The Essence. The Original Object vs a Reproduction.

I've been saying this for a long time, but actual research has been done. It's a quick read.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/original-artworks-move-us-reproductions-90869/

I haven't been posting in a while, too busy, and a little "bored" with the blog, though I'm not quite ready to cease. Here, one of my (mine) favorite paintings:

 It's much better in person, see above.

Rantings from the Right

A nice picture of Violet, AKA Little Bit, and Big Fin, AKA Big Fin.

Recently, a State Representative, from Fort Wayne, sent a letter railing against the Girl Scouts of America to his fellow legislators. He connected them to Planned Parenthood, and a letter sent to Indiana lawmakers from Rep. Bob Morris (R-Fort Wayne), which explained why he would not support a resolution honoring the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts. In the letter, Morris accuses the Girl Scouts of "encouraging sex," being a "tactical arm of Planned Parenthood" and listing only "feminists, lesbians and Communists" as role models. 

Well, Fort Wayneites, it seems "Mad Anthony Wayne" is still the guiding spirit of your fair town. Be proud! He did send an apology letter; basically saying he was still right, but should have been gentler in his diatribe.

Sheeesh! Follow that with the Federal Judge in Montana, who seems mystified that the nasty, vulgar, misogynistic, and raciest joke about the President of the United States, he was forwarding to his pals would be offensive to a lot of people  ...  good grief. Alternative universes, indeed. You know folks, you keep letting these maroons into office, pretty soon you're going to get one with an itchy finger ... ohh ... ohh ...  too late, already happened. Nevermind.

And, if I were a republican, I'd be embarrassed to admit it, considering some of the rantings coming from the "main stream" candidates. When did outright lying become standard for political debate? I'm not talking "normal political prevarication", no, no, this is whoppers of such grandiose hyperbole, as to really question what universe I am in. (Quietly, I blame it all on that paragon of lying, gaseous, demagogic, egotistic fear mongers, Rush. Political savant?  No, No , strictly entertainment, if your tastes run to lions and Christians.)

Well, I rant, therefore I am ... Me. Have a nice day!

 

Ranting, ad infinitum ...

If you do not go to venues where the actual objects of art are available to view, you are missing the whole experience. Even two dimensional painting is three dimensional in ACTUALITY, ...  but looking only in books, or slide shows, or on the interwebs, there is so much not seen, missed, and never to feel the spirit of the actual ...

Lying to ourselves that we "know" something, that is 3D, through a 2D medium ... PFUI. I have met art curators, who do not have art in their lives; they have reproductions as decorations, but not actual art ... how sick and wickedly perverse ... to allow the flatulent gasbag art historians to tell you what you should like ... it is their opinion against yours ... and yours is imbued with your own life, your emotions, feelings, responses ...

Art is not a competition, it is not a "one true art shall prevail" ... it is an every day activity, predating the dawn of time, and we can all participate. It is a human activity, needing neither pedestals, historians, nor cults of genius.

It just needs us to decide that we like something, it might be art, and to hell with others opinion, that we like it, it pushes our buttons, and we would like to decorate our cave with it ... or our persons ... but real ... handmade ... an object, of dimension and imperfection.

If you do not understand an aspect of the ART world, be comforted, it is just commerce, and has nothing to do with actual art ...  rest assured that if genius is part of the descriptive it has to do with commerce foremost. And avoid pedestals ...

And this, as I recently cleaned the surface; it's in our kitchen and in a spot that is not really art safe ... but it cleans up well ... and the surface of the sky, due to the technique in painting it is very tactile, thin, slight, but distinctly nubile. Edit: Nubile is nice but this should have been nubbly.

Rant

 

A small rant on looking, and context, all probably said before, but needing said again.

It's nice to see people in an actual museum, looking at art in frames, hanging on a wall, just like it was meant to be. Too many curators, art students, and even dealers, look at art on computer monitors, in books, or sometimes, still, transparencies, where the art is torn from it's frame and any context, and the object quality of it is completely lost. No texture; just flat and flat. This out of context viewing leads to artists who labor long periods on the painting, and then finish it by "framing" with some ill-fitting, shoddily finished, wood strips, haphazardly nailed to the stretcher bars. A very obvious comment on the importance the artist attaches to his or her work.

I think a disservice to art is done by art professionals who think naught of tearing the art asunder from its context, and base all sorts of curatorial decisions, on the sundered remains. Is the frame, and some context, necessary? Obviously, I believe so, though, being an artist who works in the medium of the picture frame, it would seem I'm biased. More later, and a "snarky" comment; if you don't want to frame your art, become a sculptor.

Sunday Rant

A some what bedraggled Ken, getting ready to be eBayed by my wife, from her childhood collection.


Just a thought on a Sunday, as I'm listening to an album mentioned on TOP, see the links. I'm very responsive to jazz, like it a lot, but for some reason, I do not seek it out in the way I do classical. I'll have to think about that for a while ... in the mean time, "Ben and Sweets" is a delightful album.

My thought had to do with framing, and specifically the framing of mirrors, and affirmation and power. Most of us look in mirrors a lot ... yet the mirrors are nothing special ... don't you think that the affirmation and power of a really special mirror, one that frames YOU as special, important, Louis XV, sort of person would be important? New marketing program yowzahhh!!!!!

 Stuff I'm working on. The frame would be good for an affirmation of self though, don't you think? Designed as a vertical, kudos, a big bag of them, to any one who notices. Verticallity.

I'm sorry, it's a little tricky, as the image isn't that clear, but the bottom inner "bead", center, is not carved, which adds to the vertical feel.

Work, broken hearts, fashion.

Listening to NPR, National Public Radio, catching only part of it, but a conversation about a movie about Vogue magazine. One of the "high", Grace Coddington, willing to continue to have her heart broken, to fall in love with something that won't make it into the magazine, fall in love, fight for it, and move on to the next, when this one falls.

I guess the part I like, is feeling strongly about "art", willing to fight for it. Having some ... conviction, or just having ... ahh, hell, brass balls, put your money where your mouth is, conviction, belief in your own taste; and the willingness to look, and SEE.

On Viewing Art

Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox
Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona, 1937
Ansel Adams

Saturday I managed to visit a museum in spite of having my 2 daughters with me. Museums are uncool and boring, saith the preteen. We were in Kalamazoo, MI, where my wife was jurying an art fair. The Kalamazoo Institute of Art, has a nice Georgia O'Keefe exhibition, organized by the MFA of Boston. They also have an adjunct exhibition of Photos of her and some of her colleagues and contemporaries, which the photo above, scanned from the cover of the book "400 Photographs", Ansel Adams, included for illustrative purpose, is from.

The above photo I'm familar with from reproduction, but I've never seen an Ansel print of it. I was struck at how strong the real thing can be. For me, it's a given that paintings need to be seen in person; no reproductive technique truly does them justice. There are a few exceptions, but if you would know art, take every opportunity to see the real thing, in person.

This is apropos, due to a recent blurb in Art Journal, mentioning that art students don't attend museums, as they get all of the images from books, or the interwebs. Art is not just an image, but an entity that transcends the visual, and reproduction is fallible. Art also needs context; most mere images have no frame, no wall, no viewers; lifeless. I find this very difficult to comprehend.

For a picture framer, who has so few opportunities, even in reproduction, to look at frames, where else but museums? It is more than just crafting a frame; as context, the interplay of frame and art are essential. About 25 years ago, when I worked at the Terra Museum of American Art, there was a painting from, I believe the Met, in NY. An unusual Jackson Pollack; some calligraphic strokes on a raw linen canvas, soft black on brownish gray. It was framed in a gold leaf, renaissance, sgraffito frame. (On frames, sgraffito is a scratched, incised and punched form of decoration). I doubt there is a photo, and the combination may not even be together any more, due to the vagaries of curators. It was, however a beautiful symbiosis, balanced, powerful, and elegant.

Go forth, look at real art. ( I skipped the Art Fair, too crowded.)

Bron

Way Off Topic

I'm reading Ronald C. White's single volume bio of A. Lincoln. It is a very good book, that takes advantage of recent scholarship since the last one volume bio by David Donald. I read a lot of civil war history, and a lot about Lincoln. Lincoln was a most extraordinary man, up with Jesus, Mohammed, Genghis Kahn, Buhdda; not only a leader, but an extraordinary humanist. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Jackson, Lee; such interesting men, flawed as men are, but what a compelling period of history. Longstreet is wrong, I think, about Lee having his "blood up" at Gettysburg. Lee had a plan, and when his "favorite" blew it, Lee never mentioned it. This is one of the things that is intriguing about R.E. Lee; his unfailing loyalty to his subordinate officers. Longstreet/Picket's charge took place at the same time as J.E.B. Stuart and his army, fatigued due to Stuart's ego games, was in the Union rear, where they ran into a little "buzzsaw" named G.A. Custer, who wasn't fatigued from chasing glory. It is very possible that the cavalry fight in the union rear effected the fight in the front; had Stuart been able to break through, Picket's men may have been able to break through at the front. The "lost cause" was probably lost at Antietem, but many think that Gettysburg was the South's "high water mark", where it was still possible to win the war.

Some other thoughts: Contrary to the "Nashville fugitives", and all the post war revisionists, it was about slavery. Read what the participants say at the beginning of the war; it was about slavery. It was about slavery. I will say again, the issue was slavery, from bloody Kansas, to John Brown at Harpers Ferry, states rights be damned, it was about slavery. At this point, I could start ranting.....but maybe I should just shut up, before I start in on Battle Flags, etc.

The picture is from The South Bend City Cemetery, 1832-1899

" A Life in Art "

A very well thought and written piece on the artistic life over on TOP. The Online Photographer. The piece is by the author John Camp, whose nom de plume is John Sandford. Some very good commentary, as well. On all of the arts.

Dates on Art

I was in a meeting the other day concerning an upcoming exhibition. The artist had signed his work, but not dated it. This left all involved in the dark as to an evolution of this artist. The discussion led to asking the "artists" present if they dated their work. At one time, I did date frames and art, and also kept comprehensive records. But, for a variety of reasons, I am now not as meticulous. I sign work, but with a monogram, usually, and occasionally a full signature, but no dates. Nor do I keep records, as I once did. When asked about not dating art, I flippantly remarked that laziness was the reason, though in retrospect, that is a very valid reason. The time involved in records, in adding a date, as opposed to a simple monogram, or even a signature, seems wasted. Also, some times a piece will sit, untouched, for a significant length, before being finished, although the final "finish" may be very minor. Which date? The art historians, curators, may feel this is important, though, for myself, I would rather think about, and spend my time working, or navel gazing, than being a bookkeeper.

I am going to think about putting dates on my work, again.

Addendum: Dates are OK, but I think what I'm really voicing is the realization that doing the art is important, but after that, its historical or aesthetic significance, is beyond my control.

I was just looking through a book on Native American Art, and some cultures achieved an economic point where there was an enormous amount of time that could be devoted to "art", decorating clothing, one self, and flamboyance. I think we've lost that in the new millenium. Native cultures did not date their art.

Bron

ART

A response to the post below, 3-2-09

I paint, carve and photograph. I consider the camera a sketch tool, but will sometimes get results that are transcendent of a sketch. The transcendence comes not through "luck", but rather seeing something at the moment, and then bringing to it my experience, energy and thought. Talent is highly overrated, without some energy and thought.
If I do a painting based on a photo, that photo may be the culmination of much time at that location; the painting an amalgam of memory, many photos, and the experience of that time and place. And no part of that, including sweeping the floor in the studio, or a crisis of spirit that sees me going for a long walk with the dog, is not ART.

Addendum: It's all part of the process. I like the idea of art, not ART, no pedestal, thank you. Craft and art are one to me, one process to make something. Others make distinctions, make value judgements as to craft vs. art; I can't dispute some of the distinctions; me doodling on a pad is not as important as a piece with thought and labor expended on it, but I see little distinction between the effort to design a table and that effort on a painting. Or tuning a photograph.

Bron

On Picture Framing, a small rant.

Picture framing, the unacknowledged bastard of the arts. Not even one of the decorative arts. There has been increased awareness of framing as an art, though when framing a picture, the highest success is for the labor of the framer to enhance the object, not his work. Many artists labor in the field of obscurity; for framers that is the norm. Hopefully, my thoughts will add some light to framing. There will be digressions, though, on art, Art, tools , techniques, and of course, off topic rants. Mostly my opinions, mine, on frames. Opinions. After 40 years, off and on working at framing, I have some opinions.

The small rant: When studying art, the art is viewed through book illustrations, slides, or on the interweb, wherein the image excludes the frame, and context. I firmly believe art needs to be viewed in context. If you would know art, and frames, go look at the real thing.

Bron