Ashamed to be an Artist

Is this the future of art?
I was lucky enough to spend the afternoon touring the local Wellington Galleries.
I was actually looking forward to seeing some "real" art, as opposed to images on a large projector screen.
I was dismayed at the art that we saw - if you could call it that. The only thing that distinguished it from a bit of scrap doodling by the telephone or GIB board which was once used as a drop cloth on a building site when they were painting - was that they were in a gallery setting.
And not just any gallery. These were dealer galleries - galleries which make a living off selling art! This is meant to be the higher echelon of art. It is meant to be difficult for artists to break through into getting such galleries to take your work; because they have to sell your work to stay open.
But to tell you the truth - much of this stuff wasn't suitable to sell. Corporate businesses wouldn't want it on their wall, and I wouldn't want it in my lounge either!
I have no issue with people creating. Some of the stuff might have been provocative or on an intellectual level. One of the pieces was a temporary wire fence you see at building sites, and was left part open. Inside was a whole stack of papers, and it was the act of walking in and getting one of these papers (which was a theoretical take away art idea) that made the artwork. I have no issue with people creating something like that. But my issue is that it is done in the name of art. It is blasphemy! Call yourself an exhibitionist - not an artist! To be an artist requires some sort of skill and talent, some sort of passion and control in which you create art which the masses applaud. To be an artist is to strive to better your counterparts and to walk in the footsteps of the grand masters of yesteryear.
It comes down to the a big question which I pose to you now...

What happened to the talent and the skill to be an artist?

What became of the decades it took the masters serving as aprenticship under an artist, learning the trade and the skills all before they could even touch paint onto a canvas and create?
What of the likes of da Vinci, Rembrandt, Turner, Van Gogh, Monet? They're all known by their last names for a reason! They all mastered their skill, bringing their art to the highest status they could get it. Continually striving to make it better, to make it more vibrant, to make it more realistic or more impressionistic, giving it life!

You hear people say it all the time... "I'm no good at art."
Well, after traveling these galleries there is no reason why anyone couldn't do this stuff.
To which you'd find the reply to be - "Exactly - but it took my genius to realize that and put this stuff as art into a gallery, and that is art..."
To which I would say - "Have you no respect for what it means to be an artist? To create beauty on canvas; to have the skill and the creative talent to create something which is appealing and worthy of being called art?"
If what I saw today is the future of art, and that the preconceptions of what an artist is, is someone who creates that stuff, then I am ashamed to call myself an artist.
I am sure that the likes of Rembrandt, David, Turner and Monet are turning in their graves this very instant.

What ever happened to the guild?

In past history, art - in particular artist, have been centred around
artist guilds. Guilds would be small pockets of artists who had
particular interests in common. Things such as location in the case
of Vermeer and the Delft Art Guild, or be it the style of painting
you preferred or painted, in the case of Surrealism. These, not only
added to the development of the guild, but of the artists belonging
to it aswell. Having never belonged to one, I can only but imagine
what they would have been like. Artists of different ages, all with a
common goal to aim for, offering support, critique and suggestions
for each other. It would have been extremely faluable for the up and
coming artist.
So what happened to them? Is it merely the individualistic nature of
the world today which has spawned this decline of the guild. Even in
New Zelaand's art history you have a miniature guild of Canterbury,
with the likes of Rita Angus, Toss Woollastone, Colin McCahon and
Doris Lusk establishing New Zealand's own artistic style - all out of
the same generic centre. We as artists have become so self obsessed
that we no longer care for the opinions of others, even others who
have valid opinion such as ones own peers. Is it because we are self
sufficient, that the information is there for all to gather, and
individual thought and inspiration is encouraged with expressionism
that we see the demise of the guild?
But why would all this mean that the guild could not exist? As an
student artist there were times when outside opinion was not
required; even becoming a hinderance with someone who you didn't even
know offering their two cents worth, even if it were positive. Yet
most of the time I found that I needed the opinions of those who I
myself respected as artists, and who's ideas and contribuions were
rational and informative - to add more ideas to my work other than
just my own. These opinions of the ones I respected and built
friendship were even more important to me than that of my tutor.
Now as an independant artist, the one thing I miss is the
companionship and the option of asking for advice or opinions of your
work from my peers. While the communication age makes this easier
than it was in the days of Vermeer, there is still necessity in being
able to view and take in other people's work in the flesh to be able
to offer accurate opinions. It keeps you in touch with what is going
around, what works, how to do things differently and many other
artistic ideas which are important in developing your work - else it
becomes stale. While I don't like painting in others company, even to
the point where I don't want people seeing a work while I'm working
on it or even before I finish it, I do see the need in other people
to offer opinions on it while it is being produced - but only to a
minimum. Solitude is the sapce I need to be able to create. Without
it, I find myself hesitant, lacking confidence in creating, afraid
that I will produce something which might not get the praise or
interest I would like all my paintings to have.
Bring back the guilds. Even if it is 3 or 4 people. Even if there are
many separate guilds within your city. Even if all those guilds are
focussed on the same thing. One thing that causes groups of people to
loose interest is when there is someone in the group who you don't
get along with. By keeping guilds small, there is chance that not
liking someone is minimized. The guilds should be of people who you'd
get along with regardless of their artist intentions or abilities.
Bring back the guilds.

Artists Diaries : Writing about Art

It seems that when people think of the writings of Art History, that it is the art critics whose articles appear in various newspapers or magazines who run the ship. The Artist is separated from their work, with much scrutiny placed on their personal life and what effects that had on the art, as apposed to them being the artist who created the artwork.
However, the writings which provide much of the strong foundation in art history, and inevitablly the best in terms of their meaning and power, is those writings of the artists themselves. In reading these articles, you get the sense that they know what they're talking about. Whilst a lot of what is written is in relation to their own work as artists, it also offers explaination to a lot of art questions, just by their own examination of their own work. It provides something to get your teeth stuck into and chew on for a while. They offer inspiration to budding artists and are able to connect with the art world on a different level than you're average art critic - because of that hands on experience of creating art.
Some artists prefer not to delve too much into their own work, saying that they need not explain their work, for the work should speak for itself; allowing the viewer will gather their own meanings from the art. This is true for me. I believe that art should speak for itself, but in saying that; if someone was to ask more about it, I would only be too happy to offer some of my own thoughts towards the piece. The reason I do this is because I don't like the way in which art critics and writers treat their own experience of the artwork as fact. Many assumptions and opinions have been wrongly made about artworks because the artist either didn't offer an explaination, or the artist no longer lived to tell the story. It then appears in written form, studied and soon becomes a given fact, even though the truth may not have be heard from the horses mouth - the artist. It is therefore important that the artist speaks about his work when required, so that the real meanings and the thoughts behind the work can be recorded and therefore the real truth behind the work comes to fruition.
In saying this, I don't believe that artists should have to write about their work in order to explain it. That is the job of the art critic! But - Artists should write; and they should write about art. Whether it be from their own work offering insight, or their own experiences; artists will offer the best explaination to any art question, for it is the artist who drives art.
Artists will always have opinions about art. It is part of their job. They see things other people don't see, and are the only ones who truely know the goings on of their own work.
Write, artists; write!

Updates - Slow Going

I have been doing a little bit of painting, adding in the houses and buildings in my piece Fulham. I would have a picture for you, but - my digital camera has decided to play up and is currently being repaired. I will have updates as soon as possible.