Centre College and Art

As I've mentioned a few times here, I attended Centre College in Danville, KY. While there I majored in Economics. I took only one art class (Intro to Glassblowing) and I only did that because I found Art the year before while studying abroad in Strasbourg, France. This past weekend was my 5-year reunion and I thought it would be a good time to take a close look at the Art facilities there. I know many of you attended large schools (undergrad and grad) and you probably had huge, excellent facilities. This might be an interesting view into a liberal arts college's art program, a shool with an enrollment of approximately 1,100.

On Friday, Emil Robinson '03 had an opening reception for his solo show at the Aegon Gallery in the Jones Visual Arts Center. I provide some pictures of his paintings below.

This is the Jones Visual Arts Center where studios, classrooms and the Aegon Gallery are located. It's a relatively new building. Behind it are about 10 train tracks and a Phillips Lighting factory. Phillips was a significant donor for establishing the glass studios:

I enjoyed glassblowing so much. It helped that our professor is an internationally known glassblower, Stephen Rolfe Powell. I'd love to blow glass again but in the D.C. area it's just so expensive. Speaking of Powell, here's his "office" with assistants hard at work:

Centre has produced many of the leading glassblowers in the country. Some now run glass programs at other universities, others assist some of the top artists in the world (Chihuly, Marioni, etc). Others are fine artists. Powell's work (some can be seen in the image) typically sell for about $25,000. They are included in dozens of museums around the world.

Here's a dark drawing/painting studio. This was the first time I stepped foot into it. There is also a nice-sized ceramics studio.

Here are some of the paintings in Emil's show (recently obtained an MFA from the Univ. of Cincinnati). I found them to be plenty nice if a little too traditional for my tastes. In addition to the paintings (see below), the artist included charcoal and chalk drawings of traditional nudes. I found them to be well done, but something I'd see in the Senior art show at the end of the year.

Here are some self portraits from the show. These were my favorite pieces in the show. Very well done but again, very traditional. On another note, I found the presentation of the work (especially the framing of the drawings) to be quite awful. I believe the artist purchased frames from Target and just stuck the drawings in the middle. It looked quite bad. So, too, did many of the wood frames on the paintings. I'll cut him some slack though since he graduated from my alma mater. And I'll save for another time how I was rejected from having a show at my alma mater because I didn't have enough "exhibition experience". That's a sore topic.

Anyway, seeing Emil's show made me think about something. Can an artist today live well outside (3 hours or more) a major art center and still make great art? Can the Web and magazines make up for not seeing the best that contemporary art can offer? When I compare what I saw in Emil's show and in the studios at Centre (a small sample) to what is made by undergrads at VCU, American, Maryland, MICA, etc... it just doesn't even come close. I'm not talking about talent or skill. I'm talking about vision and ambition. Had I not moved to D.C. 5 years ago, I seriously doubt that I would be making the art I am today. Maybe I would have eventually, but not right now. I wouldn't have even thought it was possible to work solely with holes in wood. It took seeing the wild and crazy things at area galleries and museums to open up that world.

So what do you think? Of course it's possible for an artist to make revolutionary work physically removed from the art world, but how often does it happen? Can you cite any examples? Let's keep the timeframe to the past 30-50 years. Who is a great artist that was never frequently exposed to art in large cities?

To be clear, I don't know what Emil has been exposed to... it was just seeing his show in Danville, KY that made me think about this.

Here's an annoucement about Emil's show with images.

Comments

[Erin Antognoli]

i don't think vision or ambition would necessarily have to come from exposure to a big city or lots of other art. of course, it helps for a lot of artists to see what has already been done, but as long as someone feels passionately about something, and if they are self motivated, then the work will come. some people need more guidance and precedent than others, which is probably why we see more heavy hitting work in the metro areas as opposed to the middle of nowhere.

having also been born and raised in the middle of nowhere, i can also say that heavy hitting work isn't as well received by exhibits in small towns. they tend to like very neutral, non-offensive types of art, and thus this is what is pushed to be created and exhibited. so maybe we're just not seeing all of what's being produced out there...

i can't think of any artists off the top of my head who are famous from the recent past who fit this criteria, but it's still early (for me). if i can come up with some, i'll post it.

[George]

An artist with "vision" could be anywhere
An artist with "ambition" will be in an "art center" at some point in their career. I suspect that it’s less likely that "revolutionary" work will be created without interaction with an involved artistic community.

An historical example would be Van Gogh. His work was profoundly influenced by his short stay in Paris. A more modern example might be the Leipzig painters, an example of how a strong community of artists can support each other developmentally. In this particular case I’m referring to a period over 10 years ago, it’s changed since then.

[christine]

As someone who lived in rural (or not so rural) Iowa for 7 years- it's important to seperate the ARTIST, from the art scene.

Of couse as soon as I graduated I DID move to the thriving metropolis that is Baltimore, Maryland.

PLENTY of important work gets made outside of metropolitan areas. AND there are plenty of active arts orginizations commited to new work outside the East Coast corridor/LA/Chicago/Miami world

Artists -James Turell comes to mind immediately, not to metnion various residency programs that are all about being in the middle of nowhere (McDowell, Skowhegan, Yaddo, Roswell, ArtPace (is Texas the middle of nowhere?))

[J.T. Kirkland]

Lots of good comments here. Keep 'em coming.

I pulled the following bio for Turrell:

"James Turrell was born May 6, 1943, in Los Angeles. He graduated from Pasadena High School in 1961 and studied experimental psychology at Pomona College in Claremont, California, receiving a B.A. there in 1965. Having become interested in art, he enrolled in the graduate program at the University of California at Irvine. He created his first light piece, Afrum-Proto, the next year, in which light projected into the corner of a room seemed to form a three-dimensional, illuminated floating cube that resolved itself into flat planes of light only upon close inspection. Leaving school, Turrell took a studio in the former Mendota Hotel in Ocean Park, California, and began to make more projection pieces in corners and on flat walls."

I'm going to suggest that being born in LA (though not a huge art scene at the time) and getting a grad degree from UC-Irvine disqualifies him. Though he certainly comes close, I think.

I'm still looking for a clear example of someone almost ompletely removed from a major metropolis that made significant, revolutionary art. I think the sample is likely very small.

This isn't to say it's not possible, of course. But it's hard to cross a line when you don't even know where it is.

[George]

In the late 60's the LA art scene was fairly active. ArtForum was located there at the time and the latest art was being exhibited (including the first exhibition of Warhol's Soup Cans) There was a thriving community of artists which were receiving international attention, including JT.

RE: "I'm still looking for a clear example of someone almost ompletely removed from a major metropolis that made significant, revolutionary art." While there might be someone, it is probably an exception to the rule and doesn't prove anything. I honestly think it is very hard to actually make the kind of art you are alluding to without a vital artistic community. In Europe this model was often centered around the universities rather than the commercial marketplace but there still has to be a community, something to generate the dialog.

[christine]

Whoops.

[amw]

A couple contemporary examples:
Lee Bontecou made (makes) her best work after leaving the city.
Yayoi Kusama lives in a hospital.
They're both huge.

[J.T. Kirkland]

AMW -

Nope, neither of those work. Bontecou had to live in the city in order to leave the city. I absolutely agree that you can make your best art AFTER leaving the city, but can you make it before you get to the city?

As for Kusama, Wikipedia states:

"She left her native country at the age of 27 for New York City, after years of correspondence with Georgia O'Keefe in which she became interested in joining the limelight in the city."

Joining the limelight of NYC at the age of 27 with O'Keefe surely disqualifies her. She may live in a hospital now, but NYC already impacted her.

Again, I'm looking for great artists who never, at any point in time, made it to the big city.

The sample might be smaller than I even thought...

[D. Billy]

"I'm still looking for a clear example of someone almost completely removed from a major metropolis that made significant, revolutionary art."

...significant and revolutionary by what/whose standards? Fancy, big-city standards, or standards the exist(ed) at the time and in the place of the artwork's creation?

My friend who used to make fork sculptures of people, cars, buildings, etc. that were significant and revolutionary by the standards that existed in his middle-of-nowhere hometown. He was "the fork sculpture guy".
Until, that is, he went to college and took some art classes and was strictly instructed to ditch the forks, and learned the history of "real" sculpture, went through his welded sculpture phase, and was eventually exposed to Duchamp and people like Bruce Nauman and Vito Acconci... and now he's a video/performance/installation artist with two o-fishul fancy college degrees, who hasn't bent a fork in 10 years.
The BFA and MFA programs he went through were far from metropolitan -- one in Fredonia NY (of COURSE you don't know where that is) and the other in Iowa City... but they both presented established citified artists as role models for him to follow.

Conversely, Henry Darger (SOMEBODY had to play the Darger card) was in the thick of a huge art-city, but as far as I know, was completely uninvolved in the scene, and maybe never set foot in a gallery or museum... and is now a big ol' dead art-star.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at... just different scenarios to consider.

But anyway, back to my question about the standards against which this mystery non-metropolitan artist is to be judged:
At risk of answering for you, it sounds like you're talking about finding an "outsider" artist who has made a significant impact on the "insider" art world.
Is that about right?

[J.T. Kirkland]

D. Billy,

I was holding the Darger card myself, unwilling to play it just yet. I think he might fit even though he lived in the city.

I think when you say outsider impacts the inside is about right. Tough question, I guess, even if ultimately it's completely unimportant.

[George]

What is the real question?

Reading between the lines I get...
Can an ambitious artist live outside a major art center?

Then define ambitious, I think you mean career sucess and major visibility in the art world.

While anything is possible, the odds favor the artist living in the major art center. In part, just being there defines ambition.

Of course, ambition isn't the only reason people make art.

[J.T. Kirkland]

George,

No, I wouldn't say the question has much to do with ambition. I think someone living in the middle of nowhere can be ambitious and make awful art. I'm looking for someone outside of the system that makes great, innovative art. How to define great and innovative? I don't know. So far, everyone has offered a name that I think would qualify if they had no exposure to big cities.

[George]

jt,

Suppose we just take "great, innovative art" at their face value. These terms are relative to other art and though they may be subjective judgements we can ignore this for the moment. Implicit in the terms "great" and "innovative" is the ability to make the comparison with other art of the same genera. For an artist to be innovative, using the term in a broad sense, they must be somewhat aware of where they are starting from and this, more or less, requires some connection with other advanced art.

In particular I believe it requires some form of active dialog with other artists with a similar interests. The dialog is more than just an exchange of ideas it engenders the confidence, the conviction, to proceed into the unknown territory of the "innovative" This is not the same as seeing the work in a magazine or the internet, by then the moment of the innovative has worn off. Again, I would refer to the seminal period Van Gogh spent in Paris. He didn’t like the city, but the innovative art he saw, and his interactions with the artists he met, changed his work radically.

There are a lot of ambitious artists, it is no guarantee they will make good art. I do believe that an artist who is ambitious for their work will want it seen in a context where it can enter the dialog with other advanced art. I don’t think this can happen in a location without a fairly strong art community.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I think I may have thought of an answer to my own question. How about the ladies who make the "Quilts of Gee's Bend"? These pieces of art have traveled all over showing in museums. They are truly fantastic works of art. And the ladies who make them live far removed from the art world. What do you think?

As for being innovative, I think you're right for most circumstances. I do think it's possible to be innovative with no knowledge of what's going on. Why wouldn't it be possible? Unlikely, maybe... but not impossible.

Also, something to keep in mind is that the artist doesn't need to know their work is great for it to be great. I doubt the quiltmakers at Gee's Bend thought they were doing anything too special.

Any other examples?

[George]

jt

Part of the issue here is what the real question is.

Again, I’ll reiterate that "great and innovative" imply a response external to the artist, a judgement made by the audience or an intent relative to other art by the artist. Without nit picking over semantics these issues require some kind of exposure to other great art and some feedback from a suitable audience (including other quiltmakers)

None the less, I think there is something else which is required, the artist must find a true path suitable for themselves and get to the core of it. By this, I mean that just trying to be "innovative" isn’t a requirement for great art. Great art touches on universal aspects of being, of the human condition, and of oneself. Achieving this becomes a struggle with the self and ones relationship to the world.

The audience becomes a means of verification, a way of testing, a form of feedback, on what one does. Without an audience there is the risk of being self delusional, feeling that the artwork is great when in fact maybe it is not. An artwork has two lives, one is when it is being created by the artist and the other when it has to fend for itself in the world. The artist can control the first but not the second.

That all said, I would say that it doesn’t matter where an artist is located. Great art comes from the artist not his location. On the other hand, the artist must have had some kind of physical experience with great art, not just reproductions, to be able to make the intuitive decisions which lead them to success.

If one is just looking for exceptions to the original question, I am sure one will eventually find them. I am not sure what it will prove. One can be hermetic in the middle of a big city (as I am) or off in the woods somewhere. As a practical matter, exceptions aside, I still think it is important for an artist to have had (at some crucial moment) exposure to both great art and to some form of artistic community, to have the dialogue with oneself and with the audience.

[J.T. Kirkland]

George,

You say:

"That all said, I would say that it doesn’t matter where an artist is located. Great art comes from the artist not his location. On the other hand, the artist must have had some kind of physical experience with great art, not just reproductions, to be able to make the intuitive decisions which lead them to success."

True, it doesn't matter where they are located IF they travel to see the great art you talk about. I'm looking for a great artist who doesn't have exposure to great art (except perhaps their own). I think the Gee's Bend folks qualify.

"...these issues require some kind of exposure to other great art and some feedback from a suitable audience (including other quiltmakers)"

I don't think other quiltmakers make a suitable audience for making great art. None of them have been exposed to great art and you say (and I agree) that it's necessary.

I do want to avoid discussion of semantics (this isn't artblog.net!) and I think you know what I mean.

As for a great artist who isn't innovative, I doubt we'd recognize their name. Name recognition isnt everything, of course, but it is something. Sheldon Tapley is the chair of the Art department and is a painter. His work is included in the UK Art Museum (alongside me now :) ). He's probably a "great" painter but not innovative. And you've never heard of him. There's got to be a correlation to some extent.

Here's a link to his paintings:

http://www.sheldontapley.com/pages/portfolio.htm

[George]

jt,

Re: The Gee’s Bend quilts. Without a doubt there is a long history of great artworks (and also what we call crafts)being made all over the world. In this case, there is a "history" of the quilts which were made in this little town which provides a basis for comparative judgement. Great art isn’t limited to what is in museums. This industry developed in a small town, creating its own "artistic community" I do not see it as an exception to the rule when viewed in the proper context.

Regarding Tapley’s paintings. Without seeing them in person, I don’t want to draw to many conclusions. He is obviously a technically skilled painter but this in itself will not necessarily result in great art.

The notion of "innovation" is somewhat of a trap. It has something to do with art works we consider as advanced art but again it is not something which will necessarily produce great art. Apparently innovative ideas often develop simultaneously, one artist makes something great and the other just had an interesting idea.

Finally, going back to the idea of a dialogue within an artistic community. This entire discussion is proof in point of what I am referring to. We shoot words back and forth over the wires to each other, it’s slow and difficult because the concepts are hard to explain clearly in words. In a spoken dialog, the thought processes can become self correcting, through inference and response. It is often possible to arrive at useful conclusions more effectively or possibly more important, to diverge and find a different path of thought. Writing has its points, which is why I do it, but I prefer the verbal banter with another artist,

[Mitch Hobbs]

I was at Emil's show, and personally was quite impressed by his work. The fact that Emil is drawn to the figure, a classic subject matter, and the fact that he chooses to paint in the realm of realism does not mean his wrk is any less relevant or important compared to other "more ambitious" works seen in "big city" galleries. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of artists today, and the art world has changed dramatically. There isn't one elite group anymore, there are countless branches of artists working in different mediums, in different styles, trying to achieve different goals.
Art is about expressing yourself visually. It's about describing what is around you physically, emotionally, and mentally. To argue that one must live in a big city full of galleries in order to create works that are relevat today is an interesting thought, but not necessarily true when considering TODAY'S Art scene, which is huge and takes countless forms. It is possible to expose one's self to the current trends without living in New York, Chicago, or Washington DC. The internet, film, media, traveling shows, local galleries, ....all expose the public to all sorts of art. It is easy to become inspired and to learn how different mediums are being pushed...all it takes is a little ambition and research. Besides, too often in today's art world, the classics are forgotten. Seeing someone inspired by Caravaggio or Nicolas Poussin and trying to incorporate that into a modern art world is just as impressive as anything else.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Mitch,

Just a few comments...

"If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of artists today, and the art world has changed dramatically."

There are a lot of artists today? Thanks for the alert.

"There isn't one elite group anymore, there are countless branches of artists working in different mediums, in different styles, trying to achieve different goals."

Sheesh... where have I been for all these crazy developments in the art world?

Other than those things I think you simply missed my point. I was not saying that you couldn't create relevant work living outside a big city. After all, all work made today is "relevant" to something contemporary, right? What I was saying was that history suggests that artists who make the art history books have almost all lived at some point in a major city. Cause and effect? I have no idea.

[T.Agran]

Christ you know, I think you're being a little harsh on Emil here.

I go to Grinnell College in Grinnell, IA. Which is where? Good question, an hour outside of Des Moines, as if that's a big art metropolis anyway. My experience here has been wonderful, and I think in ways here I have been able to concentrate on my own work, and not on the competitiveness that a lot of my friends have seen on the east coast and at MICA.

I've worked with Emil personally, along with a number of other artists, all realists working from the figure, at a workshop at Centre over a summer a while ago. What I learned there, in all its "conservatism," was how to produce MY work better. Look at my studio classes here at Grinnell, I'm the ONLY one who does realist work, I am by far the minority. And this is Grinnell, IA. There are more chickens here than people.

I've welcome Grinnell into my life as a retreat from a lot of the art-talk and hype that my friends have been burned out and sickened by at more prestigious art schools.

It's been great.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I'm not critiquing Emil's work... he was merely the jumping off post for the idea that to make the art history books, you seem to have to live for some period of time in a big city (NYC, for example). Emil's work is fine... there's stuff of equal quality and interest all over the world. The idea was, if you stay in Grinnel, will you make the history books?

This may or may not be of value to you... just a topic of conversation. This isn't a measure of value or quality.

Frames were awful though in that show though...