Weekly Post of My Work

Welcome back for another installment of the Weekly Post of My Work. This may be unexpected given what I've shown thus far. At the risk of embarassment and banishment from the art establishment, I'm going to share my poor attempt at drawing. Please don't laugh... out loud at least!!!

Roughly a year ago I had a discussion with an MFA friend. She was excited about my painting and where my art was going. She said that I had admirable energy. She highly recommended though that since I've received very little formal training, I should learn how to draw. She said that the ability to draw, to see, is the most important skill for any artist. Although I always hated to draw I followed her advice and enrolled in a course. However, prior to the class I thought I should get my feet wet. Although I always lacked the patience to draw, I embarked on Three Days o' Drawing.

My first attempt (my first drawing since elementary school) was the following:

Pathetic, right? I almost gave up immediately. But I was serious about being a good artist so I continued. The rest of that day was spent making similar drawings. More and more bad drawings. I called it a night and vowed to try again the next day.

The next day I made the following two pieces:

I'm not sure how, but I made a great deal of progress in one day. They still aren't very good, but I started getting the hang of shading and form. I was making recognizable people and this motivated me. I gained a bit of confidence.

The following day, day three of Three Days o' Drawing, resulted in the following:

About a week later, I got a bit more creative and challenged myself to draw Matthew Barney in character:

I'd always respected the talents of those who can draw. This exploration in drawing was immensely challenging and cemented the respect I have for artists with the classic fundamentals. I think I did learn some things although I can't exactly put my finger on what. Soon after the Barney drawing I stopped making any drawings. It was satisfying to see something recognizable develop before my eyes, but after a couple of weeks I lost interest. I yearned to work with color and materials in a more free manner, so I went back to working with wood, handtools, spraypaint and sandpaper. Perhaps in the future I'll gravitate back to drawing. We'll see.

This process brought up a question for me that I'll pose to the readers. If a person lacks the ability to draw well, can he/she still be an artist? Must a person have classic training to be a good artist?

OK... you can stop laughing now!!!

Comments

[Lenny Campello]

When I first visited the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, the thing that burned into my memory the most was all the unknown Van Gogh stuff that they had.... essentially dozens of pieces of Van Gogh teaching himself how to draw... painfully and slowly... they showed him copying other works, etc. in an effort to master the genre of drawing, so that he could then paint.

I think drawing is the basis of good visual arts.

My kudos on the courage that it takes to post your attempts to learn; you're in good company with Vincent so far...

[Lisa Bertnick]

I truly believe: Drawing is the most important skill for a visual artist of any discipline. I recently read a great book that you might want to pick up called "The Undressed Art, Why We Draw" by Peter Steinhart. He mainly addresses figurative art, and communicates a great deal of really valuable insights on the art/act of drawing.

I like this quote: "Drawing is a claim that keeps after us. I meet people who used to play the clarinet, used to tap dance, used to play tennis. I seldom meet people who used to draw."

[J.T. Kirkland]

I visited the van Gogh Museum roughly five years ago and I too remember Vincent's early, early work. I believe it's very interesting to see that delevopmental process and that's why I did this post. Every artist has made bad art. The question is, does anyone ever get to see it? I assert that today there is bad art in most, if not all, museums, galleries, blogs, etc. Sure, as an artist we could choose to only share the best of what we've done. But no one is naive enough to think that all of your work is at that level. I have no qualms sharing my attempts. I just assume (hope) that no one will judge me as an artist solely on my drawing.

Drawing, thus far, just doesn't excite me. I'm hoping that I can create good visual art even though I lack the foundation of drawing... It's a good thing there are many unwritten chapters in my book of art.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for writing!! I have no doubts that the quote you share is true. I think that drawing, once it takes a hold of you, sticks with you. And I have no doubts that drawing is an important foundation for art making. However, I'm still trying to work out within myself how drawing will help someone not at all interested in figuritive or representational art. I haven't seen a class on how to draw an abstract picture, or draw a color field piece, or a minimalist piece. For now at least, I'm enrolled in the School of Doing... I'm going to try to figure it out by making things. Maybe it'll come, maybe it won't!!

[Lisa Bertnick]

Hey! Just keep at it, really. You may not have an interest in represenational art, but I don't know how any artist can begin to abstract from objects if they are not versed in their construction. (the mossbacks would be cheering right now) An easy example: Stuart Davis' prelimnary drawings are fascinating. Check them out sometime.

When I am tired of drawing, I paint abstract. It keeps my arms moving and my mind working. It may feel similar to having your shoes on the wrong feet, but this type of lateral work will inform you in ways you may not immediately realize. So much is absorbed through these experiences. Sometimes I find that it takes months before something I picked up at a drawing session really sinks in.

You are better off doubting and questioning than to think you have arrived at a final answer about your art. Make art for yourself, everyone is a critic. Leigh Conner once told me to follow my instincts. This is the most sound advice anyone can give to an aspiring artist.

I like your first drawing the best. It reminds me of Dubuffet.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I knew I would get in trouble for using the word "abstract." You are right, to make an abstract piece you have to abstract from something. I should have said non-representational work... like most of the work I've shown so far.

It's funny to me that you like the first one best. I almost disowned my hand after I saw the final product!!

I think Leigh is right... so I'll continue to follow my instincts. I have some things up my sleeve that are pretty cool, so we'll see how it all plays out.

[Lisa Bertnick]

There's something profound about that space between abstraction and representation. A lot of play can happen. Good Luck!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Absolutely... but I want to play on the other side of the street... between abstraction and non-representation. I think there is a lot of unchartered land there.

I might even go across town to visit the neighborhood of conceptualism!!

[Amanda B.]

I told you I would visit your blog :) I can relate just a bit to your exploration in drawing. Unvoluntarily, I was involved in a 5 week fundamentals of drawing. I am not ashamed to admit my first drawing looked similar to yours, except without as much detail. I guess drawing stick figures and flowers most of my life I should not have expected much better. Although, I will say that over the five weeks I became amazed at how much more in tune I found myself with space and texture. Before I knew it I honestly drew recognizable objects! Although a short-lived attempt at drawing, because I find myself not having enough patience to pick it up again, I must agree with Lisa. The "techniques" achieved through drawing can only further develop a person's maturity in other areas of art.

I too vividly remember the Van Gogh Museum. It was as if you could see Van Gogh's experimentation with different art forms throughout his life. It begs to question though, who ever determined what pieces were labled "masterpieces?"

[Anna L. Conti]

To your question, "Must a person have classic training to be a good artist?" I would say, it depends on your definition of "a good artist." My answer would be that drawing forces you to spend quality time in direct observation, which helps you to see better, and see differently. If you're a visual artist of any kind, that would seem like a worthwhile goal.

Audrey Flack wrote in "Art and Soul": "When I'm working from a photograph, a transparency, or direct observation, I am always amazed at how much more I see as the painting progresses. After I think I have completely perceived a particular area, something else reveals itself. As the work continues, the level of awareness deepens. The process takes its own time. I have come to accept that time and not fight it. I know that when I begin my work, no matter how hard I try, I'll never observe as much on the first day as I will on the last. Like life, the development will not be rushed, nor will there be full realization before completion."

[Erik Keilholtz]

Does an artist need a classical training to be a good artist? No. An artist can train and discipline his eye in other ways. However, he must train and discipline his eye. I think the easiest way to do this is with classical training in drawing, which can be self-taught (takes much longer) or passed on by someone else.

I also think that classical training helps an artist continue to be interesting. Untrained artists are much more liable to sink into ruts and formulae. I have found that I can generally tell when an abstractionist has come to abstraction from a background in good drawing, usually because his work actual evolves over the years.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Erik,

Thanks for chiming in. I very much agree with your point that an artist must train and discipline his eye by some method. Learning how to draw has been the gold standard method thus far. Perhaps instead of an artist in a rut leveraging his skills in drawing to get creative again, perhaps given the technological advances in today's society they can take their trained eye and explore other materials and technologies. How many artists were "rescued" by the increased popularity of video art?

I'm also curious about your statement that untrained artists are more likely to sink into ruts. Initially I would think otherwise. How much new stuff can be drawn? Since drawing has been around for thousands of years it seems daunting to me to be creative with drawing. That's why I slipped into a rut after three weeks of drawing, yet I've been making art since then that doesn't use drawing. This question, however, could be a fascinating econometrics study. Maybe I'll do that!

One last thing... I don't personally know hundreds of artists, but I would guess that every artist has gotten into a rut. How long they last and how severe they are is another question...

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Art is like like firing a pistol. And drawing is like target practice.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joseph,

I'm going to discuss your longer comment in a future blog post, but I wanted to address this analogy now. I think it is pretty accurate, but here's how I see it... To be a master sniper for the U.S. Arned Forces, you will have taken hours and hours of target practice. You are one of the elite snipers in the world. But how about a gang member who has "offed" dozens of enemies. He's likely never shot a round of target practice but he has been extremely successful.

I see the sniper's job like a master draftsman, illustrator or realist. He's extremely skilled but not all that creative. He can put his sight on someone and nail him. A gangster though finds creative ways of sneaking up on his target. It may be dark. The target may be moving. Who knows. But he figures out a solution to accomplish his goal. Would he be better with target practice? Perhaps. But he's pretty darn good without it. So, target practice is necessary for certain people, but not for all... to get the job done well.

I don't normally like talking about murder, but that's where the analogy took me!!

[Joseph barbaccia]

When I wrote my comment the word murder came to mind just after I posted.

I like it.

Art is Murder. Drawing is target practice.

You heard it first here.

[Erik Keilholtz]

I certainly believe that drawing is the best way to get out of a rut, because the process of drawing makes us take much closer looks at the physical universe, which can reveal different aspects of familiar forms and textures. I tend to paint abstractly, yet almost all of my preperatory work for each canvas is based in classical drawing. In fact, some of the ways I have discovered to divide space are from drawing, even though the later abstract painting may look nothing at all like what I was drawing when I got the idea.

For instance, the lines formed by the various buildings at the Golden Gate Fields racetrack continue to inspire me, but I have yet to actually paint the GGF complex. But, if it weren't for drawing, I think I would have missed some of my favorite combinations of line and shadow and so forth.

Video is similar to drawing, because it forces the eye to a small area. I have done very little in video art, mostly due to my lack of equipment, but I find myself enjoying video art better than a lot of contemporary painting these days.

[L. Gruppo]

what is the difference between making art and visually depicting imagery?

[J.T. Kirkland]

In my opinion... intent.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Art does not have to be visual, ask any vocalist.

However, if you add the word "visual" to the question, I would agree with JT about intent. But, I would add that an object/performance needs a viewer to be Art. It's all about the transfer.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Clearly, art does not have to be visual. However, it cannot be "all about the transfer." If it is about the transfer, then it is subjective.

And I don't believe you can ask "any" vocalist if art has to be visual. Not all of them will know the answer to that. Not all vocalists are artists, though they are all artistic.

The problem with requiring a viewer is that something goes in and out of being art. This can't be. If you hold two identical performances, holding all things constant except the presence of a viewer, then would you say that when the viewer is present it is art but if there is no viewer present it is not art?

An inaminate object CAN transfer an emotion, idea or experience. But would you say that a tree, rock, ant, frying pan, desk, etc... is art, just because it CAN transfer something to a viewer?

[Joseph Barbaccia]

No, you're right. It's not JUST the transfer. Perhaps environment has something to do with defining art, whether there is intent or not. Time and space will play a factor too. African masks and Duchamp's urinal are two examples of objects holding/transmitting or then not holding/transmitting art. Maybe like a prisim, at a certain viewpoint in space and at a certain time of day a special effect comes from the art object.

An object itself is never art; whether a pigment smeared piece of cloth or a frying pan. The art is what is transferred. Like color. Objects do not have color. They are colorless. It's light that IS color. It's how light is reflected and transferred to the eye that determines what color we see and how we see it. An object's surface may reconfigure light, but it is light that gives us the message. Art is like light. Perhaps an object emits "Art-Photons" or "Artons" that are placed into it by the artist's intent. Then the viewer, to complete the transfer, needs to be able to pick up the right wavelength of Artons in order to appreciate (see) the art.

It's OK for art to go into and out of being. Like light, the source is there. We just need the correct receptors.

Hmmmm. . .

[Cynical]

The drawings look good to me. Honest and insightful -- and probably look more like your subjects than you know.

The best painting teacher I ever had took me aside and told me the same thing -- that I should learn to draw. He recommended the book, "Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain", which had a few exercises in it that were useful. You might want to check it out.

Glad I found your blog.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Cynthia,

Thanks for checking out my blog. Looks like your's has taken a shift to politics... be sure to write more about art, after Nov. 2 that is!

I actually bought that book at a book sale, though I haven't read it yet. Thanks for the recommendation anyway!