Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ChantalPowell 10:01 am on July 21, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: advice, answers, community, help, network, questions, support   

    The Doctor is in the House 

    All right how about a consultation session next? My thinking is that put together we have a varied wealth of art knowledge and experience, and individually we have questions that we’d love answers to. So here’s the opportunity – ask away! Ask a question about something you are struggling with or have always wondered about. Ask about a project you are working on (post a link to an image if you have one), or ask to have explained some strange art world etiquette you have never understood. Ask for tips about approaching a gallery or ask for inspiration. Ask if anyone has a recommendation for a great packaging company! Anything you like – no question will be considered inexperienced or silly.

    I’ll definitely do my best to answer or share thoughts on things but I’m hoping everyone will chip in because chances are that in a large group – someone will have the answer or an insight that could be useful.

    I think this is where the strength of a forum like this could really come to the fore. If we all participate this can be a great supportive artist community and port for advice!

    So who will be brave and start us off? . . .

    Chantal

     

    • Rebecca Harris 4:56 am on July 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I wonder what everyone’s top tip would be for any emerging artist, I’ve been told to be very selective about where I exhibit and opportunities I get involved in as it’s better not to do something than do anything, what tips would you give to a graduating/emerging artist?

    • ChantalPowell 6:25 am on July 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Rebecca – great question!

      My top 3 starter tips would be:

      1. Create a coherent and distinctive body of work (there is no point in approaching galleries until you have a good body of work that you are proud of and that clearly represents your style).

      2. Be in the art world as much as you can – attend openings, join in with forums, subscribe to art magazines and art blogs that interest you. All these things are great for knowing what is current in the art world, for forming relationships (absolutely essential!), and for being inspired and motivated.

      3. You must have a website and a mailing list! The website should have your contact details, a bit about yourself, and showcase your best work (better a few consistent pieces you are really proud of than lots of experimental work that makes you look uncertain of your direction). Include a link to your website at the bottom of every email you send as part of your signature. The mailing list is something you should be adding to all the time whenever you form a relationship or make a connection (always ask permission before adding a name to your mailing list though). This list will be invaluable later down the line when publicising events/sending out newsletters/updating collectors of new work for sale.

      What do other people think?

    • David 2:34 pm on July 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I find it hard to price and value my work. Is there a rule of thumb?

      Also if I can be cheeky and ask two questions my second would be, do you think there can be a sucessfull dialog between Fine Art with craft, hobby artists?

    • Dean Melbourne 4:51 pm on July 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I have many mistakes to learn by.

      1) dont over think it
      2) keep on making
      3) believe what you are doing has value
      4) show humility
      5) put in you 20.000 hours practise (even if it takes till you eighty!)
      6) Its not a race for fame, its about becoming an artist with something authentic to say
      7) DONT PANIC!

      A friend once told me that if you work with integrity and commitment at what you believe is right then it will be recognised appreciated. Having faith in that thought keeps me going.

      • ChantalPowell 8:28 am on July 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Wise words! I need to get back to point 2 I think -I’ve been letting things get in the way.

    • Nicola Anthony 1:03 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Just a quick question which it might be interesting to to get a collective answer on: Pricing of prints versus originals, how do you price? – A few people have asked me this but as I don’t do many prints I’m not sure. I’m venturing into that arena though so it would be great to get some thoughts from other artists out there.

      • ChantalPowell 2:53 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I have never worked with prints in my own work so have no answer to this one! What about other artists out there – how have you priced the two and if you have worked with a gallery have they had a recommendation on how the price difference should be arrived at?

    • Gemma Cumming 4:18 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Prints generally price less than an original. The more exclusive an image is the more it is worth. Prints (Ie Glicee reproductions of an original work) should be considerably less. I would also avoid making reproductions of an original work that are the same size, it might impact upon the price for the original if the reproductions are too close. Prints (ie an edition) especially if they are made using traditional processes are generally more than a glicee reproduction because thier is more work involved. But still any image where there is more than one of an image would be priced less than an image of which there is only one.

    • Darren MacPherson 6:06 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      My understanding is that the total sum of the print run should equal the value of the original – original = £2k; 10 Ltd Ed. prints £200 each. Print runs shouldn’t be over excessive in number to retain their value.

    • Rebecca Harris 8:23 am on July 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I read the article about your studio space with interest Chantal. I wondered what we all think works best when it comes to studios, at home, the garden, group studios, solo studios etc?

    • ChantalPowell 8:32 am on July 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Ooh good question! I have only ever had my purpose built studio so don’t have a comparison but I have often wondered what it would be like in group studios and if you do get a good sense of “community”. For me the home solution has been incredibly practical but I have at times envied artists with spaces in London which are more practical for people to pay “studio visits” to.
      For those interested in seeing what my space looks like, here is the article Rebecca was referring to:
      http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/south-east/features/readers-studios-chantal-powell/

    • Victoria Gibson 4:23 pm on August 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I am working on the Don’t Panic!
      I have a show on September 10th and my technical problems are massive.
      Integrated Media Artists are a bit different from those who make passive visual art — ; — >
      It is great to be able to network with others.
      Best of luck to you all.

      Victoria

  • Blaise 2:03 pm on July 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: art education, degree, MFA   

    How necessary is it for artists to have an MFA? 

    Here is a link to an interesting survey done by Jane Chafins.

    http://janechafinsofframpgalleryblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/mfa-is-it-necessary-debate.html

     

    • Rebecca Harris 12:09 pm on July 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think it is necessary if the artist thinks they want to do it or feel they need to. For me, hopefully starting my MA this September, having a very successful time during my fine art degree this year I’m still hungry to keep going through the arts education process. It’s the theoretical and critical depth of understanding in one’s work that is reached so well through these means of study.

      Of course having a PGCE and wanting to teach fine art at degree level, an MA is essential for this. I also have intentions of going further and doing a practice PhD. But these are all through personal circumstances, choices and needs. I wouldn’t then say that it is or isn’t necessary for artist to have an MFA, it depends on the individual.

      I don’t consider that the certificate betters my chances of getting into a gallery. But you cannot overestimate how this intense arts practice over two years of peer and tutor input not be a benefit? Again, depends on the individual.

    • Ian Pawelec 4:46 pm on July 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      There is no necessary path to becoming a good artist. If we all had to pass through institutionalized stages of accomplishment to become “good artists” art would become rather boring. Furthermore one can’t not be taught how to be a good artist, one can only be taught about art.

  • Blaise 5:22 pm on July 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: collecting, commercial, ephemeral art   

    Art should be built to last? 

    Marc Quinn - Blood Head

    This next discussion topic has been raised by Jochem Rotteveel who is interested in exploring people’s thoughts on “high” and “low” materials in art and ephemeral vs more “lasting” artworks. She hinted that she is concerned that people (I’m not sure if she is thinking only of buyers here) have a preference for lasting art in “high” materials but feels to bend to this preference limits her practice.

    Established artists are certainly able to sell contemporary art created from ephemera – there seems to be a whole new (expensive!) market set up to help maintain this genre of work. From the simple (but time consuming) task of replacing fruit and vegetables before they rot in an art installation, to sculptures that have to be drained and refilled regularly to kill the algae – there can be a lot to consider when committing to this kind of work.

    In an article on ephemeral work Amy Cappellazzo, an international head of Christie’s postwar and contemporary department, seemed confident that conservation issues would not deter serious collectors from bidding on pieces by well known artists saying that these works become like “devotional objects”.

    What about emerging artists working in these mediums though? What does it mean for these young artists financially as they wait to become established? Do you think it is harder for them to sell than other artists? Are they more or less likely to be tempted to alter their ideals to make their work more commercially viable than artists working in more traditional ways?

    Thoughts and experiences please!

    Chantal

     

    • RebeccaHarris 11:27 am on July 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting topic Chantal!

      To put it bluntly, no I wouldn’t change anything I do to become more commercially viable, I’d rather not make art at all than make art that isn’t me. At the moment I don’t have income from my art and my partner doesn’t support me financially so the incentive is there to ‘sell out’ I suppose. I believe as an artist you have to be authentic.

      A recent large sculpture of mine made from two old, and very heavy casement windows, started to get cracks in the glass when being moved. This of course worried me as it was the first time they were being shown and I didn’t know how many shows I have in them. I decided they were not for sale as it was more important for me to have them available for exhibitions than to make money off them.

      I also make some works from latex which of course has a shelf life just like the decaying works of Eva Hesse’s do now. But for me it is what the work means now, but also the consideration of the fate of the work is also part of the concepts.

      For an example of this, http://www.saatchionline.com/art/Installation-Sculpture-Grief/215460/136089/view a piece I had exhibited in a gallery in Plymouth recently exploits the ephemeral nature of artworks in that it dies during the show. The flowers are trapped within two windows, framing this twee like image, drawing the viewer in and then they realise the flowers are not getting air or water and feel compelled to suggest ways I could alter the work to let them survive. Of course, the piece is about their reaction and the fate of the flowers, it’s a metaphor for preservation and yearning to prolong loved ones’ lives, however, the end is inevitable. I then remake the work for wherever it is shown, just to die again and it is something I would not sell either.

      But I suppose there are ways of making money from works which are ephemeral that don’t necessarily sell the works themselves and Andy Goldsworthy demonstrates this well with his video documentation and beautiful books for which you can buy.

      I feel though that the permanence of work should not just be thought of in physical terms either, being witness and moved by the art eternalises the work phenomenologically. This can be said of all works, permanent or not.

      But then nothing lasts forever anyway….

    • DestrySparks 3:59 pm on July 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      There is more pressure on up and coming artists to avoid offering work without physical permanence. Their work is already more speculative than that of established figures with lengthy sales records. Collectors are more prone to take a chance on impermanent work from artists who have already proved to be collectible at least.

      I attach weathered found objects both natural and manufactured to burlap, window screens and wooden pallets. It’s a kind of contemporary mixed media painting which incorporates some materials which are quite fragile and debatably impermanent. Dried plant parts for example are certainly not as stable as acrylic or oil paint on canvas.

      I somewhat skate around the issue by not focusing on the fragility of some of the objects. I also take the position that in this day and age just getting a digital image of the paintings may be as important as the actual work itself. The images can be distributed much more widely thanks to current technology than actual paintings (durable or fragile) can be viewed at singular physical locations in exhibitions.

      The bottom line is we must put the content of the work itself ahead of whatever practical commercial concerns our practice leads us to. Get great shots taken of your work and use the tools of our age to get your work seen widely. I’ve not set out to make work that will collapse on the wall of a buyer though. I’ve done my best to provide something that will last, but not at the expense of compromising the integrity of actual found materials from the real world we occupy.

      Confronting the viewer with recognizable, obviously genuine artifacts from the world is at the heart of my visceral style. I want to reach them intellectually for sure, but also hit them, ‘in the gut’, with something striking that isn’t easy to ignore. If a painting ultimately fails to endure as a consequence, that’s a risk I and my collectors must be willing to take. A painting may be sacraficed at some point, but the whole image will endure digitally.

    • ChantalPowell 4:54 am on July 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Rebecca and Destry for sharing your thoughts. I really enjoyed reading both your replies and admire the integrity you both have in your own work. What is for sure is that the art world would be a whole lot poorer if it didn’t include work that was temporary or that is created from ephemeral materials. I agree that we can’t limit the tools or materials we use on account of there appeal or commerciality. Rebecca, I have seen and admired your piece “grief” before and there is something in the knowing that it has had its moment and now passed that is essential in what it is communicating.

      Destry makes an important point I think about the documentation of these works being very important and possibly also providing an alternative “saleable” aspect in the form of prints/video etc.

      Although I think emerging artists working in these mediums may have a harder financial time initially than artists using more traditional materials I wonder if its actually the artists working in the more “saleable” materials that are pushed/tempted more to alter their work to meet market demand because it may seem like less of a compromise?

      • Susan Francis 7:18 am on July 18, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Great to have this discussion Chantal, it’s right up my street as a lot of the time I work with materials which are often unstable and prone to decay. Returning to making artwork some years ago I made a conscious decision as to whether I would make my work more ‘saleable’ or not. In the end I felt compromise would strip the experimental nature out of my work and I decided to depend instead on income from educational projects which run alongside my own exhibiting and take the pressure off to sell. Art essentially reflects what is to live here and now and in this throwaway society, whether rightly or wrongly, we no longer approach materials with an expectancy of permanency. Cheap items and eBay finds are often the objects that find their way into artists work reflecting makers that no longer labour for years over a single piece but whose thought processes dwell in a fast moving, ever shifting society.

        Recently I went to see a Hew Locke installation at Artsway in the new Forest. It was very much a progression from the large cardboard installations he had created in the past. This however had been constructed in plywood for the sole purpose I was told of making the work more permanent so that it could be moved from gallery to gallery. It was clear to me, I felt, that the unyeilding plywood lost some of the qualities that the easily cut and assembled cardboard had given the work and I think something has been sacrificed dare I say, to appease the gallery that represents Locke.

        Further more,I can’t imagine the art world without the legacy left by Eva Hesse and her groundbreaking, experimental approach to materials. It is certainly not an easy route for the artist though, I find myself struggling regularly as I discover what’s possible with a material that perhaps has never been used in artwork before. It adds up to many unsuccessful pieces in order to get that one that succeeds. Whether you compromise or not is a very personal decision and I know now is one I will never go back on.

        • ChantalPowell 7:46 am on July 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

          Thank you for joining in Susan – I love your work and I’m very grateful that artists such as yourself have made the decision not to bend to commercial pressures as we would all be a lot poorer for missing out on the work that otherwise would not be made.

          I think buyers are getting a lot braver in what they buy – when I have looked at private collections there are some very varied works in there. Maybe the difference lies not so much in selling to “collectors of art” but to buyers in the public looking for something that serves a more decorative role for their homes?

          Interesting observation about Hew Locke’s exhibition. I too saw the recent exhibition at Artsway and loved it (I’m quite a fan of his work) but I haven’t seen the cardboard installations “in the flesh”. It would be really interesting to know if you were right about the change to more “durable” materials was a decision suggested to him by galleries.

    • Rebecca Harris 8:05 am on July 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I agree Destry, putting what the work is about ahead of its commercial value is definitely important.

      Thanks Chantal, yes it’s definitely going to be harder financially but then I don’t think I would be onto a sure thing if I was a painter etc. Supplementing income through other means is going to be essential for most artists, even when they are established (which I have found out from the artists I have met).

    • robin 8:19 am on July 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      ideally, i think artists should be free to work ‘in the moment’ and not be hampered by worries whether their work will deteriorate over time but, having said that, i’ve experimented (and will continue) with volatile materials like tape, bleach, random chemical washes, etc. but, sadly, they are very unpredictable and do change over time. unless the buyer knows their purchase may darken or yellow eventually, it’s embarrassing for me when these inevitable changes happen and i have to explain. it’s one thing to be spontaneous in the creating stage but, when you’re selling your work, it just seems unprofessional (almost fraudulent) to sell something which, by nature of its elements, virtually self-destructs over time. like it or not, people do buy art as an investment and that art should hold up … if the decay is part of the piece, that’s wonderful. personally, i am drawn to that sort of idea but, if it falls to pieces (like schnabel’s broken china paintings have done apparently) that — to me– undermines the quality and integrity and value of the work.

    • ChantalPowell 8:42 am on July 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thats a really interesting point Robin – I hadn’t thought about the issue quite like that. So what do you reckon the ideal situation is – exhibit the temporary work but only sell the documentation of it to collectors if its highly likely to deteriorate?

      Marc Quinn remakes his “Blood Head” titled Self (image shown in the opening of this discussion) every 5 years but I think thats more a case of it being an ongoing project documenting his transformation rather than due to the deterioration of the piece.

      When Hirst’s shark started to deteriorate and was replaced there was debate as to wether the artwork was still the same. Larry Gagosian announced that the substitution of the shark should be seen in much the same way as the replacement of a broken neon tube in an installation by Dan Flavin. In an article for TATE Petra Lange-Berdnt suggests, “However, in contrast to works by, for instance, Sarah Lucas, which use fresh fruit that the particular owner or exhibitor should exchange regularly, it obviously matters who is substituting the shark. Damien Hirst’s company Science Ltd offers to replace any animal that is older than ten years”.

      • Susan Francis 4:07 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I had a chat with my niece over this issue, she’s a contemporary art specialist in an auction house and worked under the writer at one point, to give us an insider viewpoint as it were of the market, Many of her comments echoed the discussion before but here are a few of the others,

        ‘It does appeal to some people to have a devotional nature to work. Or to go further, to have a work that lives… it has a lives a life cycle them perishes. But again, it depends on how integral this notion is to what the artist is actually trying to say. For example, if it has nothing to do with what the artist’s about, it’s just annoying if it is going to disintegrate! The buyer might feel cheated…Another question, is to do with works that people don’t expect to degrade but after 10 years do. There’s a lot of fancy new materials being use and people don’t really know their longevity. No one knows for example how Rudolf Stingel’s styrofoam scultures will age. They’re bright white now, but will they go brown with time?
        She goes on to say,
        The question of ‘perenity’ and degradation could also be applied to video and film as a technique. Work from the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s and present day have seen an extraordinary technological evolution. How do you play your super8, your VHS and you Blueray DVD, when technology has moved on and projectors have become archaic things of the past? Luckily this is a problem artists are aware of now and they specify with the gallery how the pieces can be transferred to new media, but this is not the case of earlier works and transferral to digital media often takes away an integral part of the aesthetics…At the end of the day, the ‘market’ will always give more attention to the more easily ‘consumable’ works, be that through their medium, their subject matter or their style.

        There you go, some thoughts from the side of the fence where the big money lies.

        • ChantalPowell 6:21 pm on July 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

          Hey Susan,

          Thanks so much for sharing this – great insights!
          I think the point about the material choice being integral to the work is an excellent one.

  • Blaise 6:19 am on July 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Chinese food for thought 

    In 6 weeks I will be staying in Shanghai for a 2 month AIR. One of the things I want to investigate, apart from my artistisc research, is the position of (the) Chinese art(ist) in Chinese society. I know this will be challenging, since Chinese are said to be cautious and hesitant about this kind of discussion. However, I want to try and open up some sort of dialogue. Also about issues like the value of eternal quality in art in times of digitization and the (re)valuation of low materials.  

    I aim to present my findings and learnings in an exhibition cum lecture or debate. If anyone of you is interested in sharing your thoughts on this, feel free. Perhaps you have stayed in China before. All ideas are welcome. Let me know what you think!

     

    • ChantalPowell 6:41 am on July 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      It sounds really interesting. Do you have a link to a website or blog where we could read more about your plans? I haven’t got any experience of my own to share but I do know of someone who would be great for you to chat to. Her name is Rachel Marsden and she is a freelance curator, writer and artist with a lot of experience in this area:
      http://www.rachelmarsden.co.uk/Rachel_Marsden/Research.html
      Here is a link to her blog too:
      http://rachelmarsdenwords.wordpress.com/

      Happy reading!

    • ChantalPowell 6:48 am on July 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      That sounds really interesting – do you have a link to a blog or site where we could read more about your work/plans?
      I don’t have any experience of my own to share but do have a great recommendation of someone who does. Her name is Rachel Marsden and she is a freelance curator, writer and artist who has a lot of experience in the world of chinese art and has spent significant time there interacting with artists herself.

      Here is a link to her site:
      http://www.rachelmarsden.co.uk/Rachel_Marsden/Research.html

      And to her blog:
      http://rachelmarsdenwords.wordpress.com/ (loads for you to read there!)

      • ChantalPowell 1:54 pm on July 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        sorry for the repeat! – minor technical glitch

      • JochemRotteveel 3:32 am on July 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for your reply Chantal! I find the link you attached very helpful. I printed it and will have a quiet read when I have the time later today. You can find more about my work on http://www.jochemrotteveel.com. I don’t have a specified plan yet, apart from my artistic research of the Chinese visual language and their extraordinary range of plastics and tape (which is my primary source of materials). I am intrigued about China and the function art has in society. I attended a lecture about Chinese art and politics and it was so fascinating. To us, in western society, art is a means of self critique and self reflection. But for Chinese society art cannot (openly) play that role. This gave me the idea to try and open a dialogue with Chinese fellow artists. Not only about politics though, but also about more artistic matters, like the value of materials for instance. In Dutch art academies people are taught about low and high materials (oil paint being a high material, construction material being low). Then there is the importance of a work being everlasting. Most people want art to have everlasting quality. These two theses I’d like to fight, because it limits me as an artist to really follow my artistic instinct and fascination. So that’s something else I’d like to discuss in Shanghai. And here. Can you see what I mean?

        • ChantalPowell 3:12 pm on July 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

          I absolutely do see what you mean and I think it will be a great dialogue to explore among Chinese artists. As for discussing high/low materials and ephemeral art – we can certainly do that here! I’ll make that the topic of the next discussion question.

  • Blaise 6:55 am on July 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: auctions, donating art, marketing, respect, saying no!   

    Donating Artwork – when to say yes and when to politely to tell them to take a walk 

    Artists get many requests to donate their work for free to “good causes”. In most cases it is from an organisation that has never shown an interest in the artists work before, the work sells cheaply or not at all (doing your reputation little good), and the contribution from the donating artist is not acknowledged in any meaningful way.

    This isn’t to say that there is never a good time to donate – I was really pleased to be part of the last two auctions I donated work to but they were both galleries that have shown work of mine in the past and were genuine in their appreciation. Its the requests from galleries who treat artists’ work like cheap tombola donations that are frustrating.

    This article by Joanne Mattera makes some excellent points about artists donating work and suggestions on how institutions could make donating artwork more beneficial to the artists:

    The Endless Requests To Donate Your Artwork

    What are your thoughts and experiences? Any advice or questions? Be great to hear from artists who have donated (or thinking of), those who have bought from donated work events, as well as those organising auctions.

     

  • Blaise 4:10 am on July 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/67ENsr/www.business-strategy-innovation.com/wordpress/2011/07/15-awesome-quotes-on-collaboration/ just saw this link on twitter – quotes on collaboration :)

     

  • Blaise 3:42 pm on July 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: collaborarting   

    Hello, nice to meet you, lets talk a while! 

    Hello to what I hope is lots of forum artists ready and waiting to talk! Thank you to Blaise for the invite to be next up hosting the chat on Collaborate. My name is Chantal and I’m an artist based in the UK – I create sculptural assemblages and get excited about narrative, emotion, and theatrics in art (you can check out what I do at http://www.chantalpowell.com).

    Anyway what to discuss first? Well given the title of the forum I thought I’d start with “collaborations”. What’s good and what’s bad about them? How about sharing some of your experiences of working with other artists or collaborating with an organisation / industry? I’d like to know what you have gained from collaborating, or ways in which things have gone wrong. For those artists new to collaborating feel free to ask any questions or share any concerns!

     

    • Blaise 6:38 pm on July 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Chantal! Welcome to the start of what will no doubt be a wonderful three weeks of discussion amongst you and your fellow artists. I’m always fascinated to observe the conversation, as an “outsider” myself, but can certainly relate to the trials an tribulations of collaborations (excuse the rhyme!). In my experience, it’s critical for both contributors to briefly yet frankly outline what they expect of one another, how the responsibilities are divided, and ultimately, how each defines a collaboration. Some think it means that any idea becomes group property; others think it’s more about spurning one and other’s imaginations for the sake of then going off to your separate corners to get down to individual work. Regardless, it can be daunting, to say the least! I’ll be interested to hear how artists find collaborations useful, or what they’ve learned through hard lessons are the pitfalls of which to be wary….

    • Dean Melbourne 8:01 pm on July 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well Hello. I maybe first declare a vested interest in this topic and our host as I am indeed her collaborative partner.

      For me there are a lot of things that are great about collaborating. I think one of the best things about it actually is a sense of responsibility to your partner/s. Being a solo practitioner one can let things run on a little. I guess a lack of urgency can result in a slightly laboured feeling in he studio. Of course there are other ways to inject urgency , a deadline or opening night for example. But then I guess that is still a collaboration between and artist and or client , gallery.

      I believe that the push to come up with the goods for your co-collaboraters can lead to bigger and better results. More obviously there is the old two heads are better than one argument for collaboration , again you can get that from a crit group or soem very honest peers but two heads with a common problem/concept is a very directed focus of energy. again this can yield surprising results.
      Physical distance between collaborators is an interesting topic with all sorts of implications , I am yet to decide whether a few hundred miles is easier to manage than a shared space and is overall better or worse. I think tech obviously has a huge role to play in making that relationship viable. (chantal and I and about 300 miles apart as we develop our project)

      Whats bad about it? Without good , open , transparent communication friendships can be damaged and or broken. Something i hope to avoid!
      There is a danger that know one has the courage as a result of the feelings of responsibility to others to say when a project has lost its direction or is no longer viable.
      The hardest thing is finding someone to work with. This is my first proper artist/artist project and it has taken 10 years to find someone I think I can work with.

      I believe that you have to be prepared to “fail” together but still understand the worth in the process despite the risks.

      congrats to chantal for being selected as host and congrats to blaise for a great sight/project and getting a superb artist as host!

      • ChantalPowell 6:41 am on July 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Well I’m very glad to hear that Dean finds his current collaboration to be such a positive experience! :)

        I agree that artists collaborating together on a shared project can have a directed focus that exceeds that of the feedback of a crit group. I have found that working with a painter has led me to consider things differently. I have found myself considering the wider narrative more, where as I feel the objects I create usually leave me focusing of specifics – a particular emotion or thought. To be stretched in that way by an artist who works in a different manner to yourself is incredibly beneficial.

        As mentioned – Dean and myself aren’t collaborating in the same physical space as we live in different areas of the country. The times we do manage to physically meet up and see work in the flesh are always incredibly productive times. I think working across a distance does provide more of a challenge and requires discipline to not let things drift. As well as phone discussions and emailing regular work update images, we have set up a posterous blog specifically for our project that only the two of us have access to. Here we post any information we gather for the project, images, quotes, links to other artists work, thoughts we are having, work in progress etc. Its like a shared scrapbook and is a really useful collaborative tool.

        • Nicola 7:32 am on July 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

          Collaboration has always intrigued me, but the opportunities that arose never felt quite right, and it’s interesting to hear from two artists who have also waited a long time to find the right opportunity – I’m still on the lookout for mine. I’ve seen many artists rush into it and end up creating work that they don’t feel is ‘theirs’ – issues of authorship/ownership and feeling like the core concept of the work is too far from their own core.

          Obviously, this must also be one of the big benefits of collaboration – that it forces you outside of your usual sphere and takes you in directions you would never have traversed on your own. But I guess there is a limit – is your creativity going in those directions or is the work is drifting off on it’s own or under the influence of one artist more than other/s…

          • ChantalPowell 7:47 am on July 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

            Good point and I think that takes us back to Blaise’s point about both contributors knowing and expressing what they expect from the collaboration. I think that Blaise was making this point with respect to ensuring a smooth running of the relationship but I think its important to be honest with yourself why you are entering a collaboration. What do you hope to gain from it? How do you hope it will develop/influence your work? Is this artist/organisation the correct pairing for you personally as well as for your work?

    • ChantalPowell 7:53 am on July 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Two fellow artists I know – Tahnee Lonsdale and Darren Macpherson – are conducting a live painting collaboration next Saturday at Debut Contemporary Gallery in London. You can read about it here:
      http://debutcontemporary.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/tahnee-lonsdale-darren-macpherson-saturday-debut-july-16th/
      It would be very interesting to hear how they have found the experience of working towards this collaborative event and what drew them to propose it. I shall invite them to come and share their thoughts here . . .

      • Tahnee Lonsdale 8:20 am on July 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Chantal, as you mentioned above i have a very nerve racking collaboration coming up this Saturday 16th. Me and Darren are doing a live painting collaboration in the window of Debut Gallery. We have both started a painting and plan to finish each others works infront of an audience of passers by and anyone who wants to pop in for a chat.
        The build-up to our live painting collab. has been interesting, we’ve left the brief pretty open, the theme is TWINS, and have been very relaxed about what each other have started. I have found the hardest thing about collaborating is the responsibility, i don’t want to make something only half good as i would be letting Darren down, i also worry about ruining his painting when i come to work into it. When you are a one man show it is very easy to procrastinate and also give up when something isn’t working, so i think working collaboratively is a very good discipline, it forces you to make deadlines and meet them, not something artists are usually good at! But it is also very exciting and freeing, you can’t be too precious about your work as it will soon be out of your control.
        I can’t wait to see the results…

        • ChantalPowell 2:36 pm on July 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

          Thanks Tahnee – really interesting to hear your thoughts on the process and again that idea of responsibility to the other artist being something that pushes you on further. Its a thread that is coming out in a number of replies.
          All the very best for Saturday’s live event – be great to hear how it goes!

    • RosieKearton 3:13 am on July 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Chantal – nice to meet you here and join in the conversation – I have just finished a collaborative project – I invited 30 artists to submit one work for an artist’s book on Failure – no selection, all work received would be included as selection is one of the ways artist’s can fail! It was really difficult for me not to want to select the work for the book and a big learning curve. One of the disadvantages were the changes during the project and being limited by the initial brief to the other artists – I would like to have made changes which weren’t possible because of the work received. I felt a huge responsibility as well which challenged me to produce a strong piece of work. The book was produced for my dissertation (BA hons in Fine Art) and included an essay on Failure – I received a first for the dissertation and I was delighted to let the participants know that Failure had been such a success! I have written several posts about it on my blog http://ruminations-and-rambles.blogspot.com

    • RebeccaHarris 8:41 am on July 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Chantal

      Collaboration is something I am very interested in so am eager to find out more. So far I have not collaborated but have been in discussion others before about possibly collaborating. The problem which I have encountered, with those and myself wanting to collaborate, is a meeting of busy lives! Having children and being an artist demand a great flexibility in your practice, then trying to join two of these together is hard. But then it hasn’t been something that we have wanted to do so much that we would make it work I suppose. Again it is that meeting of determination and commitment that is so important in this practice. Maybe having to put one’s own individual identity to one side? How are you finding it working with another artists whilst having your own practice? I know two artists who collaborate, but this is their practice, a joint identity. Does this make collaboration more straight forward?

    • ChantalPowell 3:55 pm on July 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Welcome Rosie and Rebecca – thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts and questions!

      Rosie – I have just been on your blog reading about the Failure project. Congratulations on it leading to a First mark for the dissertation – a wonderfully poetic end to the exploration of failure indeed! I found it interesting that you echoed Dean’s comment that having others contributing to your work led you to feel a sense of responsibility that challenged/motivated you further.

      Rebecca – I certainly understand where you are coming from with balancing a busy life including children! I don’t know if your past discussions were regarding a group collaboration or with one other individual but I think its harder the more people that are involved unless you have one individual “managing” the project.

      Commitment and a genuine enthusiasm for a collaboration are essential but I wouldn’t want to see you putting your individual identity to one side. I think the most successful collaborations are when you can still clearly see the identities of the artists involved but they have come together in a way that adds something more to their practices than there was previously. This is how I see the collaboration I am in now which is why I am so excited about it. I have been part of group collaborations where individual artists work to a shared theme or brief – I have found these experiences fun and good for building relationships but I didn’t find it especially enriching to my practice. Then there is collaborating with an organisation or industry, possibly in the form of a commission. A whole other area. Maybe one someone else wants to share their experience on? . . .

    • robin 3:21 pm on July 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      i wonder if collaborating almost always includes a note of compromise and somehow dilutes at least one of the contributor’s original idea. when i did commercial work (working to a brief is a sort of collaboration between artist and commissioning designer) there was usually a sense of compromise, a need to please which… hmmm… for me, was not a good way of working. it’s great when it works for others but, from my limited fine art history knowledge, collabs are usually disappointing.

    • robin 3:26 pm on July 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      maybe others who know more than i do can show examples of collaborations between artists which produced work that was the equal or greater than those artist’s individual work . off hand, i can’t think of any — other than artists who always collaborated like gilbert and george, kienholz, starn twins, etc.

      • ChantalPowell 5:07 pm on July 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        That is a good challenge to set down! I have to say off the top of my head I am struggling to think of an example (well one that isn’t artists who collaborate together as part of their practice).

        There was a show last year by Dorothy Cross and William McKeown whose two person show worked really well I thought – with the different forms of their practices complimenting each other very well.
        http://www.kerlin.ie/exhibitions/Past-Exhibitions/KG-2-10.aspx

        A couple of the works in there are done in direct collaboration but I guess overall the pieces were still very much their own.

        I absolutely relate to your point about commercial collaborations requiring a level of compromise that (I feel) can restrict an artists creative freedom. I guess you are trading that freedom for the benefits that such a commission brings. I’d hope that that would be much less likely in an artist-artist collaboration. I think if an artist feels that they are going to be compromised they should be very hesitant to take part.

        In my own collaboration with Dean I haven’t, as yet, experienced a sense of being restricted in my creativity or led away from what I feel is my own work. As I mentioned before I have actually felt it has led me to think more outside my box but not at the expense of my personal direction. Its early days yet though so I’ll let you all be the judge of that when we get our project finished!

        This is what we are working on by the way:
        http://majesticelk.weebly.com/

    • ChantalPowell 5:16 am on July 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Here is an interview that came out yesterday about two friends of mine who are both talented artists in their own right but do fantastic collaborative projects together. In the interview they talk about their collaboration and I thought it would be great to read in the context of our discussion:
      http://www.zeitgeistmagazine.com/#/twinkle-and-tinsel-interview/4553342068

  • Blaise 3:05 pm on June 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Art Critiques, James Elkins, Jerry Saltz,   

    “So artists: What makes a critique good, bad, very bad? What stories do you have to share with us?” – Jerry Saltz sourcing ideas on facebook for a future book by art historian James Elkins:

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=352242884966&comments

    If you share any of your thoughts with Jerry, please let us know as well!

     

    • JuditBozsan 9:08 am on June 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      WHAT MAKES FOR A GOOD CRITIQUE?

      The perhaps most visceral and honest approach to criticism I have ever heard was what a participant said at a panel discussion a few years ago in New York in response to a question asking how you can tell good art from bad art:

      “When you see bad art, your first impression is usually ‘Wow!’ and after a few minutes you think “ugh..naaah”. When you see good art, it tends to be the other way around. First you say “ugh..naaah” and a few minutes later you say “Wow!”

      Now, the question is what does this process exactly entail? What happens during this 180 degree turn in relation to deeper levels of processing? Presumably, this is exactly what a good critique should explain.

      In trying to qualify what constitutes a good critique, it may be a good idea to first get a grip of our sense of what criticism’s function should be. One big question is the directionality of the relationship between art and criticism. Should art criticism have the power to influence art, or should it merely be a reactive tale in response to artistic output?

      A DISCERNING EYE

      An etymological overview of the word “critic” itself leads us to interesting insights. The word stems from the Latin word criticus (‘judge, literary critic’) or Greek kritikos, meaning ‘able to make judgments.’ The word kritikos derives from the word krinein, which means ‘to separate, decide’. And indeed what better departure point to define a good critique than the origin of the word itself: a good critique should be able place a work of art in context while pointing out how it is able to create a place of its own in the trajectory of art history.

      Here I feel urged to quote Jerry Saltz himself on the role of criticism from his 2005 article “Having an eye in criticism is as important as having an ear in music” in The Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-12-13/art/seeing-out-loud/):

      “Having an eye in criticism is as important as having an ear in music. It means discerning the original from the derivative, the inspired from the smart, the remarkable from the common, and not looking at art in narrow, academic, or ‘objective’ ways. It means engaging uncertainty and contingency, suspending disbelief, and trying to create a place for doubt, unpredictability, curiosity and openness.”

      This proposition in turn calls to mind Griselda Pollock’s three-pronged model of the ‘avant-garde gambit’ (1993) of reference, deference, difference, where: reference stands for the artist’s ability to make a connection between his or her work and current avant-garde trends; deference stands for the artist’s decision to pay respect to the avant-garde leader who ‘had the latest move;’ and where the strategy of ‘difference’ advances the previous artist’s style and replaces it:

      “At the height of the modernist revolution, I have identified the avant-garde gambit as
      that of reference, deference and difference? Any ambitious artist in the avant-garde formation must invoke the precedent through connection with which the new work assumes its avant-garde identity. Yet the reference must also become the creative moment of producing a difference, that is the emerging artist’s declaration of identity.”

      In a rather (positively) peculiar way, Saltz’s critic-oriented definition related to function seems to mirror Pollock’s artist-oriented theory of strategy from a different perspective. Merging together the two accounts, one could say, a good critique should be able to detect and offer a well-discerned evaluative description of this perhaps to some extent conscious and to some extent subconscious artistic tendency of reference-deference-difference. Much like science, art is an organic evolutionary process, in which any innovation by default to a certain extent will derive from a previous achievement. A good critique should be able to detect artistic intention, how it relates to its context and evaluate its success as it unfolds.

      It is interesting to note that art criticism as a vocation has not been around as long as art itself. It only emerged on any real formal level in the 19th century (think reviews of Paris salons) and in the 20th century is when it becomes anchored as a necessary extension of perceiving and evaluating the arts (think especially Abstract Expressionism). Curiously, this happens to coincide with the prelude and onset of modern art, a period, which could be tied to Griselda Pollock’s theories.

      OFFERING A DIAGNOSIS

      As a perhaps rather far-fetched imaginary metaphor, I propose let’s think of the concept of art as an ever-evolving monstrous creature, growing a new arm, leg, finger every day. Every artistic movement, ism, idea, creation represents a new outgrowth, that either connects to another or forms a whole new body part. Each work of art may constitute a living organ, a beating heart, whose success will depend on its ability to continue pumping blood through the system. The body parts and organs can die off if there is no more blood being pumped into them and eventually may even be amputated and placed into a formaldehyde tank for further evaluation by specialists.

      Critics in this sense, could be thought of as cardiologists, diagnosing the efficiency or inefficiency of the different hearts’s functionality and their effectiveness in letting the blood circulate. A critique in turn would be the diagnosis, evaluating whether treatment is needed. In this sense, I suppose the question is whether the critic-cardiologist should merely provide a diagnosis and detect a clog, or if it should also engage in preventive care or perhaps even perform surgery when necessary?

      ACTING AS A FILTERING MECHANISM

      Relating to the previous thought, a key function of a good critique in the larger scheme of things could be its ability to filter out art and allow it when it’s ready to elevate to the realm of “good art”.

      In his article titled “Quiet Crisis,” published in Art in America in 2003 (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~quigleyt/vcs/rubenstein-crisis.pdf), Raphael Rubinstein writes:

      “Recently, in a frank, anecdotal piece about the role of the art critic, Saltz described his ambition as wanting to be “what Peter Plagens calls a ‘goalie,’ someone who in essence says, ‘It’s going to have to be pretty good to get by me”…They may be great goalies, but the way the game is played, they are usually left standing by the sidelines while artists, dealers, consultants and collectors keep scoring with whatever balls they want, as often as they please.”

      MAINTAINING RELEVANCE

      In conclusion, one could argue that a good critique should be able to detect and interpret artistic intention and evaluate the success of artistic expression in context. It should in turn in a larger context fulfill a filtering function, identifying and articulating strengths and weaknesses. A good critique should furthermore be accessible and written in a clear manner. As Jerry Saltz writes in his article referenced above:

      “If criticism is in trouble, as many say, it’s because too many critics write in a dreary hip metaphysical jargon that no one understands except other dreary hip metaphysicians who speak this dead language. They praise everything they see, or only describe. These critics are like the pet owner who sews up the cat to stop it from fouling the sofa: They keep the couch clean but kill the cat.”

      And when it comes to the real game in the arena, a good critique should above all be powerful and creative enough to maintain its relevance and prevent the wrong balls from scoring.

  • Blaise 5:42 am on June 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Ai Weiwei   

    Indeed, the whole artworld has a good cause to rejoice over the recent release of Ai Weiwei by Chinese authorities. (For those of you who haven’t been following the news, you can read more up the events here: http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2011/jun/22/responding-ai-weiwei/)

    However, arts critic Lee Rosenbaum (aka CultureGrrl) points out an important limitation: “Freedom of expression is essential to an artist’s work,” she said. “Although his body may have been released, his mind and creative spirit are still in detention.”

    …I would love to hear your thoughts and comments about this.

     

    • Ian Pawelec 12:00 pm on June 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Now having breached these physical walls I remain confident that with time Ai Weiwei will break from the shackles of oppression! Until that time I find solace knowing his works are viewed around the world expressing his creative spirit to many. That can never be caged!

    • Pintér Júlia 3:36 pm on June 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I will have to agree with Lee Rosenbaum on the inner limitation, especially with large outdoor exhibitions that require funding.In the new political climate of Hungary, couple of works of art commissioned by the previous government were deemed too expensive, and their worth had been openly questioned.http://index.hu/belfold/2011/02/15/elszamoltatas_mennyit_er_a_fix_aron_vett_kepzomuveszet/ , ( maybe with google translate :) ) these works won in an open competition, and since I happen to know a couple of artists involved, the gruelingly hard work they did, and the unforeseeable expenses they ran into, the money was definitely not an issue.The question these artists would face today in my opinion, is dare I build the salt wall that I originally intended or, if I want my work commissioned, do I dress it up in iconography this regime understands, maybe build in a number of “stuff ” that can be checked against the bill.

  • Blaise 5:31 am on June 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Van Gogh   

    Thought I would share an interesting new discovery announced by the Van Gogh Museum: the museum’s head researcher Louis van Tilborgh claims that Van Gogh’s famous self-portrait is in fact a portrait of his brother, Theo. Read more on BBC’s report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13873565
    Here you can see a photograph of both of them when you scroll down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh

     

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel