Artists often like to debate the merits and shortcomings of each other’s genres. Abstract, performance and installation artists might claim to be more cutting edge than those artists devoted to carefully composed studies of objects rendered from direct observation. Purveyors of realism sometimes claim that artists who choose the former modes of expression do so because they lack basic skills. The "modern" or "cutting edge" argument does not exactly hold much credence, because the roots of most abstract, performance and conceptual art has its roots in art movements that are now over a hundred years old. ( Indeed, performance could be considered a few thousand years old!) There are expressive qualities to abstraction, however, offered by freedom from constraints and the possibilities for exploration, which make this pursuit in art refreshingly tempting. The drawing skills argument is also pertinent, however. Although many artists might not admit it, skills not practiced are skills lost.
I work in more than one genre, and as a result see the merits of many alternatives to making art. My abstractions allow for a certain type of expressive brush work that would be difficult to maintain in an art work that relies upon carefully delineated forms based on observable reality. I must admit, however, the truth that not keeping in practice drawing from nature does indeed result in an erosion of that skill. I noticed this recently when making large drawings for an exhibition on the theme of chairs.
I had been spending a significant amount of time writing, marketing, and applying for professional opportunities. A number of weeks went by and I had not put brush to canvas and pencil to paper. When this happens, I find that sitting down and applying myself to making art again can be rough and rusty.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0cd91/0cd9162f7174feca4169f0f5442808c658d87891" alt=""
No comments:
Post a Comment