New American Paintings results out

Well, I guess the results for the Mid-Atlantic 2008 issue of New American Paintings are out. I found this blog entry and this note and this note from artists saying they're going to be in the mag. I haven't got a letter either way yet - I optimisticly assume that I am a "runner-up", like last year.

Meet the judges

I'm currently trying to decide what to paint next. I've been mulling this over for a while, and I though of a "weird" solution - how about befriending some art-judges, showing them my painting ideas, and having them tell me what to paint?
This would of course be the ultimate in pandering to an audience.

I have recently been struggling with questions about what I want for the future of my art career, how to make it happen, and what I am prepared to do for it. I am starting to wonder if an artist can have financial success without painting what certain gatekeepers want. Would it really be so bad to paint what I know someone else likes? I was gonna paint something, so why not paint something I know people will like - right??

Painting-to-painting comparison

Yesterday I talked about the art on the show The L Word. There is a scene from a recent episode that I'd like to talk about today.

In the scene, Bette, a high-level art figure, is talking to a character named "Michelangelo" about art. Michelangelo says that he saw a recent show at a local art center, which featured at least 10 paintings that were all better than the Eric Fischl painting Bette owns. Bette considers this for a moment, then concedes that it might be true.

This is what I am calling a "painting-to-painting comparison". It's where you choose a single painting by a famous artist and compare it to a single painting by a non-famous artist (for example, yourself), and determine that you are "better" than the famous/rich artist. I used to do this a lot a few years ago - I'd choose a single painting in a magazine, gallery, museum, etc., compare it with my best painting, and decide that I'm better than this guy, and wonder why I wasn't rich and famous.

These painting-to-painting comparisons are not valid. It's sort of "fun" to do them, to make yourself irritated about how unfair the whole art-world/ fame thing is. For a reality check, how about comparing your worst painting to the other artist's best one?

The L Word

The L Word is one of my favorite TV shows. I am especially impressed with how it incorporates contemporary art. One of the characters, Bette, has had various high-level art-related jobs over the course of the series. She regularly mentions various artists, displays paintings, etc. These could have been various throwaway, obvious references like Andy Warhol. Instead the artists Bette mentions and the art displayed in the show is always perfectly spot-on for the plot or character point the show is trying to make. The L Word must have some kind of expert in-house contemporary art advisor. Excellent work, people!

Cool art

Most people who know me know that I love Prada clothes. So, yesterday I was searching around for Prada stores, and I happened upon what appeared to be a strange store in the middle of nowhere. Upon further investigation I realized that this is actually an artwork callled "Prada Marfa".




It's a reproduction of a Prada boutique, built on the side of a highway near Marta, TX. I freakin love it! This is my kind of art!
Click here for more info/pix

Big break?

Earlier in my art career, I used to believe in the idea of a "big break". I thought that all an artist needs is a one big event, and then they never again have to worry about what art they produce, promoting themselves, sales, etc. (see How to become a famous artist).
I have been watching a lot of movies lately, and I just got the DVDs of my all-time favorite show, Dinner for Five, a talk show about the entertainment industry. I realized this: an artist sometimes gets a "big break" (a job, press, etc.) early in his career. Then the artist must continually keep "snowballing" or working on his career in order to get to a higher level. At any time, the artist can get either "bigger", or slip backwards and become less prominent. For example, even actors that starred in multiple movies slip backwards, and you start seeing them in TV series or even commercials.
So, I realized this applies to my painting career; I'm not going to get some "big break" and be "set for life". Like an actor, I'm going to have to continuously work on my career if I want to be "huge".

Gatekeepers

There are gatekeepers in each of the artistic fields - they decide which artists will get "past them" and have access to a level of success and popularity. Music has record labels, acting has casting agents, and painting has gallery owners, juried show judges, and museum curators.

The thing about gatekeepers is that they use their own likes and dislikes as a basis for deciding who gets past them. One book I read called it "taste buds" - if art "tastes good" to a particular gatekeeper, s/he will let it through.

The thing to realize about these gatekeepers is that there tends to be little relation between what the gatekeeper thinks will be sucessful, and what ends up being successful. I used to work in a record store, and we would receive about 10 albums from the major record labels per week. The labels clearly thought each of these artists would be successful. However, about 98% of these bands quickly vanished into obscurity.

So, is it a good idea to "target" these gatekeepers with your art? Is it better to make your art for the gatekeepers, or for the general public, or for yourself? I don't know - I do tend to target the gatekeepers, after dealing with them for several years and semi-understanding what they prefer.

I like it

I realized recently that I decide what to paint based on my own emotional reaction to the subject. In other words, I paint what I like. I went to the bookstore yesterday to take a look at what subjects/images other people are into. There's a big difference between what's featured, for example, in photography books, and what I paint.
I get the feeling that people look at some of my paintings and think, "what's that a picture of?" Meanwhile, I am having a huge emotional reaction to the image.

Between paintings

Right now I'm not currently working on a painting. I like to use this time to work on various art skills that I'd like to improve. Below is a picture of what I've been doing - teaching myself how to draw heads better.

Planning next painting

I'm currently deciding what to paint next. I have a list of several possible ideas. I kind of want to "take it to the next level" with my next painting, but my current ideas are "more of the same" of what I'd usually paint. We'll see what happens. Since I love to paint, if I don't find something "spectacular" within a period of time, I'll paint something from my idea list.

My dream

Today I asked myself, "What exactly is my 'dream' that would happen to my art career? What is my ultimate art-career fantasy?" Well, I did some web research, and I realized what my dream is.

There is currently a trend happening in the art world. Art "speculators" scout hundreds of artists, and then choose about 1% of them. This 1% then experiences immediate, huge financial success and fame. Waiting lists develop for their paintings, galleries fight over them, and they suddenly start selling for $1000s instead of $100s.

Check out the articles below. I "dream" that this happens to me (kinda shallow, aren't I?)

I just wanted to mention that I cannot discern any difference between the artists in these articles that were selected for ultimate success, and any other semi-competent artist. It just seems like some get picked and some don't. Note that the people doing the picking are not art experts; they are business investors like Michael Ovitz.

Hot art market stokes prices for artists barely out of teens

Warhols of Tomorrow Are Dealers' Quarry Today

First Come the Dealers, and Then the Diplomas

Left / right brain

I actually became an artist through reading the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. I was looking to improve the right (creative) half of my brain, found this book, and "the rest is history".

I still am more of a left-brain (logical, analytical) artist. Most of my painting work involves studying, researching, making lists, etc. I would love to improve the free-flowing, creative half of my brain. I'm envious of other artists whose paintings are more imaginative.

They don't get it

I was thinking recently, and I realized that for about 95% of my paintings, people do not get the message or point that I was trying communicate. The only painting that a lot of people seem to "get" is Cheesy Beef Squares. This is probably because Cheesy Beef Squares actually has text within the painting itself that explains the painting.
On my web site, I have a "Notes" section for each painting that explains my thoughts, goals etc. for the painting. I had previously thought that the average person would get all of this info from just looking at the painting.
I guess I'm OK with people just enjoying my paintings at a "surface" level. It does bother me sometimes when people miss what I was going for and think that I'm not that good of a painter; for example - people often don't realize that Heather Is Apparently Frightened of Something To Her Right is a parody - I don't really paint like that.

Art City DVDs

Welcome to my first product-review. I wanted to talk about a set of DVDs called Art City. These are 3 documentaries that I think really give you a good insight into the contemporary art world. The films basically follow around various contemporary artists as they work in their studios, go to openings, meet with collectors, etc. I found it very eye-opening. One of the main realizations that I came away with is that there is very little difference between a "major, important" artist, and an unknown, average artist. In fact, I didn't know which was which until I looked up the various artists from the DVD and found that some of them are in my "Most important artists of the 20th Century" book, and some of them don't even show up in google.
I recommend these DVDs for any artist who hopes to "make it" in the art world.

Winning

Yesterday I talked about how I won a science fair competition. Today I want to talk more about winning / success.

Some people see success in the arts like winning the lottery. One day you are just living your normal life, and the next day you "win" some huge success, having put in very little work. These people think they will suddenly get selected to have a solo show at a museum, for a music record deal, to star in a movie, etc.

I see winning / success differently. To me "winning" in the arts is really more like winning an Olympic medal. Olympians train / work their entire lives, and then are rewarded.

If I told you you just won $40,000, you'd probably be pretty happy. If I then told you all you have to do get the $40k was work at your current job for a year, you'd probably then be pretty disappointed. To me, success is more like a job; you work, and then (hopefully) are rewarded.

More work

Lately I have been talking about the topic of work. I would like to tell you a story from my past on this topic.

In 1986 I won the Atlantic County Social Science Fair, computer programming competition. The fair was pretty big - there were hundreds of kids there from throughout New Jersey, and I had to walk up in front of all of them to accept the award.

But let's step back a bit and talk about how I "made" this happen. The year before, I had entered the same competition. I wrote a computer program called "Geography Quiz" - it showed you pictures of the Earth and asked you questions. I spent about 10 hours on it. For some reason I fully expected to win the contest that year. I had a very rude awakening when my entry had zero impact.

After losing in 1985, I decided to create a major program for the next fair. It would be similar to the movie Wargames - a graphic simulation of a nuclear war. I spent months on it. I went to the library and did research on the types of nuclear missles, cities in Russia, the pyhsics of nuclear explosions, etc. I remember getting to the room at the fair where the computers were running our entries, and sitting next to a "smug" kid who seemed to think he was a shoe-in - just like me the year before. He was in for a similar rude awakening.

As you know, I ended up winning that year. I was completely un-surprised. I again fully expected to win; I had put in about 100x the work of any of the other kids.

The point if this story is about the amount of work people put into their creative works. Whoever puts more hours into their work will most likely be at the top of their creative field. Some people seem to think that their "talent" will carry them; such people will easily be topped by someone who simply puts in a few more hours than they do. People sometimes tell me I'm "talented"; I respond that I could barely draw 7 years ago, before I read over 50 art books and put in 100s of hours of practice.

Factories

Yesterday I talked about how much work there is when producing art. Some artists manage this work by creating "factories" around themselves through which they delegate much or all of the work to others. In the TV show Iconoclasts, Jeff Koons' factory is shown - he is basically a "factory foreman" and idea generator, and the art is manufactured assembly-line style. Damien Hirst also has a factory through which many of his works are completely created by others. This factory tradition actually goes back as far as the Renaissance.
Some artists get to a point in their career where there is a huge demand for *anything* by that artist. Some of these artists decide to take advantage of the situation and produce the largest possible amount of art that can be attributed to them.
I am ambivalent about whether I'd like to be in a position where I'm a "factory foreman". But, it might be cool to just think up ideas all day.

Work

Let me start off by saying that I really hate it when people call their art their "work". This really irritates me! I think it sounds very pretentious. That being said, art is work. Let me bring up another Edison quote:

Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

Art is a lot of work! I think that a lot of potential art simply never comes into being because no one sits down and does the hours and hours of work involved in getting it from the idea stage to the "exists" stage. Getting the idea is exciting and the completed painting is cool, but in between is work to be done.

New American Paintings update

I contacted New American Paintings last week to find out what was up with the 2008 Mid-Atlantic issue - the results usually come out in December. See their response below. I'm still hoping to make it in this year!

We expect to begin sending out notifications early next week.

Best,

--
Jessica Fortin
Open Studios Press
617-778-5265

Emo

"Emo" is a term for a type of current pop-rock music. Emo is also used is the romance-novel industry; writers and editors try to maxmize the emo (emotion) that is contained in each section of the text.

I think emo also applies to painting. One might argue that the whole purpose of art is to inspire emos in the viewer.

I try to paint images/subjects that I have a lot of emotions about. I find that painting these subjects helps me work through the emos. Below are some of the wide variety of emos that I feel toward the subjects I've painted.

affection

irritation

bad memories

anxiety

nostalgia

"yumminess"

attraction

calmness

stress

excitement

comfort

loneliness

amusement

apprehension

My process

I am looking to make changes to my process of getting an image to paint. Here is what I currently do:

1) I think up a subject to paint.
2) I either take a photo of the subject, or search the web for a photo I like (ebay / amazon.com / gettyimages.com / yahoo images).
3) I "tweak" the photo in Photoshop.

I am getting kind of disatisfied with this process. I feel like there is probably a more spontaneous, creative way to work.

Knifing your paintings

I read that, later in his career, Monet was really bothered by his early paintings. He hated knowing that they were out there. Collectors would bring early paintings to him, knowing that he would slash them and have the collector take a new replacement painting.

I sometime feel like knifing my early paintings. As I get more and more skilled, those paintings really bother me. For now, I'll let them continue to exist!

Here's a related article

Consume / produce

I saw a TV show recently that said that people have begun producing creative content like never before - things like YouTube videos, blogs, etc. Some people (like me) are not satisfied with consuming creative output; we "must" generate some ourselves.

If you like to produce art, I think it's a good idea to voraciously consume all the art you can. I find that the more outside art I take in, the easier it is for me to create art of my own.