John Smith
Thoughts From My Studio ART FASHIONS AND FADS Last month we visited some questions that often arise in conversations about art and artists. Those were What is an Artist and how can we define such a thing? Who can be considered a Professional Artist? And thirdly, art being fraught with problems and ambiguity Why bother to pursue a career in Art? For most it is not a very lucrative career and is certainly not a career for sissies. It seems that the June article touched some nerves and if the responses were anything to go by it certainly set a whole lot of people thinking. That of course is what these articles are all about. Making people think! This current ‘Thoughts’ article to some may seem equally as provocative? Provocation is not the intent though. These questions are there in art conversations and discussions, and ignoring them certainly does not solve them or make them go away. We really need to hold them up and have a good look at them and try and make some sense of them, hoping that this will help to improve the quality of our thinking, our perception of what we are doing, and generally the quality of our work as well as the public understanding of it. Not only artists read ‘Thoughts from my Studio’ but all sorts of people. Some are from the Arts Industry/ Community and others are just interested in the subject of art and the people who make and sell it. I have attempted here to cater to some degree for all of those readers. Since I started painting seriously almost 40 years ago, I have lived through a number of ‘movements’ or ‘fashions’ in art. I have also met and known many of the people who have used those fashions to gain fame (Or perhaps it could be better described as infamy?) and in some cases fortune. In almost all cases those who followed the fashion trends and enjoyed enormous exposure, had adoring fans as well as the benefits of being in the limelight, usually also had very short careers. Here today and literally gone tomorrow. Whether the fashion is of Parrots or Tropical fish, endless renditions of District Six, naïve little rural scenes of the Free State with poplar trees and accompanying windmills, or village squares with children playing with kites ‘al la Pieter Breughel’ but without the integrity. They all disappear in a matter of a few years, never to be heard of again and eventually much of that work appears once again but now in second-hand shops, keeping company with old mattresses, extinct gramophones, broken bicycles and hat stands. All suitably fly spotted. Many of the artists who take that route, as well as some of those who emulate anyone who appears to have ‘hit the jackpot’, are undoubtedly talented. Why then do they take this route to early oblivion? Could it be greed? Why would someone with talent ‘copy’ someone else rather than plot his or her own course or do their own thinking? Is it that those artists (and there are many) cannot think for themselves or do they, although well endowed with graphic ability, lack ‘creative vision?’ It could also be nothing more than laziness? The thing that comes immediately to mind is the spate of N’guni cows which have appeared after Leigh Voigt introduced them fairly recently. There have been many people in South Africa who have painted cattle. Allerley Glossop (Early 1900’s) is one, Errol Boyley (Mainly 70’s and 80’s) often had cattle in his paintings and so too Chris Tugwell (‘70’s till the present). Adriaan Boshoff was a master of ‘veld cattle’, (1980’s till the early 2000’s) and we mustn’t forget W.H Coertse, but in all the years I never saw one N’guni cow painted. Then Leigh Voigt goes to the trouble of using her loaf and researching and coming up with something unique. Within weeks N’guni cow painters, every Tom, Dick and Mary (Harry too) of them emerge from every corner of the country. It is hard to believe that all these bovine artists were doing this all along before catching a free ride on Leigh Voigt's creative vision and publicity. Granted, N’guni cows, or any other kind of cow, or for that matter any other kind of subject matter does not belong to one person, and ideas and perceptions cannot be copyrighted or we’d have a whole lot of painters in the dock. It is almost vulgar though how quickly ideas of work produced by ‘creative’ artists are mimicked by obviously less or non creative artists who claim it as their own? Is stealing so endemic in this country, or in the world at large now, that original thoughts and ideas are not considered as personal property but are there to be raped and pillaged by all? I do not believe for one moment that no-one should ever again paint an N’Guni cow, but so hot on Ms.Voigt’s heels and so very much like hers too? Surely artists wanting to use this subject would go and do some sourcing and research of their own and come up with a new perception of the subject making it unique to them. N’Guni cows have now become a fashion fad and to me at any rate have made the subject somewhat tacky, no matter how slickly they are presented. Painting Cosmos is almost taboo today and few self respecting artists will touch the subject, and this is sad because even though they are not indigenous to South Africa they are quite beautiful and abundant and should still be painted, but in original and unique ways. Other subjects that have been ruined by avarice are things like scenes of District Six in old Cape Town, Fishing boats, Seine fishermen and Cape Cottages. Often by these artists working from postcards, travel magazines and now commonly ‘ripped’ from the internet, and so also disregarding the copyright act without a glance over their shoulder. It really is a pity because if artists would only go to those places and study what those places look and feel like, and interpret them in their own way they could be a source of delight and interest for years to come. One cannot exclude the subject of Wildlife painting here either. The eternal ‘big five’ that would benefit greatly from having a breath of fresh air breathed into it. As mentioned above there is much exploitation of ideas and formula painting, making some of it quite banal. There are artists reinventing the subject all the time and coming up with wonderful fresh ideas, but sadly they are a very small minority. Surely there are new ways of presenting these subjects and hosts of other animals to consider? Is it that it is more lucrative and easier to pander to the lowest common denominator, or is it a lack of creative thought? Again, Fashions and Fads? We also need to consider very briefly those artists who start out with a good idea or ideas and then stop thinking. (Some forever) The good thought or thoughts become a formula, and they paint to that formula for the rest of their lives. They do not copy others but in essence copy themselves. Is that any better? Maybe we are all guilty of that to a degree? Should we not be aware of this and guard against it? Perhaps the abundance and access to technology is the problem or part of it. One would assume that artists would make sure that their paintings and sculptures were the product of their own experiences, but as I indicated, many works are merely rehashes of a single experience, manipulated in a variety of ways that are found to be POPULAR with the masses. It actually gets worse than this, and one finds that in so many cases that the artist has no original experience at all and has merely lifted someone else’s experience from a magazine or from the that oh so accessible internet. This is prevalent among wildlife artists and also those doing figures and landscape. Copying in any way at all is really not an option to the artist of integrity. (It is appreciated that often an idea needs to be developed, but that is a creative process and unlike copying) Many painters go into galleries and ask the Gallerist’s what is selling. They then rush home and mass produce whatever that fashion thing is (Not forgetting the Fashion colours too) and add to the work already being overproduced, and so tilt certain subjects towards fad items. Surely it would be more creative if you have to ask at all, to ask what is NOT ‘available’ and then do that? (Is that not what Art is all about – creativity and original thought?) Is ART now only about money? Why is it that that the Visual Arts seem to attract so many money mad individuals, both on the ‘manufacturing’ side as well as on the marketing side? What has happened to the ART? Has this ancient pursuit become nothing more than a way to make a quick buck? No one begrudges someone with skills, who has worked hard and tirelessly to perfect those skills, both graphic and cerebral, (Not forgetting marketing skills) to make some money out of it, but the mad scramble at the feeding trough somehow destroys all that is good in it. Especially, when the majority at the trough have NOT paid their dues. I have my ‘Thoughts’ on the matter but allowing that there will always be fashions, the question is “Should Art be a slave to these fashions or fads?” Surely the fact is that we are all unique individuals and it is up to the artist to present that uniqueness in their thoughts, ideas and presentations rather than to be a sheep and be nothing more than a trend follower? You decide! Till next month.... |
||||||