Lesson for all Artists

I'm biting my tongue so hard it hurts, but I gotta say at least this much:

I don't think this (or this for that matter) is any way for an artist to conduct themselves when receiving negative criticism. For the rest of you artists who choose to exhibit publicly, read this and give it some serious thought. What's the value add in responding in such a way? I mean, really...

The important question is, how has Alexandra escaped the wrath for so long?

(Sorry Alexandra... she's coming now!)

Comments

[Scott]

Hi JT,
Don't bite your tongue. Tell us what you really think! I'd actually like to hear more because I'm not sure what the issue is. I think it's great that Sheila is defending her work. Many artists would slink away without putting up any fight when getting some negative criticism (I actually saw one artist take scissors to her paintings when she did not get into a juried show). Sheila's response reminds me a little of James Bailey's response to your review of his work at the Fraser Gallery and your criticism of his framing. Then, as now, I appreciate the dialogue and the insight gained when an artist can actually respond to critics. Why the outrage here?
Scott

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

I'm going to continue to hold my tongue. It's for the best that I do that. Just know that I very, very much disagree with her approach.

Here's my thought at a high level. It's great to defend your work. I think every artist should do that. But there's a thing called tact. James never stated or implied that I was an idiot and "couldn't see" because I criticized his framing. That's the huge difference. He told me why he chose the particular framing he used in the show. He educated me in the process.

Don't slink away. Don't destroy your work because of a negative review. But don't dare think that if someone doesn't like your work that THEY must be wrong. If you can't live with that, quit showing your work in public.

And this is me biting my tongue!

[wwc]

"My paintings can be looked at forever and they'll keep yielding up new things."

She sure is sure of herself. I'd reply one can look at anything and with enough concentration keep seeing things.

I'm glad she defends her work, but she comes off a little too harsh. Like I'm scared now to say anything - maybe that's her intention.

[AAS]

By all means, I invite Ms. Blake to respond to my questions. I would prefer it, however, to be in a manner, which could lead to a discussion about the work.

I am definitely up for being educated, but not up for being attacked or criticized (by anyone) for sharing my thoughts about their work. After all, they are just my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Finally, don't forget publicity is publicity- look what Gopnik's thoughts did for Artomatic.

[IP]

Any thoughts on if this was intended to be public or just a personal note? I guess you have to imagine everything in the blog world is some what public.

I ride the fence on the issue. One one hand it's great to stick up for your self. If you don't no one will.

On the other hand, I might have worded it slightly different, but that's me.

[Lenny Campello]

I asked Ms. Blake's permission and an opportunity to publish her comments; she gave me the permission to do so.

[zippa]

I wish this conversation was taking place IN PERSON. It is easy for some people to get all bent out of shape at each other when they are virtual. I argue that much of this misunderstanding has a lot to do with the medium. That said, I think calling anyone names is wrong. period. It accomplishes nothing but adversity. I do think, however that we all have the right to stand up for ourselves. She is obviously passionate about her work and feels attacked. That doesn't excuse the name calling. What would Libby say?

[Martin]

What name calling? I must have missed something, but I've looked twice.

I think it's GREAT to see an artist get worked up and defend her work. What's wrong with that?

Good for her!!!

[Scott]

JT,

You said: "But don't dare think that if someone doesn't like your work that THEY must be wrong."

Me: Why not? Virtually every new art movement, new anything, is based on thinking that THEY -- the critics, the public, whoever -- must be wrong. Without the above attitude, there probably would be no Impressionism, no art world color photography, no [you fill in the blank]. Is the problem here that Ms. Blake isn't avant garde? I went back and re-read her statement and, honestly, it's not that bad. I didn't see any name-calling. Maybe she's a little defensive, but so what. She's defending her work. I think she was remarkably restrained. Anyway, I certainly don't think it deserves being called out as inappropriate.

[christine]

There's something about this whole scene from both sides that kind of rubs me the wrong way. I think she has the right to respond how she want's but overdefensiveness is kind of annoying.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

I guess you and I will have to disagree. I don't think she's defending her work so much as telling us (O'Sullivan, Lenny, me) that we just can't see. Maybe she's right. Maybe not. But I think what she has done is immature. To me, it says that she isn't nearly as confident in her work as she'd like you to think. If you truly believe in your work, let it stand. The masses (whoever they are) will catch on eventually. You'll be in museum collections. You'll have solo shows. The world will eventually recognize your greatness. But has her writing changed anyone's mind about her work? Certainly not me.

I think she was on the right track when she was selected by Dr. Lumpkin for this show. She's had a ton of press (though mostly negative) and she could have leveraged that for positive in getting more shows.

The reason I posted this was to generate this discussion. I want artists to think about negative reviews. If you havent gotten one yet, you will. How will you react?

Here are some examples of totally unnecessary statements made on my site by Ms. Blake:

"...without having the patience and depth of vision to get into their world"

Big assumption. How does negative critique = lack of patience or vision? It's not my job to want to get into their world. It's the artist's job to force me into their world.

"...maybe you'll get there some day."

Get where? Liking her work? Understanding art? Where exactly should I be going?

"Van Gogh's the first and best place to start looking. Have fun."

What am I looking for? Have fun? Gee thanks. I will.

These are just a few quotes of the many I could pull out. How do any of these "defend" her work? How do these educate me on her art? Why the mocking and condescending attitude?

I've written a lot of negative reviews in the time I've run this site. This is the first time any artist has responded in such a way. Why do you think that is? I've gotten emails from many "big name" artists - experienced, recognized artists if you will - and here's an example of what they would write:

"J.T. - Thanks so much for seeing my work and writing a review. It's a shame that you didn't enjoy the work. I wanted to elaborate on some of the things you said and provide some more background for my work. With these paintings I'm exploring X Y Z. These came out of my work doing A B C. My concept and technique are all about E F G. The next time I'm showing in DC I hope you'll see the show and think about some of these things. If you still don't like my work, I understand. Feel free to write what you will. I just wanted to share some more insight into my work. Shoot me an email if you have any questions."

I've gotten several of these responses and every time my level of respect for the artist increased. Which approach do you think is better? Take a look at how Amanda Sauer responded. That's called professionalism.

You make a great point about going against the THEY. But are we talking about making art or writing art theory? Did the Impressionists put down their paint brushes to write manifesto after manifesto, or did they continue to paint, paint, paint?

My approach? I've quickly learned that not everyone will like my work. But I believe in my work a great deal and I think very highly of it. I will continue to show it. When people ask me what I do, all I say anymore is, "I drill holes in wood." My message to the viewer: deal with it.

Finally, assume that you get a very negative review when you have your next show. Will you respond to the author? If so, what will you say? Will you take Blake's approach? If not, why not?

Martin - It doesn't surprise me that you would root her on! In theory, I absolutely believe in defending your work if that's what you feel you have to do. Just be smart about it and address the work, not the viewer.

Christine - I agree that this whole thing rubs the wrong way, but I do think it's important and worthy of discussion. She certainly has the right to say whatever she wants. But, the consequences are what they are.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Oh, one more...

Anne Benolken wrote the following here in respect to O'Sullivan's review:

"The only places I have shown my boxes is in dim back recesses at at Artomatic and at a tiny faculty show in a gallery like a closet. Yet somehow they have become well-known to "much of the Washington art world". I guess Artomatic should be proud!"

All information. No personal attacking. Compliment to Art-o-Matic. Classy response.

[Andrea]

I think it's great that Sheila would defend herself, but since I had much the same reaction Lenny did, I really wanted to see more substance in HOW she defended herself. Being told as a viewer that I can be endlessly satisfied or that she means every brush stroke doesn't mean anything. I want her to talk about composition, how she uses her brush strokes, why she's using and distorting her backyard, etc.--in short, more about technical and/or conceptual processes that will help me understand what's valuable that I might have missed. Of course the artist wants the work to be somewhat self-evident, but I think there's value in hearing the artist's voice about it as well. But not if it's just going to assign the viewer responses rather than giving explanations that might evoke them.

[Scott]

JT,

I agree that it would be nice if we could keep all of these discussions to a higher level. But given some of the smack you write about other artists, you don't really think that you have any standing to criticize Ms. Blake's reponse, do you?

As an example of the "smack" I'm talking about, In your latest review you said: "Ms. Crawford, when you come up with a personal vision and style, let me know... I'd like to see it." In your review of Ms. Blake, you said it was "embarassing" that she was included in the Options show. That's not getting personal?

I think it's great that you tell it like it is, as you see it, and don't pull punches. But I don't think you should complain when somebody smacks back.

Scott

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

Touche! I liked that response!

Of course, you have a point. But I still disagree. As for Ms. Crawford, you'd just have to see the work. The quote you pulled is actually meant as a backhanded compliment. The work in the show is incredibly derivative. However, she does possess some clear talent for painting. There's just no personal vision behind it. That's nothing bad about Ms. Crawford as a person. I just want to see something I can't see at the NGA. If she comes up with a style that is more personal I'll be the first one there to see it. Like I said in the review, it was her work that enticed me to go to the MPA.

As for Blake being "embarrassing," that has nothing to do with Blake as a person. It has everything to do with Dr. Lumpkin's decision to include her work in this show. In my opinion, it is way out of place in this show. Lenny said the same thing in his review. Perhaps my use of "embarrassing" was not pointed enough to the intended subject. Perhaps it's best to not take "embarrassing" out of context. Here's the section you refer to:

"Lumpkin's talk was embarrassing, quite honestly, but even more so was the inclusion of these paintings. While I believe it's great to give underappreciated artists more exposure, it should not be in a show that I thought was dedicated to highlighting the best emerging art in DC and showcasing up and coming work. Blake's paintings are well done, I'm sure, and she would rack up many awards at the Art League of Alexandria's monthly shows, but come on..."

The use of "embarrassing" is pretty clearly pointed at Lumpkin (though perhaps it's not as clear as I think it is). I say they are well-painted. I even say they are award-winning quality.

The point of me even posting this about Blake's comments to Lenny was to generate thought for other artists. I am definitely blunt and opinionated. I probably ruffle lots of feathers. But, I am aware of the possible consequences and am willing to live with them. If you're an artist and wish to "defend" yourself in this manner to someone who writes about your work, then you better be ready to deal with the consequences. In other words, think before you act. And this isn't about Blake (she probably is fully aware of the consequences). The question is, are the young or less experienced artists out there prepared to deal with a possible negative review? I hope this makes them think about it.

[Ingrid Nuss]

As Lenny said in his review in regards to Libby's curatorial practice/Options 2005, it is a "no win situation". I think that applies to everyone who was caught up in the fray. Due to the unfortunate events that happened, this show was never going to be anything less than controversial, whether for the organization, the curator, the art and artists and even the critics. Ms. Blake is not only a wonderful person, but, in my eyes, and more importantly in this situation, an amazing artist. I was with Libby on her studio visit with Shelia and I was able to look at all her slides, and Shelia has an incredible depth and quirkiness in her perception of the most familiar scenes around her and captures them honestly and painstakingly over time. I have been slightly overwhelmed reading all of the OPTIONS buzz in one day (baby takes the majority of my time) and quite puzzled as to the overall blast of Shelia's work. As to her response to Lenny's comments . . . while yes, she may have fiercely defended her work, any artist that doesn't shouldn't be an artist. I applaud her for having a clear vision of what she hopes to do with her work, but even moreso, for believing in herself enough to feel as though she has accomplished the very thing that she strives to do.
J.T.- You know I am a huge fan of your work, but if multiple people criticized your work in the way that her's has been criticized and cast aside (which is what many of the critiques had an undertone of) I would expect you to fight back and I have no doubt that you would. Fiercely defending your work is a necessity to survive and succeed in the art world.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Ingrid!

I hope the lil' one is doing well!

I appreciate the input from someone in the know, but I have to disagree with you on several points. I know you're shocked!

1) Sheila Blake does not have to constantly make a case for her work as art. I do. She has received criticism in a few places, not so much about her work, but with her placement in this show. If you recall, I stated that it is good work, I just don't think it belongs in OPTIONS. That's a critique on Dr. Lumpkin as much as anything else.

2) Following up on that, I receive much more criticism about my work every day than she ever will. Frankly, I don't care any more if someone doesn't like my work. That's there perogative. I'd be glad to enter into a discussion about my work and try to educate the person, but I won't...

3) ... ever attack the critic personally. That is what I feel Sheila has done. She hasn't educated me or Lenny or anyone else about her work. Instead, she says we have problems (basically that we're idiots) if we don't love her work. That is a completely irresponsible and illogical conclusion to draw.

4) I'm all for "fighting back" but it has to be about the work, which is what you say. Defend the work by addressing the work. Saying that you meant to do this or that doesn't qualify as defending your work. Telling why you did this or that does qualify.

5) You say, "Fiercely defending your work is a necessity to survive and succeed in the art world." I was under the impression that making great art was how you survive and succeed in the art world, although, I'm sure there are many crappy artists who have bullied their way to success (in the short term at least). Regardless, I'm guessing that Blake has set herself back a notch or two with her approach here. The only artists who overcome being fanatical in this way are the ones who truly make great art. Time will tell if Blake will do the same.

I appreciate the romantic nature of the support Blake has received, and I appreciate the notion behind her defense, but I don't believe anyone can honestly tell me she took the best approach. And if she didn't take the best approach, then we can critique the response and learn from it.

I've written many harsh reviews on my site. I've gotten only one ludicrous response and that's from Sheila Blake. I wonder why...

[Martin]

"Sheila Blake does not have to constantly make a case for her work as art. I do."

"I receive much more criticism about my work every day than she ever will."

JT - Where do these assumptions come from? It is a battle for all of us.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Martin,

I have no empirical data that prove my claims. However, I'd be willing to bet all I own that if we took a survey of the general public, Blake's landscapes would be seen as art much more so than my holes in wood. On a daily basis people laugh at my "art." I've personally never seen anyone laugh at a fairly traditional landscape painting thinking that it's not art.

As for your assumption about it being a battle for all of us, where does that assumption come from? I, for one, don't feel that I'm engaged in any sort of battle. I'm engaged in artmaking. I don't have time for battles.

[Ingrid Nuss]

J.T. -
No, it came as no suprise to me that you had some things to say back to my comments, in fact I would expect no less.
But I have one question, do you ever feel cornered, beat down, washed out and slammed? We all do, and we all do rash and perhaps slightly innappropriate things (or make comments that some may interpret as innappropriate). We are humans, as well as artists and people should give Shelia a break . . . on a different day, it could have been you speaking to a different topic.
You know that is the truth, anyone who is human can relate.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Of course it's the truth. But it's also true that there are consequences to our actions, rash or not, warranted or not.

Remember, the point of my post isn't to bash Blake (I've got my opinion on her and so does everyone else). The point is for other artists to think about this in advance so that they make an educated choice as to how they respond to negative criticism. That is all. Blake is just the example.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Criticism, both negative and positive, is dangerous fare. Either one will push you off course. I must admit to this guilty attraction myself. But it's the demon in my studio I have to entertain if I wish to show and sell my work.

~Joseph

[zippa]

Well said Joseph. You should start your own blog.