Landscape by Tracy Helgeson: on the edge of abstraction
November 5th, 2006
This landscape painting by Tracy Helgeson caught my eye. This work is something of a new departure in Tracy’s work, I think. She often works on the border between abstraction and reality, but in this painting there is a cross-over, albeit a subtle one. The result is almost unsettling, but I like it. A question for her is, does she want to go further with this? There is also a psychological element to this landscape painting, as I see it, which captures my attention.
Tracy’s blog raises interesting questions about what it means to be an artist today. In the past, artists liked to cloak themselves and their work in mystery. Tracy is open about her work (good, bad, unfinished) and her difficulties in the process of creating and selling. There is a refreshing and direct quality to her writing style that makes mysterious 20th century artists seem a bit comic in comparison. Is Tracy a good example of what 21th century artists will be doing, or should she hide her unfinished work and cultivate a more refined public image?
November 5th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Tracy, could you say a bit about how you made this painting? Is it from imagination, from life, from a photo, or some combination?
November 5th, 2006 at 5:22 am
Karl:
You said – “Is Tracy a good example of what 21th century artists will be doing, or should she hide her unfinished work and cultivate a more refined public image?”
My immediate response to this is that you have said “should”. You’ll all get bored with me going on about this, but assuming we are talking about art not commerce, then she “should” do what ever seems to work for her. Which may change over time, and which may not be immediately understandable to an observer.
If we are talking commerce, then a “refined public image” or a mysterious one, may suit her market. Or it may not. That’s between her and her bank manager.
November 5th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Colin, I would change the post, but that would make your comment confusing for readers later. I agree with your points however.
I don’t get bored with you going on about art versus commerce, Colin. This is a life-death issue, if not for the artists, at least for the art.
November 5th, 2006 at 10:17 am
The thing I find intriguing about the painting is that the cast shadow alternates for me between being the shadow itself and being a big arrow pointing up.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:28 am
David, I hadn’t notice that “arrow” effect until you mentioned it. But now I see it clearly.
This painting shows the power of combining abstraction and realism. It is as though the viewer moves among different reference points.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
It is as though the viewer moves among different reference points.
I don’t have any formula for what I consider good art, but I do find that this is one element that characterizes most of my favorite works, whether they are paintings, songs, films or books. When something operates on several levels at once, when it could be this or it could be that, it makes me want to keep coming back to it.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Karl writes:I don’t get bored with you going on about art versus commerce, Colin. This is a life-death issue, if not for the artists, at least for the art.
Ok, I’ll bite. Why is this a life-death issue?
I don’t necessarily think it isn’t, but I’d sure be interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Karl:
You said – “I don’t get bored with you going on about art versus commerce”
You might find this post amusing.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Paul:
long story short: The economic context for creating art has a huge impact on the type of art created, even if the artist is not aware of this, even if the artist does not to support him-/herself from art.
This has been a major topic on A&P in the past (e.g., this post on galleries and patrons). By the way, I’m thinking of starting a gallery myself, to keep in mind if you read the linked post. The discussions on A&P sometimes reverse my thinking on certain topics…
Colin, thanks for the amusing link.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
When something operates on several levels at once, when it could be this or it could be that, it makes me want to keep coming back to it.
David, Yes, this is probably the best provisional definition of good (or “interesting”) art that could be hoped for. Too much art comes off as a one-liner; you glance at it and you pretty much know what’s going on.
While he is a very different artist, Gerry Bergtsein, whom I’ve just
reviewed
has made a career of enfolding different levels of meaning and appearance. He takes the game to almost absurd levels. Often, the levels are ‘literal’ levels, depicted with careful illusionism.
Karl, could you elaborate on the way in which you think Tracy’s painting breaks new ground? It seems that she has been playing this crossover game for a while now, and often with impressive results.
I count at least three arrows in Tracy’s painting.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Arthur,
I am not an expert on Tracy’s paintings, and I realize that she has worked on the edge of abstraction for some time. On her blog I made the comment, regarding this picture: “But usually there is still more of a thread holding us onto reality. With the white house, one the side, we find ourself somewhere else.”
Tracy responded on her blog:
I would not trust my knowledge of Tracy’s paintings enough, on its own, to make the statement I did. But I think it is reasonable, backup up by Tracy’s comment.
. . .
I ask the question: “Is Tracy a good example of what 21th century artists will [should] be doing, or should she hide her unfinished work and cultivate a more refined public image?”
It is difficult to avoid asking a leading question on a blog post. Let me at least answer my own question. I think Tracy is doing exactly the right thing, the best thing for herself and for art in general. When artists hide behind mystery and mystique, it means that it becomes difficult to evaluate their work seriously. By being a real person, rather than an image, Tracy does something brave and honest. Well, I don’t know Tracy except through blogging, but I do believe in her as she presents herself.
November 6th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
As for the separate issue of artist’s blogging on their working process and techniques, I think that in a way, its nothing new. No doubt some artists (past and present) have chosen “cloak themselves and their work in mystery.” But other artists have felt free to discuss their workings, if not with the public, than at least with some of their fellow artists (and other close friends). This kind of “shop talk” may not make it on to the historical record, but you can bet that it was there. Of course, artists generally like to keep some secrets.
The new thing with blogging, of course, is that this kind of discussion is now available all over the world. This has the potential, for better or for worse, to make this information available to all. There is the potential for radically de-mystifying the artist’s role.
In practice, however, it seems that artist’s blogs, as opposed to art blogs–thanks to Lisa for this distinction–often maintain an intimate character. The group of regular, as opposed to occasional or casual, readers is often small. The number of regular commenters is smaller still. (I don’t write an artist’s blog in Lisa’s nomenclature, so Tracy’s is my primary model here.) I think that this is because the masses of art blog readers are not primarily interested in this kind of information. Perhaps this is because of its close link to the kinds of hands-on knowledge that can’t be transmitted over the Internet.
November 6th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I ask the question: “Is Tracy a good example of what 21th century artists will [should] be doing, or should she hide her unfinished work and cultivate a more refined public image?”
I think that many new century artists will be doing what Tracy is doing, simply because the tools are there, if for no other reason. As is expressed in my last comment, I am not sure if this will have the revolutionary effect that you hope for. I am even less sure as to whether this would be a good thing or not. It is up to the artist, of course, but there are also large-scale social implications.
As for being an image vs. a real person, I think these categories can get pretty blurry, especially on the internet. One could, for example, imagine an artist writing a journal like Tracy’s for cynical purposes, to come across as honest and down to earth, when nothing could be further from the truth.
A truely humble artist might put up a slick marketing site as a kind of facade.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
he is a postmodern artist in old master drag
Ha! Arthur, that’s beautiful!
The work posted w/ your review looks very interesting.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Yes, I had to put in there for exactly that reason. I’m sure I’ll be regretting it very soon.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I am not sure if this will have the revolutionary effect that you hope for. I am even less sure as to whether this would be a good thing or not.
I agree. I’m not interested in artists putting up phony refined public images, but at the same time I think it’s possible to lose some of the magic of the art viewing experience if too much emphasis is placed on all the steps and stages of the work. It may be of some interest to other artists, in order to develop their own work, but that’s something different.
Many of the artists I find most compelling choose to keep their process and their private lives private. Jasper Johns and Thomas Pynchon come to mind.
I think because I do effects for movies I’m especially aware of this issue. If I’m sitting there in the theater thinking, “oh that’s a matte painting, and that’s a 3d character, and that’s a particle effect,” I’m basically missing the movie (assuming it’s worth seeing in the first place). If I’m really experiencing the film, I forget while I’m watching it that the effects are effects and that the actors are actors, and I am absorbed in the story.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
For the record, most “postmodern” art (but by means all) bores the heck out of me. Actually, I originally left the term “artist” out, which seems to me now like a better choice. Fewer unpleasant associations that way.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
David,
I’ve spent much time researching historical painting techniques. When I recognize pigments and certain layer structure in a work in a museum, it enhances my appreciation.
Maybe seeing a movie is different. But I think I would appreciate movies more, if I knew more about the techniques.
Arthur,
I sense you are going to get into another epic on-line battle soon. I’m looking forward to it . . .
November 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
For the record, most “postmodern” art (but by means all) bores the heck out of me.
These terms are just silly labels anyway, so that people can put something into a box and think they understand it. It saves them the trouble of actually looking at something on its own terms.
But, if you’re going to write about something, what are you going to do? The words are there, you might as well use them.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Hey everyone, Sorry if I seemed uninvolved in this conversation-our satellite for the internet went out on Saturday night and finally after much adjustment my husband was able to get it realigned.
Thanks, Karl for linking to my painting and for initiating this discussion.
Most of my imagery, including this painting, is based upon a combination of photographic references (photos that I take) and my imagination. Part of my process consists of altering and deciphering the image from the photograph and then working from my memory of the place and of the photograph.
I work intuitively, with the purpose of expressing myself, and the process that I have developed allows me to express the different aspects of my personality. At some points in a painting, I must plan and think ahead, at other times I work instinctively and often allow chance and accidents to be an integral part of the image.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
When I recognize pigments and certain layer structure in a work in a museum, it enhances my appreciation.
Karl, my experience is similar, but like you I’m obsessed w/ making paintings and pretty much everything I see gets filtered through that concern. I’m not sure if presenting the general public w/ a lot of technical and process information enhances their experience of the art or distracts from it.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Hi Tracy,
Thanks for describing your working method. I find this approach most interesting, combining photographs, which are so literal, with personal expression in painting. It seems that you have found just the right combination to stimulate your imagination.
David,
Reading Tracy’s blog, one quickly gets a sense of her open attitude. It isn’t necessary to read every detail (though I do, of course Tracy!) The important question here is, does the artist try to obscure for the sake of image, or not? The “general public” is always good at ignoring extra details. But even when I ignore details in areas I don’t know much about or study, I like the idea that they are there.
Of course, a good magic show is fun, and that involves letting yourself be mystified. But I find art interesting enough without intentionally making it mysterious, in the sense of creating an artist image. That said, I do enjoy some of the images that have been created . . . Maybe it is a matter of the era.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Karl, I wasn’t in any way meaning that an artist should try to obscure anything, or intentionally make it mysterious. Even worse is the idea of creating an “artist image”. Generally when I’ve seen someone trying do that it makes them look ridiculous.
I’m just talking about the difference between private and public. About deciding when something is part of your personal creative process, and when you have something to present to the public. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer to this. It’s an individual choice. I don’t think choosing to keep your process private is necessarily a bad thing, nor is choosing to document and present every part of your personal life. Everyone has to decide this for themself.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
David,
You make a good distinction. I should have realized this earlier.
That said, definitions of public and private are of course different in different places. In The Netherlands, it is normal to leave your living room curtains open in the evening so everyone can see your living space. This is one thing I have never gotten used to. But in Amsterdam in particular, there is a kind of art form of setting up your home to show off to passers-by. And I’m not talking about the red-light district, I’m talking about “good” neighborhoods.
Needless to say, the internet changes what people think of as public and private. It is now normal to show more of the private.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
…in Amsterdam in particular, there is a kind of art form of setting up your home to show off to passers-by
That would definitely bring out my mischievous side. The Dutch are probably fortunate that I don’t live there :)
November 6th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I sense you are going to get into another epic on-line battle soon. I’m looking forward to it . . .
I’m not sure what you’re seeing here.
November 7th, 2006 at 1:26 am
David,
I think they could handle you quite well. Don’t underestimate the Dutch. They were once a major world power, despite their small size.
Talking about privacy, did I mention that every public beach includes a nudist beach? (Although the regular beaches might be considered nudist beaches in America).
The Dutch can have all this freedom for privacy in public because they have a well-developed sense for respecting others (historically and now). That’s why even big cities like Amsterdam can have a small-town feel in certain neighborhoods (flowerpots & flowers on the sidewalk outside your house, for example).
. . .
Arthur,
Just be yourself.
November 7th, 2006 at 1:27 am
?
November 7th, 2006 at 1:29 am
There, the shortest A.W. comment ever!
November 7th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Karl, I’m definitely not underestimating the Dutch. Was commenting more on my inability to resist being a wise-ass.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:22 am
David,
In a way that is the point. In the Netherlands, everyone can be a wise-ass and it still all works out. I don’t know how they manage, but it is great.
Well, it didn’t work out so well for Theo van Gogh, but he is in a sense the exception that proves the rule.
November 7th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Karl, I’m afraid Theo’s bad luck ran in the family. Someday I hope to visit the Netherlands. It has always sounded a lot more civilized than many parts of the US.