Haarlem art: new life in a cultural graveyard?
November 13th, 2006
Haarlem is a major art center — in historical terms. When the genres of landscape and still life were revolutionary and new (in the 17th century), Haarlem artists were the key players. The Haarlem portrait painter Frans Hals is one of the most influential artists in history. Much of what is best about Manet‘s work he borrowed directly from Frans Hals. Van Gogh was hugely influenced by Frans Hals as well.
Haarlem also has one of the greatest Michelangelo drawing collections in the world. But this is a dead collection, in a sense: in a recent major exhibition in Haarlem, artists were not permitted to study Michelangelo’s work in the only way that makes sense, drawing within the exhibition itself, looking directly at the master’s work. Although there was a huge volume of visitors to the show, there was almost no serious critical analysis of the art or the exhibition (here are exceptions: 1, 2).
Thus, Haarlem is a cultural graveyard. Haarlem’s living inhabitants treat the past with silent, uncritical reverence. The tombstones of the old masters (native and foreign), cast a long shadow over contemporary artwork and creativity.
Artists in Haarlem today can be divided into two broad categories:
- those trying continue past traditions (especially in still life painting)
- those trying to be part of the great international art scene.
In the first category are some talented painters achieving commercial success with their neo-17th century still life paintings. But in this endeavor, they are little more than expert craftsmen. [Hanneke van Oosterhout is flirting with the idea becoming one of these, but I think she will pull out before it is too late].
In the second category are artists who are in denial about their place of residence. These artists would probably be better off if they moved to the real international art centers of today — New York, London, Berlin. How can one be a great international artist living in Haarlem, of all places?
Before we all pack up and move to New York, I’d like to point out that the action in the great living art centers of today is not all that impressive. I’ve spent a lot of time in New York and Berlin, with an eye to moving there for the sake of my art career. I was singularly unimpressed by what I saw in the living art culture. I might move to New York for its great museums, but not for its contemporary galleries.
More interesting to me than moving is to look at this cultural graveyard I live in, and see what are the weeds growing besides the tombstones. What is the new life here? Might it grow into something for the city to be proud of?
Where do you live and work? Could your city or town become an important art center? Or would you rather move to New York?
. . .
In a future post, I will profile what I consider to be the most exciting contemporary Haarlem artwork.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Karl, I can’t help but laugh, thinking about you moving from Haarlem to Harlem :)
The reason to move to an art center, it seems to me, is not so much to be impressed by the galleries or the museums, as to become part of the community of artists. And showing with the galleries can have a big impact on your career, whether you feel impressed with them or not.
I like visiting NY, but I don’t think I’d want to live there. Years ago I moved from the east coast to L.A. It’s an art center, but not as big as New York. There are things I love about it and things I hate about it. Sometimes I think about moving to a smaller town, but there are things here that I’d miss.
From what you’ve said in earlier posts, the Netherlands sounds like a wonderful place to live. Could you live there and show elsewhere? Is it possibly to be part of the international art community without living in one of its centers? I don’t know the answer…
November 13th, 2006 at 4:24 am
Ik zou al heel blij zijn als men mij een goede ambachtsman (ambachtsvrouw) zou noemen. Een groot kunstenaar zijn is iets heel anders en impliceert ook iets heel anders dan kun je eigenlijk ook geen gezin hebben.
[I would be very happy if people would call me a good craftsman/woman. Being a great artist is something different and involves different things — you cannot really raise a family at the same time, for example]
November 13th, 2006 at 4:34 am
David,
Oke ik zou dus echt niet naar NY willen verhuizen, zelfs niet naar Amsterdam, maar ik denk wel dat het beter zou zijn voor mijn carriere als kunstenaar. Ik zou waarschijnlijk heel ander werk gaan maken om mezelf te meten aan de andere kunstenaars — maar wie zou dan die mooie fijnzinnife stilleventjes maken?
[Okay, I certainly don’t want to move to New York, not even to Amsterdam, but I think it might be better for my career as an artist if I did move. I would probably make very different work, to measure myself with the other artists in a big art center — but then who would make those nice little fine still life paintings?]
November 13th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I keep getting told (by gallery owners who represent me and fellow artists) I should be showing in new york. yea! well okay I live in a little artsy village in the middle of ohio but it has a very strong artists community and I am growing leaps and bounds as an artist here. I suppose if I was single and my mission was to make a living it at it it would be different. I loved living near New York a few years back,and was going into the city almost weekly. I agree when David said: “to become part of the community of artists.” Spending a day there wandering around, going to galleries, talking to artists, etc was always inspiring and a feast for the senses.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I think a lot of what you can get from an art center you can accomplish by visiting, especially in terms of museums. My wife and I spent 3 weeks in Italy this past spring, my first time there, and I ended up with enough new insights and inspiration to last a long time. (Still, we want to go back for a longer stay because we loved it so much).
In terms of being part of a community of artists, that’s a little different, as it often takes day-to-day contact with people to form friendships. But I think that could also be accomplished in ways less drastic than uprooting yourself from where you like living. Possibly extended visits, like deciding to go to NY, or Amsterdam, for a year (or even a 6-month stay), focused on meeting other artists, curators, etc., then returning home but staying in touch with people. A lot of successful artists leave the city once they’ve built a base, and I don’t think it hurts their careers. Rauschenberg lives on a little island off the coast of Florida. As mentioned in an earlier post, a number of well-known NY artists have moved to Taos. I think it’s useful to spend some time in the art centers, but it doesn’t have to mean living there permanently. It might be a lot easier to get work done in Haarlem or Ohio.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Karl,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
First, you say that the avant garde artists in Haarlem don’t belong there. Then you say, “Well, there’s really no point in moving.” Except there are artists in denial about where they live, so the first point seems to be a pretty strong feeling of yours. All right. But then we look at the weeds, and we think, “Hey, this could grow into a lovely new thing.” So the first point? No?
And that picture is too small! No link to a larger one. Frustrating because I can see this is exactly the kind of picture that has all these little messages in it that you have to look at a while.
So I’m gonna just slash off in a new direction and share a model about the mixing of the old and the new. Philip K. Dick, the Science Fiction Author, based a lot of his work in a future Los Angeles. His vision of “retrofitting” was brought to the big screen in the movie Blade Runner, based on his story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. There’s a scene where you’re looking at the exteriors of a super skyscraper, but inside you have all these cops in this old building (actually the interior of LA’s Union Station). The new building was built on top of the old building, but the old building was left intact. It’s the natural human solution to the problem “How do you preserve the best parts of the past while moving forward?”
In art, you always have this crowd that says, “The old way is better. All this new stuff is crap.”
And you always have this crowd that says, “The new way is better. All that old stuff is crap.”
But neither will ever achieve their fond ambition of eliminating the other, so they just fight all the time, without end, neither convincing the other, and every art scene has the same dumb arguments about it over and over ad nauseum.
The rest of the world meanwhile tends to implement that retrofitting idea. If it’s done well, and according to another science fiction writer I’ve already quoted, that will likely be 10% of the time, the results can be thrilling. If it’s done badly, the results are a mixed up botch.
Welcome to every city in the world.
But as to whether an artist should move? That’s more a matter of lifestyle. In my meat market days, it was a lack of bars and dance places made rural life tough. It had nothing to do with the art scene. Hell, I’ve met more full time artists in one month on my little island here than I ever met in five years in LA. And these cats make bank.
[addendum] I see that the cite tags are getting stripped out of comments, so I have to use italics for citations. Grrr…[end addendum courtesy of our new super duper edit comment retrofit]
November 13th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I have always had affection for run down cities with self esteem problems, such as St. Louis, where I live now. It just got the distinction of being the city with the most violent crime in the nation! The art scene here is always on the cusp of really being “something,” but never really going over the edge. Lots of new venues open up and close down a couple years later. I don’t know if I will stay here forever, but like Hanneke and others, there are lots of different factors dictating where I live, including where I get teaching opportunities, where my partner can find work, and how expensive it is to live. Friends try to lure me to the Bay area, but I do not want to be in a place that requires me to earn lots of money. When would I have time to make art?
The fact is, I get inspiration from lots of places and people, not just art or artists. Most of my friends are not artists, actually. I am fine with visiting art centers to get my dose of art – Chicago is the most convenient to me now and has a really vibrant art community in my opinion. On the other hand, having gone to grad school in rural Washington state, I can say that I got a lot done surrounded by all that natural beauty and few distractions, but by the end I was itching to be in a place where there was more art and artists!
I am also not working toward being a famous artist who shows in NYC – that has never been my goal. I am happy when I am making work that matters to me, when I get to show my work in a variety of venues, when I get teaching opportunities, and when I can live in a place with potential for an artistic community.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Rex, I want to request a post (at your convenience, of course) about this island you live on. I’ve been to Seattle a couple of times, but my only exposure to the islands was from riding the ferries back and forth for fun. Include some pictures, so we can see what it looks like.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
David,
Good idea. You got it. Probably a few weeks though. I’ve been doing some sketching of eagles and fish and trees… Really Northwest imagery. It is the spirit of the place. You see it in the totem poles, that spirit. I never really dug them or understood till I came here.
Thinking about it, I’ll write and call and visit some of my buds and see if I can link to their pix so’s we can have a sense of the artistry here too. Very diverse, old, new, exciting, calming, a huge range. But typical of Washington in general, a open and genial class of people. They have not learned to be closed and afraid like so many city people.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Karl, one size doesn’t fit all.
Artists will do their most productive work where they happen to be when they are ready to do their most productive work.
Some people may need to be in a community of artists, but some may absolutely need not to be.
And really, writing somebody off as ‘little more than an expert craftsman’. How can you know what is going on in their minds? How can you know what it is they need to do? Where is the absolute measure of worth that makes sense of your ‘little more than’ statement?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Rex, by all means show some of the artwork, but I’d also be interested in seeing photos (just snapshots) of the place itself. What are the towns/villages like? What is the cost of living? How do you get to and from the island? You know, stuff like that.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Leslie,
You wrote “I am also not working toward being a famous artist who shows in NYC.” This makes sense. Being a famous artist who shows in NYC is perhaps a side effect of making great art, but for it to be a motivating goal would be a bit sad. Your goal, to make “work that matters to me” is far more meaningful.
The big question is, can we reach our full potentials in these provincial places we live in?
I think it is possible. Bartman’s class showed this. What is Bethesda in the art world? Except for Bartman, it is nothing. If one person can make such a difference, it suggests that one does not need to move to a hot art center to get the right inspiration. We should be able to find all that we need in ourselves, and in smaller communities.
Compared to 17th c. Haarlem, or 16th c. Florence, St. Louis is huge, and rich. You have everything you need there for a great artistic flourishing. The mystery is, why doesn’t it happen all the time?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Colin,
I categorize someone as doing “craft” instead of “art” when they make more and more of the same type of work, with minimal variation, with little sense of striving for something new or taking risks. It doesn’t matter to me if the object is a chair or a still life painting. Craft can be fine and impressive, and valuable. But to me, art is something different. One picture can be art, the other craft, even if both pictures are quite similar. It has to do with how they are made. Perhaps the first picture was a discovery. The other picture, the craft one, might be the 20th variation on the theme.
I could give examples of what I am talking about, and perhaps you would see my point better. However, this would require asking permission to show some other people’s work, or doing so without permission, under “fair use”. I might go along either one of these avenues later, but neither is a casual thing.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Karl asked us Where do you live and work? Could your city or town become an important art center? Or would you rather move to New York?
Like Leslie I get my inspiration from a variety of people and places. I’ve lived near NYC and have no desire to do so again. The cost of living is oppressive, as it is in most major art centers.
I now live in what used to be a small town near Denver but is now just another suburb. I’m close to the mountains and the desert – both of which are more important to me than any artist community might be.
Although Denver/Boulder is also home to a very thriving and talented group of fiber artists and I’ve benefitted a lot by being part of that community at times.
Denver is already an important art center.
It’s important to me.
Denver isn’t the cowtown that it’s reputation sometimes implies.
The new expansion of the Denver Art Museum, design by Daniel Libeskind, just opened.
http://expansion.denverartmuseum.org/
The Clyfford Still Museum will open in 2009.
http://www.clyffordstillmuseum.org/museum.html
The Denver Museum of Contemporary Art will move to their new building in 2007 (although their website is so horrible it’s almost not worth clicking this link):
http://www.mcartdenver.org/
November 13th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The big question is, can we reach our full potentials in these provincial places we live in?
Using one’s location as an excuse to not reach one’s full potential is a copout.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
David,
You ask: “Is it possibly to be part of the international art community without living in one of its centers?”
This is the big question. Certainly it is no problem to live in Haarlem and show in New York. I know several people doing this. I also know that Dan Bodner got a huge inspiration when he went to live in New York for several months. It completely changed his work.
Here is more or less what he said. He went to lectures on art, and art museums all the time. He came into contact with many artists, and began collaborating with a photographer, a critical event in his art career. He was not especially impressed with the gallery scene overall in New York, but he said he occasionally saw some wonderful things. He is in Amsterdam now, but he is moving back to New York soon. As far as Dan is concerned, going to the center is the way to go. But he doesn’t have kids to worry about, he has the freedom to go where he wants to, and he lives from his art.
My feeling is that living in the provinces is bad news for artists. I think that going to NY is one solution. I am hoping that the community we are building here on A&P and our individual blogs could be another solution.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Lisa,
You said “Using one’s location as an excuse to not reach one’s full potential is a copout.”
That is fair to say.
I’m not making an excuse for not reaching my full potential. I’m not sure if I have reached my full potential or not. I do know that I’m only beginning to appreciate the other artists who live in Haarlem now. As for asking if I should be in NY, I’m only wondering if I am missing something by being here. There is nothing copout-like about that.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Rex,
Let me try again.
Haarlem, like all great art centers, had its own artistic identity. The art produced in Haarlem in its heyday is infinitely more impressive than the art produced in New York city in it’s heyday (long over, I think).
Nowadays, with the “Golden Age” ancient history, Haarlem’s great art identity is locked in the past. Some contemporary artists work in, and refer to, this tradition, as best they can. Other artists think at an international art level, with no meaningful reference to Haarlem or a Haarlem artistic identity.
The problem for the first group is that they are focused on the past, and I think that is limiting. It is good business when applied to still life (always marketable), but in my view, looking at the work, it leads to a fine craft type of painting, rather than a fine art type of painting. The past is accepted, it is not challenging. The game is developing technique, not developing expression.
The problem for the second group of artists is that they are focused on the international scene, but they live in this silly little Dutch city with no major contemporary art power.
My point about looking at the weeds in the graveyard (and I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a weed in comparison to Frans Hals) is that perhaps we can grown a new Haarlem artistic identity, one neither trapped in the past (which we can’t and don’t really want to go back to), nor focused on a globalized art aesthetic where we have no real competitive advantage compared to artists in the power centers like New York.
Does that make more sense?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Where do you live and work?
I live in Carnation, Washington State, USA. It’s a little town (about 1500 souls) about 35 miles east of Seattle, WA. It has no traffic lights. The big store in town is the grocery store; the other big store is the hardware store, which is actually a combination hardware / liquor / wine / lumber / feed store. I don’t actually live in the town, it’s too crowded (more than two people per acre). I live in the forest outside of town; the four mile drive over gravel roads to town takes me about 10 minutes.
Could your city or town become an important art center?
Sure. Why not? The Pilchuck Glass School is similarly located in a rural area, and it’s an important art center.
Or would you rather move to New York?
I’m going to assume that by ‘New York’ you mean New York City, as opposed to other places in New York State.
Here’s what I need: quiet, freedom from things that annoy me, an absolute lack of crowds, a community that I feel connected to, quiet, no crowds, easy access to the materials I need, quiet, clean air, no crowds, privacy.
Oh, did I mention that I need quiet? At my home, if I lay quietly in my bed at night (when the wildlife is quiet) I can hear my heart beating and blood rushing through my veins. My closest neighbor is over 1/4 mile away. The next closest neighbor is much farther away.
If you forced me to reside in NYC permanently, I’d be dead within a month, if not faster.
Different people thrive in different environments. Take your average city dweller, plop them into my forest, and they’d go nuts if the bears and cougars didn’t kill them first. On the other hand, one of the girls who grew up on a farm in the valley went off to college in Seattle this past September. Her main complaint? On the farm there was always something to do. In the city, there’s nothing to do, and she’s bored.
The idea that great things can only be done in the city is a fiction. Great things are most easily done in a place where the doer is happy and comfortable. For a fair number of people, that’s any place NOT in the city.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
jafabrit,
The key thing is that New York is going to offer a certain flavor, or set of flavors, of inspiration. But are these the best ones, necessarily? What’s wrong with the flavor of your little village in Ohio? Do you make the same work there that you did in the proximity of Manhattan?
If we look at the art of the past half century, with New York as a dominant center, it seems fair to say that New York is not a magical potion for artists. Whatever New York has to offer, it hasn’t been enough to make it into a great city for the contemporary arts. Prestigious galleries, fine. Great museums, yes. But if all the contemporary artists were dead, and of no inspiration as a community, would we really find their work on its own so compelling, compared to 15th c. Bruge, Renaissance Florence or Rome, Golden Age Haarlem, or 19th c. Paris? I think not. In comparison to these, New York is a major flop as an art center. If the work in New York were really as amazing as the work in other great art centers was in different art historical periods, I’d move there in a second. There would be no question. It would be a pure force of magnetic attraction.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Paul,
You hit on key reasons I live in Haarlem. No, it is not as idyllic as your town. But for a city, it has a tremendous amount of nature, close access to the North Sea and to large dune national parks. Everything is less than half an hour away on a bicycle. There is absolutely no need to drive a car. There is a quiet beauty here that is missing in Amsterdam (15 minutes away by train). I used to live in Amsterdam. Now, whenever I visit there, I’m trilled to get back to good old Haarlem.
I would never be happy living in the dense setting of New York CITY, despite the great beauty that is to be found there in some places.
But maybe being a little bit unhappy is a price to pay for inspiration of a major art center. Again, I don’t know the answer.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Hey, Paul, I couldn’t live somewhere like that. Too many people!
Where do you live?
West Highlands of Scotland. Four miles outside of a community of 200 people. 45 minutes to a grocery store or a hardware store.
Nearest art centres of any significance. Glasgow and Edinburgh. Four to five hours away by road. It’s not remote in, say, Australian terms, but it is remote for Europe.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Karl, you miss my point, which I put too briefly. I think that this is one of the key questions about understanding art and the motivation to do art. Worthy, therefore, of a thread of its own sometime.
You can look at somebody’s work and think “only craft”. My point was that you can’t know what the person doing the work thinks, or what drives them. To them it may be art. They may be having an artistic experience. They may be making refinements that interest them. They may be expanding their vision.
How many Cantatas would Bach have to have written before it became “only” craft? How many ‘variations on a theme’?
I’m saying that I can’t look at your work and know whether it is art or craft. I can react to it. I can find it interesting or not. I can take pleasure in it or not. It can lead me onto new thoughts or not. But I have no idea what it means to you, or, more importantly, what experience you had in the making of it.
At most I can say that my experience of it contains an artistic experience, or not. It is just ‘it’. The producer, I wouldn’t want to label.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
you asked “The key thing is that New York is going to offer a certain flavor, or set of flavors, of inspiration. But are these the best ones, necessarily? What’s wrong with the flavor of your little village in Ohio? Do you make the same work there that you did in the proximity of Manhattan?”
I don’t think the flavours of New York are the best, just different. New York was a feast for the senses just as visiting my homeland (Newcastle upon Tyne) was/is. The village offers something different, not better, not worse. I live here so I am part of it and I contribute to the flavour of the village artwise and that in itself feeds into my inspiration. I am not sure New York would be a magical potion for me inspiration wise (I can be inspired by many things in many places), but it seems to be where the major galleries with collectors are. How many people serious about collecting bother with a little gallery in yellow springs ohio eh! Not complaining, just that is the reality in the middle of ohio.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Karl,
Yes. That makes more sense. Thanks.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
jafabrit,
It seems to me that people serious about collecting are exactly the people who would be interested in a little gallery in ohio — if there were something special there to collect. At least, the collectors should be. It might be a lack of information.
Colin,
I think the artists I am referring to (and their dealers) would be shocked to hear their work described as “craft” rather than “art.” I think it would be a healthy shock. I’ve been following the art in question for awhile. General philosophical considerations aside, I feel qualified to make the judgment I do.
Rex,
Happy to have clarified.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Colin-
Amazing – someone who likes isolation even more than I. Rex might try to say he’s in a thinly populated area up there on Whidbey, but I assure you there’s hardly room to swing a cat. And artists on Whidbey Island? You can throw a stone and hit ten in any direction.
But you haven’t answered the real ‘isolation’ question – how close is your nearest neighbor? Can you hear his chainsaw? Can you smell the smoke when he lights a fire?
Karl-
So, according to your definition, when Ed Weston made “Pepper #1”, that was art. And the one that everyone remembers, “Pepper #30”, that’s not art, it’s craft?
November 13th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Paul: Neighbours? Can’t see any. There are two farms and two other houses (including ours) in the valley. The valley is a dead end, so no passing traffic. No chainsaws, because not much in the way of trees to use them on, but we don’t hear the tractors or other farm machinery. In this climate, the fire is never not lit, but no, we don’t get the smoke (actually I think we are the only wood burner around here. Two houses on oil and one on windmills).
Before here it was Sydney, and before that it was London. I love cities to visit, but to live in……..done that, and would prefer not to do it again.
I don’t think you should be encouraging people to throw stones at artists.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Paul,
I’m not familiar with the art in question, Pepper #1 or #30.
If I were to try to define craft, I would say it is where the maker makes something that requires skill, but there is little expressive risk involved. The outcome is assured, given the technical ability. It’s craft when the artist stops trying to say something new, something that may well fail.
Nothing wrong with craft of course. And all art has a craft element. An artist does not try to vary every aspect of every work.
P.S., bedtime here in the cultural graveyard.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
It’s craft when the artist stops trying to say something new, something that may well fail.
Hmm, equating art with a) saying, b) newness and c) risk, all seem contentious to me, but midnight is midnight. Definitely a thread for another day.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
There seem to be various different factors being interspersed (and confused) in this discussion, and I think they might need to be separated out from each other to really evaluate them:
1.) The effect of location on one’s access to seeing serious art, both contemporary and past
2.) The effect of location on one’s access to a stimulating peer group, for feedback, discussion, and comraderie
3.) The effect of location on one’s happiness, inspiration and motivation
4.) The effect of location on one’s ability to find time to do one’s work (including cost of living and access to income sources)
5.) The effect of location on getting exposure, including getting one’s work into galleries and museums, reviewed by art publications, and seen by collectors.
These are not exclusive of each other, there is probably overlap, but they are separate issues. The place that one is most likely to do their best work is not necessarily the place that one is most likely to make career advances, though it might be.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
bedtime here in the cultural graveyard
Be careful of ghosts :)
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Okay David, you have added clarity. Now, with respect to Haarlem:
1) Good to great, depending on your tastes
2) Pretty good, although one wonders what’s going on in NYC
3) Very good
4) Pretty good. Romania would be cheaper.
5) Not so great.
You have classified, but you have left out the key component of creating or finding a geographical location that combines all of these. This is what is probably characteristic of a great art center.
It seems that #5 is the one to work on.
Now I’m really going to go to bed.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
You have classified, but you have left out the key component of creating or finding a geographical location that combines all of these.
Karl, I wasn’t proposing a solution, just trying to clarify the discussion. I don’t know the answer, and I suspect that the answer is different for everyone. One person’s great art center might be another person’s worst nightmare.
But I don’t wish nightmares for you. Sleep well.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
It is hard to believe we are scattered all over the world, in very diverse climates, under various working circumstances, practicing different disciplines of art: yet because of a general love of art, and our desire to share with others, this blog is growing into a surprisingly rich pot of culture. 34 comments (at this point),takes time to get through, I have nothing to add, but I sure love reading through it.
Great list David!
November 13th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Art vs. craft. The distinction was called into question for me by the exhibition of quilts from Gee’s Bend at the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco. Nothing fits the definition of “craft” more readily than a utilitarian object made out of necessity by women in the most desperate poverty. And yet, the objects were displayed in a museum as art. What makes them art? They certainly were pushing the boundaries of their medium – which according to Karl’s definition makes them art. What if they weren’t quilts but paintings? As part of the exhibit, there was a display of etchings make in collaboration with the quilt makers, using their imagery.
In my own work, I’m not pushing any formal limits, just trying to be the best painter I can. Does that make me a craftsperson rather than an artist?
November 13th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Yep Kris – quilts are art and paintings are craft. We’ve already nailed that one down:
http://www.artandperception.com/2006/10/artists-talking.html
November 14th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Paul,
Compared to San Francisco or LA, Whibey is quaint and rustic. I’m a native Californian, so I’m still am amused by the “Loganberry capital of the world!” stuff and Washingtontonians proudly proclaiming, “We grow more tulips here than in Holland!”
In one little spot north of Sacramento, they grow more rice than Japan, and near there is one ranch that produces more beef than the state of Nevada. I’m used to a state that has the economy of a large European nation.
Loganberries. What the heck are loganberries?
Fact is though, I usually live in much wilder places than this. But the housing market here is healthy. A good place to buy old houses, fix ’em and and sell ’em.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:41 am
David: I like your list. Clearly you are an argument disassembler after my own heart.
My personal answers are:
1 – doesn’t matter. I can travel
2 – doesn’t matter
3 – matters a lot
4 – critical
5 – would only matter if I thought that I was going to make a living this way, and anyway is weakened by the internet. See Rex’s post on selling.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Clearly you are an argument disassembler after my own heart.
Yes, an argument deconstructionist :)
I had to keep scrolling up from your answers to see my questions :) I think I agree with you overall. #s 1 & 2 can be accomplished by travel and various kinds of correspondence, though #2 can be accelerated by spending some time in a city (arts center) or a good school program.
#3 (happiness) is vital, but is going to be drastically different for each person. For myself, if I won the lottery I’d probably move to a rural area just outside San Francisco (which is not an arts center, but a great city), and travel a lot. But since cost of living and income sources are a consideration I’m in L.A. at present (not that cheap, but I have a good job).
At the moment I’m making some sacrifices on #4 (cost of living, time to work) to move forward #5, getting exposure and making connections. I still manage to get a lot of work done, but it’s at the expense of sleep and similar luxuries :)
November 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I understand many ople have been associated with their location and their art or literature.
I don’t think it matters where you live on one hand.
I think cities are more tolerant than small towns. In a city one can be able to dress and love who they like without answering to superficial judgements as much as small towns. Gays and women fare much better in cities than rural areas. Soo…in that way not just art might benefit, but all people benewfit from being allowed to be who they are inside.
Isn’t art making a lot about exploring personally who we are, what we believe, what we love and feel?
What is the purpose of our existence and life?
We can explore those ideas and the human condition anywhere in the world, no?
It hink more critical than “where” we live, is who we know…our support system in any profession is usually more important. Having friends who accept your life as an artist, which means you may not have the same finaicial prioroties as others, you may make a living but you spend money on supllies. One has to have a very patient and supportive spouse or lover to live like that.
Plus, amny adults measure their lives by how many toys they have, posh dinners, eleborate designer clothes…I think artists have their own flair and style and can find something out of nothing…but again it’s not a lifestyle for everyone and narrows down those expensive dinner parties and going out for fancy dinners, holidays and toys.
Well just some ideas…
November 14th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I am lucky with a place bordering on the Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan and a pied-a terre with my husband in Manhattan
November 14th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Birgit,
What kind of art do you do then?
November 14th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Karl, why are you picking on your mother?
November 17th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Demosthenes would put pebbles in his mouth and practice giving a speech. (Richard Burton, as a boy, would practice the same, standing ashore before the bluster of the sea). They were already exceptional and they continued to work at being better.
Better town. Better community. Better studio. Better material. Better…
Better work?