Do you cheat?

I'm really into stirring the pot this week. Although it may be impossible, let's try to put away our biases for this one. I'm really curious what everyone thinks.

Do artists who work representationally cheat in that they use things in their art that already exist and are familiar to the viewer? Or do non-representational artists cheat in that they get to use anything and everything with really no limitations and call it art?

If it's not a black and white thing to you, just how gray is it?

Comments

[Chris Rywalt]

I've been asking myself lately -- specifically because of the kind of ideas I get for paintings -- I've been asking a related question, namely, if your concept can be made as a photograph, why paint it? There's the idea here that a painting is a photograph by a photographer without resources, the way a comic book can be a movie by a guy with no film crew. (Then again, I tend to think that photographers are just failed painters; in fact, I jokingly said that to Robert Farber, only to find out later that he was in fact a failed painter. Oops.)

Maybe I'm being confusing. What I'm saying is, if your concept can be done as a photo -- whether you're painting an existing landscape or a nude woman or whatever -- why paint your idea?

My current argument is that painting may be the only way you can convey your feelings about the subject. Some people can only do that through a camera lens. Some people can't do it at all. Everyone chooses their own medium.

Bottom line, though, is this: What I look for in art is purely a feeling. Art bypasses my rational thought processes. It grabs hold of something beyond thinking. When I look at a photo by Mapplethorpe, say, or most any painting by Picasso I've seen, when I look at them, I think. I say to myself, "Yes, that is interesting. Hm." That's not art. Art is when I stand in front of a Van Gogh and the hairs on my arms stand up. Or when I stand in front of a Rousseau and I find myself falling into the painting. It's beyond thought.

So if I'm thinking, oh, this is representational. Or if I'm thinking, what an intriguing use of color. If I'm thinking, it's not really art to me.

And whatever it takes to get past my thinking, whether it's copying a photo, standing in a field, arranging lights, whatever, that's not cheating.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Just to keep things going:

"whether you're painting an existing landscape or a nude woman or whatever -- why paint your idea?"

Why even take a photo of it?

[disclaimer... just stirring the pot. settle down you photographers!]

[lou gagnon]

I know I am cheating when I use rules and or freedoms to justify work that is not authentic. The representation vs non-representation debate is a useless distraction for me. They are terms of classification not imagination.

[Chris Rywalt]

The thing I find interesting about photos -- and film -- is a photo says, "These objects/people were here, this far from this piece of film, at this precise moment in time." I hadn't thought about it that way until I found a cache of 16mm and 8mm films in my parents' attic from the 1940s and '50s. These reels of film actually were in the same place at the same time that the events recorded on them happened. I like that.

Similarly, I like to think, when I'm standing in front of a painting, that whoever painted it stood in the same spot to create it.

Beyond that, you're getting into questions of "Why bother with art at all?" which is something I'm not sure can be answered. Art, to me, is communication. It often appears to be communication with no purpose. Our culture has apparently decided art is important. We put it in big buildings, we lavish money on it, we expend enormous efforts to make sure it doesn't decay or catch on fire (or melt, like that sculpture of frozen blood by Marc Quinn). But is art really important?

When I asked my psychiatrist this question -- he knows I paint and his daughter is a professional artist as well -- he said, "Are you actually asking this question?" Well, yes, I am. In a world such as ours, what's the point of art? People are starving! I should be, I dunno, farming or something.

Then again, Tom Robbins says that art's purposelessness is precisely what makes it wonderful. It's not about survival. Any creature can simply survive. What makes us human is the pointless stuff we do.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Chris,

You nailed exactly what I was getting at! That was excellent.

I think these are questions all artists need to ask themselves. And the funny thing is, you and I both ask these questions but we still make art. That's key.

I think it's also important for artists to think of these things in terms of people buying their art. When you get bummed that no one is buying your art, think about what the purpose is of art. Think about how expensive it is. Though many people do buy it, the majority don't.

I think the question they ask themselves is, "what's the point of art?" And, "why should I pay $1,000 for that when my kid needs braces?"

Excellent comments Chris!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Lou,

I'm going to get myself in trouble, I know it, but I might have to disagree with you (maybe I'm not thinking it all the way through).

How is non-representational art not about imagination? Where does it come from then? I'm thinking an AbEx painting versus a still life of a bowl of fruit, for example. Is one not more imaginative than the other at that base level? Obviously imagination can be introduced into a still life, but it doesn't have to take as much as the AbEx painting, does it?

Or am I way off-base?

[mike]

Sometimes I think it's just as simple as an artists has to follow their own vision. I know representational artists who are obssessed with capturing the human form and getting it "right" and I know other artists who feel too constrained by just copying what they see and need to add their own mark, no matter how far the mark goes from reality. Both are in different directions but are sincere in what they persue with their work. Take either of these types of artists out of their own vision and they fail (although, again, I know artists who radically change their medium, style, content, etc. and succeed). I think no matter what the style the artists themselves create the limitations. Like Phillip Pearlstein who mixes the figure with patterns of textiles and repeats that over and over or someone like Dan Flavin who only uses light and is limited by the shape of the light bulbs.
I wonder if this goes back to the old question, is skill or concept more important? dunno
This is a great discussion.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Sincerity is the key. That and quality as determined by our own personal tastes.

Of course, neither is measurable in any definitive way.

Such is Art.

[Chris Rywalt]

"When you get bummed that no one is buying your art, think about what the purpose is of art. Think about how expensive it is. Though many people do buy it, the majority don't."

The majority of people may not buy original art. But a lot of people are interested in owning things they feel are art, like posters, prints, little ceramic dust-catchers, and so forth. I happen to think all of that is not art, but it took my visiting a lot of real paintings to figure out that a poster isn't the same as a painting.

I think a lot of people are interested in art but feel shut out of it. Art, to them, is something that goes on in places distant from them -- the past, or in SoHo, or some place equally fanciful.

It's a shame that the people who bring art to the masses tend to be people like Thomas Kinkade. The idea that he can actually support all these stores in shopping malls -- I keep hoping I'll read about how it was all a pyramid scheme or money-laundering for the mob. Anything but that people buy Kinkade's stuff for enough money to pay his rents.

My drawings sold pretty well when I priced them cheaply enough. Over two years I sold about 200 drawings at $10 each. So the buyers are out there.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Well, at $10 is a bit different, I think. :)

I love artists who complain about not selling $2,000 pieces. Big difference.

And I don't even want to get into the whole poster thing!

[Karina]

For me, painting is about the process.

I've painted both representational work and abstraction. In both cases, for me, it's more about the process of painting than the end result. I respond to both, if they are done well [meaning: done with passion; authentic; and skill is often secondary].

It's also about what grabs me and holds my interest. What engages me. It used to be the landscape - the weather, the sky, the light. I felt moved to respond to it. Now, it's more abstract concepts that interest me, like synchopation, negative space, energy, flow/or interruption. So I paint that.

The interesting thing about it is that the "abstract" is always there - within the representational. It's what lies beneath any good painting - the abstract design.

Nice [discussion].

[Hans]

I think wether this sort or that sort of painting or photography, what makes it interesting are the inventions of the artist. If there is none or no smart inventions, then it bore us. Thats why artist sometimes go mad in their studio because of the pressure to invent. In some cases the invention is found before the process of painting or shooting an image, in others it happens in the process, and often it doesn't happen. But sometimes you find your worst paintings after a couple of years the best, and this is also strange, that the point of view changes. Often (also unexperienced) buyers pick the best pieces, so there must be a sort of genetic code in us, wich may value art pretty well ;-)

[John M. Adams]

Great discussion but I had to throw this in:
Chris- On the Thomas Kinkade scam thing - you just got your wish. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525037504,00.html

[Chris Rywalt]

Well, it doesn't sound like we'll be riding Kinkade out of the country on a rail, but maybe we'll bankrupt him out of the malls, at least. I'm not a big fan of frivolous lawsuits but in this case I'll make an exception.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

You can fool people with artwork but you can't cheat art.

[lou gagnon]

JT,

“How is non-representational art not about imagination? Where does it come from then? I'm thinking an AbEx painting versus a still life of a bowl of fruit, for example. Is one not more imaginative than the other at that base level? Obviously imagination can be introduced into a still life, but it doesn't have to take as much as the AbEx painting, does it?”

The level of imagination employed has nothing to do with the words used to classify the work. A circle and a drip of lavender carry every language limitation imposed upon an apple and a bowl. When Rothko uses established color theories, primary geometric shapes and classic proportions is he representing ideas that have definitions we all comprehend? Finding the right color and shape is the same exercise whether that color and shape add up to an apple or a patch of blue that elevates a patch of red.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Lou,

I know you're right, but...

Let me throw this out. I don't want to get into art history here, but let's assume Malevich was the first artist to ever create a purely non-representational painting. Sure, he could have used established color theory, etc, but how did he arrive at a composition that was not a landscape, bowl of fruit, etc. How did he arrive at just a square as art?

Maybe what I'm getting at is representational art has a much longer history of success and validation than abstract art. All art is made up of the same basic elements (like you mention) but how does an artist choose where to take those elements. Of course, AbEx painting now is entirely formulaic and even unimaginative, but where did AbEx even come from? Where was the previous success and validation that made it possible?

Again, I know you're right, but...

[lou gagnon]

JT,

How is placing a red square on a white canvas different than placing a stone pyramid in sand?

“Where was the previous success and validation that made it (AbEx) possible?”

Look at the lace and filigree in any late Rembrandt. Photography relieved painting of the burden of documentation and narrative illustration. Without commissions, painters were free to paint for themselves.

Being right or wrong is less useful than finding and using whatever you need to make authentic optical experiences from your observations whether they are fantasy or concrete.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Lou,

I know I know. You so smart...

[Dawn-Renee Kittle]

Sometimes I take a photograph and use tracing paper because my hands shake...

Yet for me this is an exercise of training my hands to draw what I see...

However a drawing I made that is one of my husband's favorites is based on tracing a photo of a kitten hanging from a branch.

Still my drawing has my own personal technique and does not quite look like the photographed kitten.

I made the same concept come alive in pen and ink versus the photo. Have I cheated??? Or simply used a technique to aid in my drawing? Perhaps a bit of both.

On hand, this is not an "original idea" and so I have not copyrighted this particular drawing, although I did sign it. On the other hand, no one but the artist can produce work with his or her "signature" skill.

Those who have seen the drawing tell me that the eyes and face of my cat are more expressive than the actual photo... showing the "fear of falling."

-Reni ^..^

[Lori]

I am a photographer who paints. To keep myself from being a painting failure, I paint my photographs. However, I take those photos which I like and paint them completely different than how the photograph represents them. Such as inverting the colors or taking a conservative picture and making it abstract. So...there is hope for photograhers who aspire to be painters!!