[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest              Monday, 25 October 1999      Volume 09 : Number 755

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:48:43 +0900
Subject: [Baren 6364] Re: coherence 

Jim wrote:
> In your case, Dave, the work itself will have a natural coherence because
> of your intentions.  

A number of you have responded to this thread on a 'cohesive' body of
work, offering me encouragement, etc.  But actually, I wasn't speaking
of _myself_ when I brought up the point; I myself have no problem at all
with this - my work is very well focussed ... my 'job' is clear - to try
and get as good as I possibly can at making these things.

I was thinking of _you_ (all)!


> That sort of pressure could paralyze you.
> Simply enjoy the making, trust your instincts and you will find your way.

Well, yes ... and no.  Of course the 'enjoy' part makes very good sense,
but I do believe that without conscious consideration of what you are
doing this for and what you intend to 'say', then you will end up in the
end with a scattered pile of random pieces of coloured paper.  

When I talked about a 'cohesive message' I didn't mean the 'medium' or
the technique.  Somebody mentioned Picasso, and whichever medium or
technique he worked in - etching, woodcut, etc. etc. - the result still
shouted "Look, _I_ Picasso, made this!"

It's not the theme.  Picasso again ... Women, war, guitars ...

It's not the 'style'.  Ditto ...

So just where does this coherence come from?  In the case of these
masters that we use as examples - Picasso ... Michaelangelo - it's easy
to see.  But for the rest of us ... ??

But I guess that's what separates them from us, isn't it.

***

Kim added:
> The minute you try to "give the market what it wants", or what you 
> THINK it wants, you're doomed to mediocrity.

I'm not so sure about this ...  The 'market', in one sense, is society.
If the market does not have any interest in what you are doing - if
nobody _buys_ your work - then it could be argued that what you are
doing has no relevance to society.  You are a kind of welfare case -
taking from the world but not giving in return.

You may, (I don't mean _you_ Kim, I mean 'you' in general) ...  You may
if you like, sit in an attic somewhere and blaze your own path through
the art sky - "The public be damned, I'm going to make _my_ art!". 
(While we're name dropping, maybe Van Gogh would be a good example
here?)  In the case of the one in a million like him, this can be said
to have 'worked' - yes he _did_ blaze a path, one that only much later
the rest of us were able to understand. He did indeed 'contribute' to
society.

But what about the zillion other mortals whose work didn't 'click' with
the market at some point?  What can one say about _their_ lives?  I
think it's pretty clear - a life spent in pointless frustration is a
life wasted.

Am I out of line here by suggesting that part of the meaning of our
lives thus has to come from 'outside' - from society at large?  When I
was starting my long poets' series, I did so knowing full well that I
was taking a gamble - if nobody 'bit' and started to collect my work,
then I would have to face the fact that what I was doing had no value to
society.  I would have to choose between two unpalatable options - (1)
quit and do something useful, or (2) head for the 'starving attic' and
cut/print in hungry and frustrated isolation ...  But it turned out that
people found meaning in my work, and were willing to collect it.

So although I don't think of myself as being one who will 'give the
market what it wants', I did very much want the market to want what I
had to give ...  The fact that it did (and does) want my prints is due in
great part I think, to the fact that I have thought through _very clearly_
just what it is that I am trying to do, and am trying to say.


> Dave, don't worry about whether or not a retrospect of your work will 
> yield any cohesiveness.  The fact that you are constantly working at 
> making art, is enough.  The rest will take care of itself. 

As I mentioned above, I'm not worried.  But I do believe that _nothing_
will 'take care of itself'.  I am ... therefore I think!

Dave

P.S. (again ...).  Those of you with access to Sky TV here in Japan can 
catch a 30 minute documentary on my work this week.  It features the
new Surimono Albums, and will be broadcast on their documentary 
channel 5 or 6 times during the week, the first airing being on 
Monday morning at ten ...


------------------------------

From: Gayle Wohlken <blueman@pantek.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:06:06 -0400
Subject: [Baren 6365] Re: Baren Digest V9 #754 

Ruth Leaf said:
>  I think the motivation was the high you get when you
> complete something and it's what you meant. 

I think you've hit on something extremely important here,
Ruth. Why do we do art?.   For me,  it a need to express
something I  can't contain?  It's such an urge that it
can't even be stopped unless I  want to make myself sick. 
In many ways it is like a diary, a personal look at what
we're experiencing.  In fact, spriritually, it
 is its own reward.   I wouldn't want to have to make a living 
 doing art, unless it was teaching it.  I would be such a
nervous wreck wondering  if I could buy the next sack of
flour, or pay the rent.  Then I would be stopped
 completely.  But that is me.  There are people with so
much more gumption,
 (like Maria, Dave, and Graham and Andrea--I could go on
and on).  They succeed because they have some quality of
sharing that extends out to the world.
 There's a magic that happens when you love your subject
and you also love the world of other people enough to
believe you can share your vision with them.  They will
pick up on that.  I believe if you think "sales" you are
shortchanging those who will love your work.  

By the way, thank you everyone for your kindness regarding
the loss of my  beautiful mother.  She was my goddess, you
know.  

Gayle

------------------------------

From: "Jean Eger" <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:21:42 +0900
Subject: [Baren 6367]

While we are on the subject of selling out...It is not relevant after one
graduates from college and needs to make a living.  The colleges try to
protect the distinction between fine art and commercial art (design) because
they have a stake in it -- their jobs.  There are twice as many college jobs
because there are two art departments.  So what is the distinction: fine art
is about ideas and personal expression.  Commercial art is about selling
things, or work for hire. It's even written into the copyright law.  Fine
art prints are in editions under 200.  Over 200 and it is considered
commercial art.  I should be so lucky as to sell more than 200 copies of a
print!

Making things puposefully for sale, while studying fine art, is frowned on.
Well that could make one a little crazy if one needed the money and didn't
understand why grown people making more than $50 an hour to teach at the
university were saying that money is not important and you're not supposed
to do it to make money on the art you make while at the university.  That is
what they told me about my web site, that I made for a conceptual art class
in 1995.  If they re-thought it and conceptualized it, they might be able to
explain it better to their poverty-stricken students.  It might even be a
good subject for a thesis or dissertation and could apply to marginalized
artists who are not white males.  No doubt bell hooks and Cornell West have
already written about that in books that I have not gotten around to reading
yet.

I have heard this stuff off and on all my life.  It really rubs me the wrong
way, as a late blooming feminist, who was early-on imbued with feminine
fear-of-sucess and the belief that my work was not worth very much in terms
of money.  Even now, I charge rock-bottom prices for my prints, which
doesn't make me popular with some of the rest of the California printmakers
who put high prices on their work because they have more self-confidence and
self-esteem and are better known.   And a lot of them are better artists
than me, and also have a more mature and consistent style.  I am delighted
to participate in the print exchanges, because I feel that I am actually
getting paid (in barter) to make a print edition.

I guess if I needed to make money on my art, I would go back to painting
oils and watercolors.  I would paint pretty pictures of the stores downtown
and sell them to the owners.  And I wouldn't apologize for it, either.

By the way, did you know that an Andy Warhol screen print on CANVAS is
considered a painting?  (And as such, commands a much higher price.)

Thank you Ruth, for your succinct explanation.

Jean Eger

------------------------------

From: TrainLarge@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:03:09 EDT
Subject: [Baren 6368] Re: Baren Digest V9 #754 

This discussion of art for art's sake versus art for food has been a timely, 
mindful topic for me to follow in my introduction to Baren. I have just 
subscribed to the list because I want to spend more of my time printmaking 
than working for a wage. Years of earning better than average wages in the 
aerospace industry have left me with lots of stuff, little accomplishment nad 
often frenzied nerves. I wish to contribute something to my community that 
runs counter to the pace of efficient jet engines, conveys more communication 
than satellites thrown into space for cell phones and makes a statement about 
how connected we need to be to each other. But I am also a parent who wishes 
to provide for my daughter an opportunity to explore music lessons, art 
workshops and books for homeschooling. Thus the dilemma.

------------------------------

From: Jack Reisland <reislandj001@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:51:34 -1000
Subject: [Baren 6369] Re: Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:20:37 -0700 

Jean Eger wrote:

> The colleges try to
> protect the distinction between fine art and commercial art (design) because
> they have a stake in it -- their jobs.  There are twice as many college jobs
> because there are two art departments.  So what is the distinction: fine art
> is about ideas and personal expression.  Commercial art is about selling
> things, or work for hire.

Well put, but what happens to a "Fine Artist" when he becomes popular (i.e.,
commercially successful)? Is he still a "Fine Artist"? What artist's
representative will tell him to "make whatever you feel, and we'll figure out
how to sell it"? The gallery owners, the very people that are trying to
persuade their public that there is a distinction between fine and commercial
art, are the people that put the most pressure on an artist to produce saleable
art. The "Fine Art" distinction is a myth, held in place by art dealers and
critics to assure their own livelihood. What would happen to their jobs, and
their self important positions in society, if people no longer needed to be
told what was "good" or "bad", what was "serious" and what was "commercial",
and, most importantly, what was "worth" collecting? It is unfortunate that so
many artists, through University schooling, have fallen for the myth, have gone
on to become agents for the system that usually doesn't even work in their
favor. Only a very few will be selected by the galleries and critics to be
groomed and advertised to be "successful" artists, and it often doesn't really
have that much to do with talent or skill, but with personalities,
eccentricity, and showmanship (and yes Jean, being male).
  Please forgive me if I sound too cynical, but I have spent too many years
working with "high end" art gallery owners, and saw how the art business works
from the gallery side, instead of the artist's side. Guess who had all the
power? If an artist did not conform to the owner's expectations, in content,
quantity and behavior, their time in the limelight was very limited. The
gallery owner always had plenty of other artists waiting to be "discovered".

Jack

------------------------------

From: John Ryrie <j.ryrie@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:12:46 +1000
Subject: [Baren 6371] Re: coherence 

Dave 
 an artist has his or her experience of the world, their interests, beliefs,
emotions etc....   which make up that person's personality.  
The art work produced comes out of that artist's experience  and is an attempt
by that artist to make concrete their experience of the world.  
 What is produced is not made by conscious choice. It is  created from a need
to communicate. 
 An artists work will have cohesion because it all comes from one source.  This
is true of Picasso, Miles Davis, Edith Piaff, Hiroshige, Charles Dickens or any
other artist. 
John

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@home.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:43:11 -0700
Subject: [Baren 6372] Re: Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:20:37 -0700 

Jack wrote....
>  Please forgive me if I sound too cynical, but I have spent too many years
>working with "high end" art gallery owners, and saw how the art business works
>from the gallery side, instead of the artist's side. Guess who had all the
>power? If an artist did not conform to the owner's expectations, in content,
>quantity and behavior, their time in the limelight was very limited. The
>gallery owner always had plenty of other artists waiting to be "discovered".
>

Oh man is this right on the money.
A recent experience...... A local high profile gallery, in which I had a
show last year, was going to have an show while the exhibition at the
Victoria Art Gallery was in place.  Last year we talked about having a show
in his gallery to coincided with the exhibition which was up for 2 1/2
months.  I waited until the show was over and then dropped in to see him to
ask him why.  I was told "so busy" and didn't  remember to book me.   I
politely suggested to him that that is an excuse not a reason.   I then
exagerated the number of sale we had by doubling the figure.  His eyes
popped.......
Now he want to have a show in March......  I told him I would consider
this......let him know if I can remember.    Jerk......

Lots of good blah blah blah about direction to achieve recognition and
making money.

I think I have commented on this before and will throw it up against the
wall again.
Some of it may stick and be useful to some members.

Marnie and I have done it all ourselves.  We organize our shows for 23
years. This has either been in our home and then when I graduated to a real
studio as appose to a room in the house and/or basement. We have rented
space at Community Centres and or other municipal edifices that were
suitable.  Once we even rented a large suite in an hotel. That impressed
the hell out of them....

What to do and what not to do.......That is a toughie....

Be honest with yourself and do that which you enjoy doing "for yourself".
If it happens to be PP so be it. If you enjoy doing at the moment,
fine......  When you've done enough of these you will get bored and move on
to another plateau of imagery.  If your work is done with the intent of
meeting a niche in the 'sofa art market' them you will make money ......on
the short term......

An artist should always strive to be original .... do something that has
never be done before.  This is the most difficult objective you will ever
face.  All the great artists in history have done exactly that.

It is important to make a statement with your work.  That statement could
be as mundane as a pretty sunset, fall colours or, well you got the idea.
There are tons of subject to be painted and as long as you make a statement
and get your audience to ask a question.   An image is usually best when it
begs a question.

Risk taking is important. Over the years the pieces that sustain there
interest with me were images with which I took risks.....be it colour,
composition, technique.  Oh, and not all three are necessary.

Grandchildren just came in....

CYA

Graham

------------------------------

From: "Bea Gold" <bnj50@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:56:46 -0700
Subject: [Baren 6374] 

The discussion is very timely for me, since my kids think
it's time I made a name for myself so the work they have
will be worth something when I kick it! - When I was in
art school more than 50 years ago, the concept of not
selling out was high on the list of proper behavior and we
lived by "art for art's sake". My friends all had jobs to
pay for their art habit.  I painted buttons, painted on
gloves, painted fingernails on manikin hands, did paste up
for the long defunct Liberty Magazine, was an apprentice
to a jewelry model maker. I did velox prints for an ad
company and felt I did not sell out! Later went to
college, got graduate degrees and had 9 teaching
credentials.  I married, had 4 kids and I have  spent a
lifetime painting or doing woodcuts of friends and family
- loving each one and feeling like I was talking to people
I was working on - "move over a bit - pick your hand up -
I don't like the color of your jacket"  Worked from memory
and was in comunion with  my subjects - they just didn't
know it.  I painted  when my kids napped, painted when
everyone went to sleep,  had adrenaline rushes in the
middle of the night and loved the work.  never interested
in selling art for fear it would drive me to do what I
didn't want to do - hands to make enough to eat.

------------------------------

From: John Ryrie <j.ryrie@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:42:27 +1000
Subject: [Baren 6375] anounsment 

O' god Graham agrees with me, have I said something wrong? 
 
Just to add to the last email It is possible for an artist to do  work that
would be in sink with His/her body of work just as it is possible to imitate
anothers voice or forge anothers signature.

Bea 
I was just struck by what you said about going to art school over 50 years ago
and I thought that it would be a good opportunity to plug one of my teachers.  
The first printmaking corse in Australia was started in 1958 at RMIT School in
Melbourne by Tate Adams an Irish bourn wood engraver .   
He also ran the first print gallery in Australia. The Crossly street Gallery
which  also housed an etching press where he encouraged many of Australian most
important artists to take up printmaking.  Such as Fred Williams, John Brack,
Gorge Balldeson, Jan Senbergs.  Artists who have pioneard the way for
printmaking in Australia.
Through Croslie Gallery Tate introduced to Melbourne  the work of contemporary
Japanese artists most notably munakata Shako he got to known the 60's.  Thanks
to Tate the national gallery of Victoria has along with other works  The set of
12  woodcuts ten great disciples of shkya and two boddiesatvas which more than
any other works have inspired me.  
With George Balldeson Tate started the Lyrebird Press producing limited edition
books.  I had the good fortune to go to  Townsvill in Queensland last year to
work with Tate, Who has  reestablished the press there and at the age of 74 is
as productive as ever.
It's a long address and I'd probably get it wrong so go to Josephine's page and
under book arts go to Lyrebird press.  
P.S. my wed site is almost ready at least it should be by the  time the rest of
the world wakes up.  it all comes from a CD-Rom tat I got made last year so
there isn't any recent work on it I will update it as soon as I get some new
images scand .  You can fined the site at. 
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Den/6809/
There is a sorter version of this address. But that don't seem to be working
yet I'll let you know.

John

------------------------------

From: "Philip Smith" <smithart@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:10:09 -0700
Subject: [none]

After all of the heavy discussion I thought someone might like to look 
at some"pretty 
pictures",.....at....www.artline.com/galleries/annex/annex.html     I 
know this little gallery, I used to live in Santa Rosa,...very nice 
folks,..Gala the director is charming,..but check out these '30's 
woodcuts,.....interesting stuff I think.              Philip

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V9 #755
***************************