breakthrough art

I’ve written about plateauing as an artist before, but it’s frightening to be going through it, yet again. I’m up half the night working with little to show for the hours put in. While on one hand my work has become comfortable, on the other hand the excitement to start another painting just isn’t there anymore. I’m procrastinating away the time as I stress out over not starting a new painting. While I’m excited about the actual imagery, I feel as if I’ve hit a wall about how to execute it. The work has become too easy. Not exactly a terrible problem to have, but if I’m not excited about my art, the work reflects it. Recently an artist friend told me how solid my work appeared to her. She didn’t realize how that comment triggered off something in my head. She meant it as a compliment, but struck something deeper.

Last week I went to the galleries in Chelsea looking for inspiration. It’s the one place I can regenerate and plug into when I’ve come to a dead end. It’s good to see through other artists eyes. I use the galleries like a library. It’s a form of research I do to find some path that might open a door into a new direction. Even if I don’t see something exciting, since it’s all so hit or miss, I’m still able to absorb an energy that fuels hours of work later. The art I found myself gravitating to this time was large, visceral paintings with a spontaneous explosive quality about them…work that felt fresh and honest without being self-conscious. It’s art that doesn’t take itself so seriously and reaches for a childlike abandonment.

On some level I knew this is exactly what’s missing in my own work. While it’s important to have good skills, innovation needs to distinguish itself in the way the art is executed. After looking at work in gallery after gallery, I’ve come to the conclusion if a painting doesn’t work, then collage over it, throw paint at it, use your hands, your feet on it...anything that pushes the art further.

I must admit I came back to my studio no longer just a painter. The canvas that made me sick with a stress cold last week, suddenly has taken on a new feel. I just collaged over what wasn’t working, used a pallet knife and finger painted into it. I call it art play now, which gives the work a whole different set of expectations.   

who or what determines art trends

When I was an art student, abstract art was just coming into its own. Realism had its run with the impressionists and then came the abstract expressionists with their specific kind of emotional and visual imagery. In my art classes I spent much of my time learning how to push paint around, using sand and other foreign materials mixed with the paint in order to discover a more visceral surface texture. Just as I was getting the hang of this abstraction, expressionism was in with all its bloody protest imagery. It was the 1980’s when the photorealists with their refined illustrative skills took over the galleries. Chuck Close and Audrey Flack were two of the stars of this movement.

The reason I mention any of this is because I feel we have just come through a period of art that did not serve the artist well. Creativity suffers at the hands of businessmen, who in the last two decades determined what was marketable and what was not. Art is, after all, a business and the artist a pawn who is bought and sold in the market place. Large corporations dictated what had value and warehoused the work they collected. It was as if they were collecting the artist and didn’t much care about the art. Large amounts of money was invested with the art world scrambling to be part of it. To me this felt like the death of art. It was as if the more an artist could shock the sensibilities of the public, the more well known the work became.

This leads me to the question “who is determining what is art?” I was watching a show on the Ovation channel about how six art graduates were chosen to live and work in New York City as cameras followed their progress. What was interesting about this was how there were very few painters who applied for this opportunity. When asked why this should be, the answer was simple, the universities are not turning out painters these days. It seems the colleges are pushing digital photography, video and installation art. So it appears it’s the educational system, the higher institutes of learning, who are now dictating the direction of the art world.

While fewer art students are studying painting, it seems to me many of the galleries in Chelsea are still showing and selling works on canvas. The way I see it, drawing and painting is a personal and spiritual art form that needs to keep reinventing itself to remain fresh but is not going anywhere soon. So as long as the human spirit has the need to leave its mark, I feel confident painting will survive. 

the price of juried exhibits

I’m annoyed at how the price of juried exhibits has escalated to the point where artists are actually being excluded because they can't afford them. Something about this just feels wrong. The purpose of having these juried shows, I thought, was to give emerging artists a place to exhibit. It’s how artists become seasoned. It’s the way they meet other artists, the way they compare their work to other artists and the way they build a resume. This is an age-old system all artists have to go through, but I am increasingly concerned about the motives of the promoters of these exhibitions.

Years ago when I was a member of the Philadelphia Artist Equity they had taken a no fee stand on juried exhibits. It was a large and important organization which had a big influence in the art community…strength in numbers. It actually stopped the fees because artists stood together and boycotted shows with a pricetag. 

There’s a sense of helplessness about entering these exhibits. The artist population is somewhat at the mercy of the establishment. Many of the galleries that offer juried exhibitions do it to make their rent. I know what I’m talking about, I was once a member of a co-op gallery in New York and was unwittingly part of this process. Sadly, there’s something that feels desperate about it.

What’s the answer? I propose that a gallery or organization find another way to make the funds to run one of these shows. Applying for grants is one way of bringing in money, or having a fundraiser, or charging a membership that gives a free entry to their juried exhibition... museums offer this, or, at the least, just charge artists whose work is accepted into the show.

Do we not exhibit our work because there’s a fee, or do we gulp down our pride and do it anyway? I think we have an obligation to seek out and support the no fee shows. They’re out there. As artists we need to show a stronger, organized presence.

the obligation between gallery and artist

I find it inconceivable, with all the galleries that have sprung up in Chelsea, that the gallery owners aren’t more open to meeting with artists. In fact, in many of the galleries, the common response is, “We’re not looking for artists at this time.” Well excuse me, I’m confused. I thought the galleries main reason for staying in business is to sell art. I know too many accomplished artists, who after many hard years of perfecting their craft and sacrificing their personal lives, are still unrepresented by a gallery. Something feels odd about this. Art galleries sell art, artists make art, there should be a better communication between the two…some kind of dialogue, at least.

In the early days of my painting career, the OK Harris Gallery and Nancy Hoffman Gallery, both at the time in Soho, were two of the most accessible places for artists to approach. Nancy Hoffman had days she would look at portfolios and Ivan Karp was always available to artists off the street. While he was frank and to the point, his passion for the artist and their work was always apparent. I valued the time he gave me every time he said, “No thanks.” I grew from the experience. Perhaps this is what they call “paying your dues".

It saddens me to see so many wonderful artists working in the shadow of the art world without representation. I realize there are degrees of vision and talent and not every artist who walks through the doors of a gallery has the same esthetics as that gallery, but communication can give an artist the kind of hope that might make the difference in their future work.

So it seems to me, without the artist there would be no need for the gallery. I would just like a better dialogue between the two…I’m just saying.

the untapped talents of older women artists

From the start of my career I understood the art scene was mostly dominated by male artists. In fact, all through history I could count on one hand how many women actually came to any fame from their art…never mind making a living from it. And yet, I find it hard to believe the women weren’t out there working their hearts out, sacrificing their quality of life just for the chance to make art. Even today the galleries are still dominated by male artists and I’m confused to understand why.

This brings me to an article I read recently about how there’s this growing population of older female artists who have worked their entire lives with little recognition. This is truly an untapped treasure of work that needs to be discovered. There’s an honesty in work that struggles through adversity and still finds its own power without compromise. It’s art that has something to say. While there are many women’s art exhibits today, there’s still a sense of exclusion about them. I don’t like my work to be labeled as female. I would like to think when someone looks at my work they are excited about what they see, not the fact that I’m a woman. I don’t want my work to have a gender.

While there might be more women in the galleries today than in the past, the galleries are still dominated by men. It seems that hasn’t changed much. So I want to send out a challenge to those who have opportunities for artists not to forget the rich and talented population of older women artists. They have years of skill and insight developed in the shadows of an art world that can gain from their point of view. There are more galleries in New York today and I hope they have become sensitive to the depth of talent still waiting to be discovered.