|
|
|
Imagery |
|
Information |
|
Writing |
|
Other |
|
|
|
"An artist is always lonely. An artist is a man who functions beyond or ahead of his society. In any case, seldom within it." - David Hare
|
|
back 1- Me, Myself & I 2-Politics 3-Art 4-Race 5-Consumerism 6-Children 7-Media & Society 8-General 9-Paranormal next |
|
(Always evolving) Teaching Philosophies |
|
Vested independent interest is vital
Elementary art classes focus on the very basic skills, higher education should blend the application (form) with the idea (concept). Along with other generations of art students, I sat through many art classes and long project critiques only to end up no better off. I was confronted with monotonous exercises (which may or may not have developed basic skills), and little to no conceptual development. I believe in slipping the material exercises into real projects that involve a students personal interest. The student then is able to tackle conceptual development (and express visual opinion), and have material growth based on an individual need. I find that today, in our evolving world of information- I have had to change the way I teach. The standard approach of traditional art is never going to go away- but that alone is not enough. A student tires of one still-life-cross-hatch project after another. They need the basics and the tradition, but also some voice in what they are working out as their "art". There is good art and bad art
Balancing Form and Content Form is the how of art (as in: paint, textiles, wood, ink, computer...as well as the technicalities of art: technique, craft, plans). Content is the what of art (as in: subjects presented within the art). They can intertwine depending on the type of art and the style, but for the sake of understanding, they are usually separated. The problem lies in one taking precedence over the other. As a viewer, we all come to the table with mental baggage. In critical analysis, you must be able to set that baggage aside, but mental baggage in assessing anything is very difficult to set aside.
Exampl
Artwork A: is a beautiful black and white photograph. Full range
of values, beautiful lighting, flawless print. Example: 2. You are a progressively politically active viewer looking at a work that does not address your political interests... Artwork B: A wonderful photograph of an enlarged flower, exceptional detail, gorgeous range of value and balance. BUT the photograph is a standard fare flower. No innuendo, no statement...just a flower. Can you separate the content from the form to appreciate the beauty? They are both art, and they both offend or enrage a viewer. The funny thing is that they are both by the same artist...Robert Mapplethorpe. If that name rings a bell, it is because he is the photographer that lit the NEA funding firestorm in the 1980's. The big dilemma was a question. Should government funding be given to art that does not support the "norm"? In terms of these images and the baggage a viewer brings to them...Is one, or are both wrong? Does that disqualify them as art? In critical analysis, which is the mature form of assessing the world around us, our emotions often get in the way. To recognize yourself in the work first, makes the assessment a true accomplishment. In assessing the work, both offer a great deal in form and content, it just depends on how much you are willing to see through the baggage that you bring. A note on realism and abstraction (in relation to evaluating "art") that I make to students is that they both use the same aesthetic principles in visual art. It does not matter if the work is realism, or abstraction. Color, value, texture, and compositional integrity are the same, be it a portrait or large color blocks. Realism and abstraction cannot exist without properly utilizing the core principles of art.
|
|
(May 2005) A few good art myths |
|
Everything is art
This is often used
by avant-garde artists, or by those who fear rejection. Everything is not
art. There are many forms of creativity,
The real idea: here is that everyone can express themselves, and make some form of craft Just because you paint, does not mean that you make art. Art cannot be defined as a catch all. It is best left open ended with a guide. As in: art is a creative act that applies established methods that aid in determining aesthetic value, expands current thinking, and creates a connection of artist to art, or viewer to art. The idea that Everything is art is a loose myth from the modernist expansion, and as stated above, it now haunts every artist. That myth began as art expanded beyond the standard tradition. Painting came down from the walls and off of canvas. Sculpture expanded from the statues of a leaders and icons to items of found art and abstraction. It is a relevant statement in art history, and relevant to understanding the path of art. It is the frame necessary to answer: What is Art? So what does make it art? I can only offer my own opinion: Art is a struggle for every artist. The act itself is long, drawn out, and often ending with work below the artists expected standard. Artists keep going in search of the ever elusive perfection. The act of pushing through the struggle is not found in crafts. I have stated it before (many times), to answer the question of: What makes it Art? You have to look at art, and look at a lot of art. You have to look at how art progresses through and within history. And you have to look at both the "form" of art, and the "content" of art. The depth of concept is not found in crafts, and that is where the art separates from the craft and can be labeled as "art". To view a wide range of samples, please visit: where to find art. |
|
A child could do abstract art Absolutely true, as long as you don’t care about skill, color, composition, craftsmanship, and concept- or the basic skills of design. So, this is also true for my cat. The real idea: is based a bit in reality and fiction. To sum up the "reality": movements in the beginning of modern art strove to cast off the chains and rules of the history of art-making. The idea was to get back to the basic need to create raw expression. That is often referred to as "child-like" art.
In the
winter of 2005 the TV show 20/20 (John Stossel: “Give me a break!”) had a
segment that took child art, animal art, and real abstract art and placed
them in a mall (hmmm…very scientific). Then they asked people to pick out
the real art from the fakes. The
If it's not a child, it is an animal that they have making "paintings". But are they really painting, or is it just a PR stunt with an animal making slashes and marks? Are they thinking about what they are doing? I can only provide an example to the contrary for that argument concerning a child creating abstract art. For the record, a child may be able to produce a drawing or painting that captures some key element of visual art (say contrast, or color relationship...but it is not an intention, it is coincidence). But let's take a child painting a landscape. The choices of what goes into the painting are arbitrary. There is no relation between them, they are just what they are- lumps. The artists who uses a natural landscape to create an abstract work (abstract means to pull out of, or in this case nature as a reference), makes choices of what is there and what is not based on the elements of art & design, form & concept. The difference between the two art forms is the life experience and intention. The same can be said for a child who puts out a fire with a glass of water, would that therefore make the child a fireman? What about a child with building blocks: if they stay erect, are they an architect? It's all in the understanding. What we do not understand, we criticize. |
|
Artists are crazy
Ok, this is true.
But...The real idea:
is that there are reasons and
levels to how odd it can be. Art has a history of challenging the
norm. Challenging what everyone accepts as fact and truth.
This involves a lot of creativity, and ( the cliché of) thinking
outside of the
It has been said that artists are often studying society, functioning beyond or ahead of that society…seldom within it. Sometimes (for a variety of reasons or agendas) some people go too far (and many have that as the agenda). Take that with a grain of salt, remember there is good art and bad art… the same is true for people. |
Everyone is an artist (I don’t know much about art, but…)
|
|
(April 2006) Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light" & future performance art |
|
I hereby declare all intellectual property rights to the following performance art concept.
So, if you read the above statement on Good and Bad art, I think that I
have established the idea that Thomas Kinkade is a bad artist (or a
drunk moron painting hobbit villages). Thomas Kinkade (known to many as the "painter of light") is the largest
selling artist in the current time period. And in his own words from
a recent 60 minutes piece: he will be bigger than Picasso in the
near future. If you are reading this, and you have no idea who I am
referring to- he paints little elf cottages in the forest and not much
else. You have seen him on a million calendars, coffee mugs, ceramic
At
this point I realized that giving away my intellectual property is
actually a poor business model. Thomas Kinkade doesn't give away his
art, why should I? If enough performance artists wanted to use my
concept, I could franchise the whole deal. I could set-up drive
through
What I am getting at is what this artist does to other artists. In sports, it equals a baseball player on steroids about to break Hank Arron's homerun record. An NCAA basketball player who has a great sophomore season suddenly wearing Nautica clothing and driving a BMW. A Hockey player cracking the back of his opponents head with his stick. Or an NFL running back taking 1.37 seconds to dive 1 yard into the end-zone for a touchdown, and following that up with a 45 second dance routine that took 4 hours during the previous week to choreograph. It cheapens the sport. It sours the real fans. They want integrity, substance, and honor- don't we all want that in our heroes? Modern art is hard to grasp, and artists have soured the social relationships that used to be enjoyed in our culture. Now, many people look for the easy answer. The simple to digest type of art. While I believe that the true quality art will not be overlooked for long, it is an unnecessarily hard road. The real "art" (defined as: that which is embracing a paradigm shift in our current socio-cultural thinking, and that which is exceptionally well executed) will prevail. Not in monetary standards, but as historical record. Should sales and profit determine worth? Kinkades sales are less a testament to his savvy business skills or his great art- they are a testament that art is still important to people. They still want it, even when it's bad. Images and concepts still have power. This "painter of light" is just a cheap fake. We all have to grit our teeth when a charlatan fools us, but time will not make him larger than Picasso- it will expose his shallowness.
|
|
(September 2008) Personal politics and stock art |
|
Can an
artists personal politics actually damage the commercial art industry?
Jill Greenberg is a photographer. She was hired to photograph
Republican presidential n
Now, I am no McCain fan- but even I have issues with this approach. My issues are split. I do not agree with mixing personal and professional issues, but I am also greatly disgusted with generic editorial artwork utilized as nothing more than filler. John McCain was invited to have this done for the magazine, and this photographer worked as a commercial representative of the magazine. McCain did not consent to have his photo altered and defaced. He did not agree to sit down and have anyone make him purposely look bad. I guess that this goes back to what I write above concerning critical analysis that can separate Form and Content, but also the Personal and the Professional. Even if I agree with her personal politics and find the photos interesting, this was not the forum for her personal politics- nor is this ethically sound. Why is that?
This has the ability to effect everyone working in commercial art.
There is an inherent trust that the artist and the employer agree to use
artwork within a specific frame. One that agrees with both the
artistic integrity, and the conceptual format of the magazine.
These clash from time to time, but are generally smoothed out by mutual
agreements f
For years now, the field of commercial art in the editorial area has been weakening. Editorial artwork (be it illustration, or photography, or design) used to challenge ideals and norms. It was common place to have work create a stir- now that is very rare. A litigious society, and an industry overly concerned with profit combined with a rapid uncontrolled rise in cheap stock art took the edge away from the artist. Art directors and designers had to answer to an ever increasing number of "cooks in the kitchen". Artwork was created by committee, which always waters down an idea. Stock art nearly killed photography, and has pushed creative illustration to the brink of non-existence. Stock is cheaper, and generic. There is no fear of a clash with an artist, or with a missed deadline, or a message being high-jacked. As mentioned above, this incident with McCain may produce a backlash that fosters companies to have artists pre-sign conceptual agreements. It would not be unheard of as a few years back the largest publishers in New York agreed on artists pre-signing away all rights to their artwork- or they would not be used by the companies. This allowed publishers to own the work, thus creating a large image warehouse. Buy it once, have it forever. How many art directors (or more importantly owners) will allow new or old artists to take a risk on style and content after reading of this deception? How many new artists will be given an opportunity to have their work used after an embarrassing event like this one? Events like this may seem small, but in an ever shrinking industry already reeling from stock houses, this is exactly what makes art directors and editors shy away from the risk that is supposed to be inherent with creative art.
In following this story, I saw that after the story broke- the Atlantic magazine went on the offensive. They used many derogatory terms in an Atlantic online blog regarding Jill Greenberg. They called her "childish and excrement obsessed", and then dropped the bomb that made me believe that she not only hurt herself as a photographer, she hurt others as well... "The only good thing to come out of this ridiculous situation is that I've been introduced to several very interesting photography websites." (Jeffery Goldberg, Atlantic Magazine). While I defend her right to have a message, I think that she crossed the line in combining her personal issues and her professional responsibilities- and at what price? Stock is cheap, and less likely to burn you in the end. And, make no mistake about it- stock is what Mr. Goldberg is referring to in that quote. He is taking a direct shot at the whole industry for this event. Ross Perot used to say this about a NAFTA (North American Free Trade) agreement "Hear that giant sucking sound? That's jobs goin' to Mexico." Well I say "Hear that giant sucking sound? That's stock agencies selling more and more generic no edge crappy artwork to companies that don't care about the quality of the art content." That or maybe that sucking sound is the quality of editorial artwork in our modern age.
|
|
(November 2008) Art Philosophy via email |
|
From time to time, former students email me. Some are friends, some like to keep in touch, some like to update me on what they are doing, and some ask advice. Here is a favorite from a former student…
Nicole wrote:
I feel like I need to
go to the Middle East. Afghanistan, Pakistan, other third world
countries. I've been pilfering images from Google to use in my
sketchbook, but what am I supposed to do if I want to sell something? I
find it hard for much else to keep my attention. I like the way these
places look on paper, and I like the feeling I get from them. Even if
they are sad. I also feel like I'm kind of pointless. Yeah, I can copy things, so what? You know what I do? I Google images, find ones that I think are interesting and I render them. What the hell is that? I'm not really saying anything. I don't feel like I really have anything to say. I'm twenty-two, what the hell?
My response:
Altering the image
makes it acceptable as a reference. Style can also make a reference
photograph new. It's good that you consider this as you work, most
don't*. I just did an Illustration of Barack Obama...was I supposed
to go ask him to pose for me?
I think you need to
research some writing by artists as the struggle you are having is not
new. At 22- what do you have to say? It's all experience, I did not
have any myself at 22, so I focused on materials and skills while
reading ideas that inspired me to create concepts. What can help you
get over this hurdle is finding a passion on a particular subject. Only
you can decide that, it has to be personal, and it has to create a need
to say something- BUT no one can give that to you. For some it is
political, others it is social or magical, or music based. It is what
it is, and if it's important to you- then it matters. And picking a
subject to You have to balance the subject choice with the material journey. If you are feeling like you are just re-creating a photo, and that your subjects are superficial- then that's likely true. The interaction of you with the materials, that "conversation" is critical to growth, and critical to style development. You have to push beyond what you already know, otherwise you are just a band doing covers of other peoples songs. That means you have to prepare for risk, and with risk comes failure. Ask your professors about some reading from artists that may give you some inspiration. But understand that seeking inspiration means that you may have to try things that do nothing for you.
"You can't wait for inspiration, you have to go after it with a club." (Jack London)
*This is a basic hurdle for students. Once they grasp the idea of accurate representation, many fear that is the end of the line- that all they can do is create a hollow image. Conceptualization is not a fundamental aspect of teaching. Many times the stage of critical analysis (critique) is a substitute likely due to the outdated notion that art is traditionally a hands-off area of teaching. My philosophy has always been to get involved with materials and ideas. I believe that any quality student will eventually take off in their own direction, that to be involved and push a student in particular directions is acceptable as a form of teaching art. It is acceptable in every other school based subject, art should be no different. If the student never veers off on their own, developing their own ideas- then they were never going to independently develop anyway. It is one thing to copy the masters or your influences as a means of developing, and a whole other problematic issue if that starting point also becomes the end point. Art is about change and development in confronting subjects- and in the artists confronting themselves. If that change becomes static- then art is no longer creative or challenging, it's just a pretty picture.
|
|
(January 2009) Never too old for lessons in deadlines and art |
|
I am almost done with a portrait of my 80 year old neighbor and his wife. She has been hospitalized for nearly 20 months after falling and breaking her hip a second time, and he always takes the time to talk and say hello to my 4 year old son. He told me this past summer that he was due for his 60th wedding anniversary in October, so I asked him to give a me a picture of he and his wife so that I could make them a nice piece of art. I wanted to get it to him by October, but job searching and life issues put it on hold. She passed away in November. I can't believe that she passed away, I was pretty upset that I did not get it to him before that, and maybe I've been avoiding it because I felt bad- but I don't think so. So, in all my years as an artist...in all my years as a commercial illustrator...through gallery shows, printed work, commissions...I have NEVER EVER missed a deadline. But I missed this one in October.
Since my employment and teaching went up in the air in 2006, I have been
struggling with art-making- you might even say that I have become bitter
towards art. It started after I stopped teaching. I found myself angry
at my art, and bitter at art in general. That sounds silly doesn't it?
I started to be angry at art for not doing more to help
To put my loss in perspective, I have drawn every day for 1-5 hours (or more) for no less than 15 years. I generally completed a sketchbook every 3-4 months (30-40 images) and at least 1-2 paintings every 6 months. Since June of 2007 I have only done a handful of things. It's like someone trying to force me on a date with an old ex-girlfriend. The interest is there, but the love & passion are forced because we both know the history. Without a change, or knowledge- we are doomed to repeat our past. And until the problems are sorted out like 2 mature adults- we are not talking, and not talking is driving me slightly crazy. Now I have to be inventive and bring the romance back. I have been writing and reading more, and seeking alternative means. So if you see a change in the work, it is just the artist trying to woo the art back into his life. That or maybe I'll just make Jesus art on toast for awhile.
|
|
(February 2010) The frustrating Holy War of the Arts |
|
I have something to
get off my chest, something I put there myself about 20 years ago.
Every profession has its warring factions. Wars may come and wars may
The Dark Ages I
have a long collegiate background in fine arts. If you have no idea
what that means, I’ll make it simple- it’s independently created art,
art that challenges the way we think and believe. I started in fine
arts and art history- some of my greatest influences are conceptual and
abstract artists. I also have a long history with c The Crusades
In choosing my Masters, I stayed at RIT- but entered the MFA painting
program. That is when I experienced the art class system for the first
time. I was “that” guy, the one who made “realism”, and liked
commercial art- the indentured servant. Every day, every critique
became a battle, and I suddenly felt like I was thrown to the lions. I knew
what I wanted to get out of school, so the majority of the The Holocaust I taught Illustration part time for 11 years while trying to get a foot in the door at other schools. In searching for positions, countless times I was asked about Illustration while hearing “we are looking in another direction- one with more fine art experience”. In the mean time, I took any freelance illustration jobs I could get. No illustration-focused school would hire someone with minimal freelance experience, and no fine art-focused school would consider someone with any kind of commercial background. Not too many years ago, I sat in front of a chairperson of an art program who asked me point blank “Why should we hire an illustrator to teach our fine art courses?” My reply was simple- “because I have a Master’s in Fine Art, not in Illustration”. I went on to calm her concerns by explaining that I have an extensive background in fine art. On that occasion, I was hired to fill in for a year- and no one had any concerns after the students produced work that caught everyone's eye (more a credit to the students than to me). Not long before that, I had found myself in front of a director of an art program who cheerfully announced that she "knew nothing about art". While I did end up teaching there, I soon found the environment to be one that offered little more than a poor paycheck. Sometimes, we all follow a false prophet- it was just my turn to be blind. During these years, art lost its steam and direction. Artists became that one guy on the street carrying the end of the world sign. Most of us pass them by while looking the other way- we don't want to make eye contact, and we don’t really have time for that kind of nonsense. Jobs began to dry up in both fields. Fine artists began desperately relying upon teaching to make a living, and illustrators had to learn how to transfer their work to the digital medium as traditional print media began to disappear in the computer age. The looming economy was gaining, and no one wanted to look back. The Industrial Age & the Age of Enlightenment I
really have been ignorant. I mean seriously stupid. This
whole thing- it's a
family conflict. It’s like
being caught in a sibling argument, each side wants allegiance. They
want a commitment one way or the other, it does not really matter what
the war does to you- just don’t stand in the middle...it is not
permitted. I can
understand the illustration point. If you only have limited experience-
what do
|
|
back 1- Me, Myself & I 2-Politics 3-Art 4-Race 5-Consumerism 6-Children 7-Media & Society 8-General 9-Paranormal next |
Should a student study skills or ideas?
The
simple idea: Imagine you just learned your A, B, C's, and you declare
"I'm done". You have no understanding of sentence structure, no
subject development or comprehension skills. Now you are told to
write a novel. Simple exposure to the fundamentals of art (or the
basic rules ala "A-B-C's") is not enough to critically analyze art. My
point is made by just putting these 2 paintings next to each other.
The first "technicolor" landscape is by the famed artist Thomas Kinkade
(more on him later in following journal). The second is by famed Hudson
River school artist Albert Bierstadt. I think anyone can see, one
is better than the other- but to explain why can be hard. We all
started out as kids drawing and painting. It was all supposed to
be good. For some of us, we stopped at the age of 7 or 8, we never
advanced our knowledge of art beyond that. But art goes far beyond
the base junior high mentality of "it's all good". There are
defined areas of art that have levels of good and bad. Looking at
these 2 paintings, there is a difference in the application and the
understanding of: color, lighting, spatial 
elements, perspective, value,
mood, composition, intent, and many other areas. Seriously looking
at these 2 works means that you employ critical analysis. One
appears to be painted by an adult who has a better understanding of what
they are doing, and one appears to have been painted by a drunk moron
who likes pastel colors and hobbit villages. Art
is a means for critical analysis, which is a life skill. That
skill means that I believe that we as a human race continue to improve
and raise the bar. This does not mean I
believe that art is always gradable on a scale (there are just too many
types of art and types of ideas to have a consistent scale after mature
growth takes hold). Rather, I believe the
opposite- creativity is killed when it is put into any scale that limits
direction. Therein lies the rub. The basics of art do apply in
establishing worth, but only to a certain point. That point is then
transferred to knowledge and awareness of art. You cannot stand in judgment of art without
knowing the inherent history of art. The vast changes that have
created the modernist idea, also have severely limited its communication
to the masses.
And with that said, now there is hopefully a return to what made art great in the
first place- appreciation of the actual work.
e: 1. You are a conservative viewer looking at a work
that challenges your "norms"...
BUT the photo is of
two men in black leather, one has a
dog collar and chain around his neck. Is it still
beautiful? If this offends conservative morals, Can you separate the
form from
the content to appreciate the beauty?
and a wide range of professions
under art. If everything is art, then what is “art”? OR
If everything is art, then what is not art?
producers also asked a group of
“professional artists” from the area to do the same. The “professionals”
across the board chose the child and animal art as real (despite the real
abstract work being easily recognizable for any REAL educated artist- they
had a Jackson Pollock and a Cy Twombly in the samples that were not picked
by the REAL artists as the actual art).
They then tried to justify the choices in art speak (also known as
gobbledygook- a language that is not understandable to anyone in an
attempt to hide the fact that they screwed up…also used by politicians,
and lawyers).
box. This means that artists stress their
individuality (so do musicians, actors, dancers –and a multitude of other
areas that may require you to be different and think different in order to
succeed). Art is a solitary profession, and often very difficult.
Artists tend to always have their head in their work, always trying to
find ways to improve. Art is not cut and dry, and there is no real
end result. A carpenter makes a bench, a programmer makes a
functional program, a salesperson makes a sale…but the artist never gets
that same feeling when the art is done. Flaws drive artists mad, and
many artists have a poor sleep schedule (often due to this madness, which
was referred to in the time of Michelangelo as the "mania and the
melancholy" which also is a reference to the time for an artist that
is a manic work time, followed by a mild to severe depression and a lack
of work). 
Do not be proud of
ignorance. I am not a car person…I drive it, wash it, gas it, even
buy fragrances to make it smell good. That in turn does not qualify
me to judge a cars quality without any further research. In order to
have an informed opinion about art, it is important to try to find out (or
figure out) what the artist is trying to do and maybe even study about
the correlation of art and history. A performance artist (which is
a mix of conceptual art and theater) that may utilize a form of gore in
their show may be trying to shock or push the boundaries of
acceptable taste. To many this confrontation creates a fear. "I don't get
it.", therefore I am stupid, or this is bad art. In reality, it may
be both, or neither. Who enjoys what makes them feel stupid?
The artist wants the art to be hard to grasp, hard to sit through, to make
you (the viewer) uncomfortable. Maybe even to make you think about
it beyond what is presented as "art". The work places you out of your normal pattern of
understanding and acceptance. As easy as my work is for many to
relate to, even I have the dreaded "I don't get it, therefore I don't like
it." response. To challenge what has already been done involves
risk, but there can be no change or growth without that risk.
New ideas in a society usually involve rejection when
first introduced.
The real idea:
Gain knowledge and
understanding before judgment.
villages, and QVC spots. He is to any hard working artist, a fraud
with a great head for business. I was recently forwarded an LA Times article that hinted at his not so-quaint-elf-cottage-like side.
Reportedly, he was drunk at a Disney location and decided to urinate on
Winnie the Pooh while declaring "This one's for you Walt!". Now, I
can respect the businessman. I can even almost forgive the terribly
kitsch paintings. I grudgingly can let go of the 60 minutes
comments, or selling reproductions (prints, touched up with paint by rows
of artists- assembly line style) as a form of original work. I can
look the other way at the suburban track housing being constructed in
California (and/or Arizona) to mimic his cottage paintings...but Pooh? 
So,
I have a plan. I am an artist, and I have an interest in
conceptual and performance art forms. For those unfamiliar,
performance and conceptual art is a bit of theater and a bit of
philosophy, and usually quite odd. I thought that I could
initiate a fistfight with Thomas Kinkade as performance art. Not
Fox-celebrity boxing style, just out-of -the-blue, wherever we are.
On the street, in a gallery, or in line waiting for his Arby's order.
Then I realized that I could have more artists involved. I thought,
why should I be so miserly with this intellectual property of performance
art? Why not allow one time usage for 365 straight days, by 365
different artists- free of charge! Each day a different artist can
initiate a gentlemanly bout of fisticuffs with the "painter of light".
ominee
John McCain for the September cover of Atlantic magazine. This was
accepted as a commercial job, watched by an art director, left to the
discretion of the artist. The photographer decided to use this
opportunity to display her personal feelings about the subject (John
McCain). Without notice to anyone at the magazine (or at the photo
shoot) she lit McCain with a strobe light from below (images on the
left). The
results were as expected, a horror movie menacing
feel that cast shadows and distortions across McCain's face. Although
the least damaging photo (one showcasing the age of his face and
lighting that increased the bushiness of his eyebrows) was used for the cover, there were more shots
taken at the sitting. After the
shoot, the photographer took other photos from the shoot and created
obvious anti-McCain imagery using photoshop to display on her own
website (images on the right). It was only after the
shoot, and after the magazine went into print that this was all
uncovered. Is this a case of commercial rights, or artist rights?
rom
the artist and the art director. This deception can only produce a
situation forcing artists to pre-sign consents to only produce imagery
that suits the political base of the buyer. Because of the deception this
agreement was broken- how does this one event effect commercial art?
Better yet- how does the personal choice of this artist effect other
artists?
day,
does not mean that it is with you for life. I have a lot of interests
that I tap into, sometimes they have depth...and sometimes they are just
a material exercise. 
me
be employed, and not doing more to help me get over hurdles. I
personalized this activity (making art) to the point of scape-goating.
I blamed it for the walls that I have been confronted with in my career
choice. I blamed it for everything. Art was not pulling it’s
weight, not babysitting my son- and not fixing or cleaning my
house. I made the act of art-making into a person. One to be angry at
and blame, but in the process I stripped away my main form of expressing
myself. Fo
r years I have depended upon my artwork as a means of
speaking my mind, and once I stopped I noticed how cranky I became. I
started feeling bitchy when I stopped making art- that's no
coincidence. But I have had a hard time managing house care & repair,
job hunting, working, daddy-dom, website upkeep, relationship upkeep,
and art-making. I am one of those people that can sit and work on art
for endless hours, and I prefer to not start if I can only give it 20 minutes at
a go. Well- with a child and a life, the hours to find for art are
slim. But art is not responsible for anything that I am blaming it
for- that's what makes this insane. What really happened here was
I fell off the bike, and now I need to learn to ride again. I
always used to tell students that each time you work with materials you
are having a conversation with that material. The material tells
you what you can do and what you should not do while you work. And
the best students know how to listen to the materials to play to their
strengths while they work on their weakness. My weakness was in
expecting art to create some change in my life beyond philosophy and
outlook, where my strength was in expressing my ideas and emotions in an
alternative manner through my artwork.
go,
and unless you were there- no one else knows. In art, I have been
witness to the holy war of Illustration versus Fine Art. Somehow I got
caught up in it, I never really chose a side- I was just suited up in
armor and thrown to the illustrators. 
omic
books and children’s books- many of my personal influences are linked to
comics and children’s literature. I began studying art in the heyday of
the art star- consider that the time of the art Jesus- if Jesus was
all about money, ego and fame. The Mid 80’s were overflowing
champagne glasses of Julian Schnabel and Robert Longo clinked to the
beat of the Talking Heads. Art was not the hobo at the expressway ramp
cleaning your windshield for spare change that it is today. Art was a
rock star. I was not so into the rock, more so I had an interest in the
stars before the 80’s that did not get enough credit. The artists that
seemed to get some of the spotlight, just not enough- Mark Rothko, Jim
Dine, and Jasper Johns types. I am classically trained with materials
in the fine art tradition of exploration, with a strong foundation in
rendering. It was natural thing for me to gravitate my studies to
incorporate illustration; as in the mid 80’s that field also exploded.
If you have no idea what that means, I’ll make it simple- it’s NOT
independently created art- it is art created with the assistance and
dictation of others. Illustration benefitted from the mainstream rock
stardom of fine arts. Brad Holland and Marshall Arisman became the rock
stars of illustration that had a fine art appeal. It was loose and
painterly, and sharply conceptual. It was less about the art director
and the written word telling the artist what to do- and more about the thoughts of the
illustrator. Illustration became less about what was being
illustrated, and more about the concept of the artist behind the
illustration. In essence, illustration took over the role of the edgy
and independent fine artist. This happens with everything that gets popular, it loses
its edge and something new takes over. Art was not hidden in those days, it was out in the open-
questioning our thinking and our beliefs. Every college student worth
their weight likes new exciting thoughts. This was the new holy crusade.
So, I joined up. I was attending RIT at a time where the fine art and
illustration programs were combined into one large mass- like the
freemasons. Classes were a mix of the two fields, rarely did anyone
point out the schism between the fields. I balanced the two areas
while pursuing my BFA at RIT. I was deep into studying modern art
history, while learning the craft of visualizing literature. Despite
illustration’s label as commercial, I was only really interested in
creating literature based (magazine and book) work. I wanted my ideas
to be seen with the written word- it can be a powerful combination.
comments had no impact- but I really had no clue about the wars
surrounding me. I went through my years jumping between the two fields-
I could (and can) always hold my own in discussing either field. But,
you can only jump so many times before something eventually catches
you. Like Satchel Paige said "Don't look back, something might be
gaining on you." It was always the sneering fine artist that left
a lions mark and brought me down. The illustrators that I knew always
accepted and were curious about the actual art, the materials and the
technique. Illustrators were the men on the front lines getting things
done- where fine artists were the out of touch generals eating grapes in
their tents. What kept me there was the importance of art.
Art was a vehicle to a message, any message. Whatever I wanted to
say could be said, and it could be said with the light or the dark.
Creativity was like a drug. There was no egg in the frying pan,
but the brain had the same frying effect- only it was all good.
There was no downside to this addiction, again I was sold. 
you offer the students? I get that point- but what goes
un-credited is the knowledge of everything else that makes art.
It is like reviewing a movie after only seeing the trailer, small points
do not make the big picture. I did
manage to teach illustration for 11 years, students must have gotten something.
The
value of my teaching
in illustration came from a dissenting point of view. Looking in
from the outside- I credit that to my fine
art core. Making a pretty picture is not good enough, it has to
have content that strives to elevate the mind. Most illustration students really appreciate
and want that,
it's my reputation- at least I always set that as a goal in illustration.
Fine art is another story. It’s the fine arts that are most perplexing- what are they so
scared of? What are they so angry about? Is it a fear of
some type of art virus being inflicted upon the students? Is it
like jobs being lost to Mexico? Is it the lost kingdom of the edgy thinker?
Fine artists have become an island among
their own kind. I have trouble even getting near the holy land. I spent my time as a student
studying right next to many of these artists- never having any idea that
they held such stereotypes. Again, I have taught many fine arts courses over a
14 year span. And what I found to be most successful in teaching
fine art courses, is
being the example. The artist who works- not just teaches, and I credit
that to my illustration foundation. One cannot exist without the other,
a ying & yang- it's the balance of skill and concept that make art great.
Yet one side believes the other is lazy and has no skill, and the other side
believes that the other has no brains and is a sell-out. While I may be at the point
of laying down my arms (by choice or force)- I wonder if anyone else has
realized the battle may be raging on the inside, but no one on the
outside much cares- and while artists
fight, the art world is quickly becoming more and more irrelevant. That is
the one thing that I never wanted to see. Art creates ideas, new
avenues of thinking- human dignity through creation. That should
never become obsolete. If and and when it finally does reach that reality, the crusade has failed- and it's message is
dead. Because if art falls over in the forest and no one is there
to see it, was it ever really created?