to understanding what's on the wall. My guess from my teaching experience is not much nor many--especially when a page of text accompanies it. It makes for a long day at the museum if you have to read a page on every minimalist or color field, hard edged, geometric, gestural expressionist piece of abstraction out there. I currently can't even remember what the work looks like at the top of this page because it left little to no impression. But boy can I remember his lectures. On an art critic society bathroom wall somewhere is the sentence "Peter gives good theory." In our times, scrotum is a vehicle. Pretty much opens it up for everybody with a penis and the other side is just as explored. So no, when I begin contemplating a urinal or drain in the floor until someone corrects me that it's not included in the show, who or what is an artist? Someone who stacks line or arranges color on a flat surface?