Now and again I like to step back from my painting activities and reflect on the direction in which I am going. I call it my "Feedback for Learning" time. It has become obvious over the last 12 months that for me an emerging issue is that of "style" and "variety of style" (I mean not between painters but within one painter's body of work). When I was accepted into the Daily Painters Gallery community one spin off was the marvellous one of being able to see "thumbnails" of everyone's work and what I noticed with a number of artists was that the thumbnails were immediately recognisable. In other words some artists had a totally cohesive and recognisable body or collection of work. It all hung together. But when I look at my own work I cannot say the same. Although people - both fellow artists and customers - have made very complimentary comments, they have also referred to "my variety of style". And it is true. I agree with that perception.
I have tried, therefore to pinpoint exactly what constitutes cohesiveness of style and through studying more closely some of my favourite daily painters I have come to the following conclusions: they use a limited palette and they use it consistently (my palette tends to be all over the place); they work on the same size of surface or have little variation in that (I use a number of different sizes); they tend to use the same pattern of tonal values (I know the rules about consciously using tonal values and about not having equal distribution of tonal value in any one painting but I sometimes let dark tones predominate and sometimes light tones); they stick to the same set of subjects (I tend to move around here again); compositions use the same guiding principles (I am very interested in composition but I tend to jazz around and sometimes take a close up view, sometimes a birds eye view). Finally the thorny issue of how you apply the paint. I often hear (virtually) artists saying they have tried to apply the paint more "loosely" and they add a connotation that this is desirable. I tend myself to blend the paint more but I also wonder if this is more akin to handwriting and what is "you" in terms of the way you apply paint will come out whether or not you are conscious of it.
I would love to hear other painter's reactions to these issues.
I am away to visit my daughter in Belgium from 26th December until 7th January. I have some paints hidden away there so might be able to sneak in a piece or two but won't be able to post anything till I get back.
Have a lovely holiday everyone - and if you get a minute please do respond on the "style" issue. I am really interested.
Hello Sheila. I was sort of amazed when I read this post as I have been thinking about just this issue and sort of formulating a post in my head about it! You have done such a good job of analyzing the elements that make up one's style that I hesitate to add my two cents worth (or shillings, as the case may be).And by the way, I do see a very cohesive body of work on your blog- a simple presentation of subject, an almost minimalist way of applying paint, rich but subtle color. One point I would add to your discussion is that I think in the mature artist, style is a matter of intention and choice. To explain what I mean, I'll digress here a bit.
ReplyDeleteAn artist friend recently said to me that my style had undergone a radical change. I was both surprised and pleased by that description. While I definitely think something has happened in my work over the past 9 months, I had thought of it as more a further refinement of the direction I had been headed for several years. But as you say, perception should be honored, and when I really thought about it, I could see that much of what I thought had been going on, had taken place in my head and really didn't start showing up in full force in the paintings until about 6 months ago. That caused me to wonder, what changed? My conclusion is that once you have learned the basic understanding of values, color, drawing, composition , edges and have years of painting experience under your belt, you can really choose to paint anyway you want. But, to create a cohesive body of work, you must choose. so it becomes a matter of intention. You eschew certain subjects, techniques, colors, edges etc because they do not further your intention. We all do this as we create each painting- sacrificing one passage so that the focal point or emphasis is placed in another place where we want it. The same must be done in the entire body of work. In my case, that meant to paint what I love, and only that- and only in a certain way. For example, I love thick luscious paint- I think most painters do- but I have found that thinner paint and in particular, transparent passages of paint, are much more suited to the effects I am trying to get. So instead of struggling with thick paint in order to be "painterly", I embraced transparent paint (which I was never trained
to do) and things begin to happen. I was freed, rather than constrained, by choice and intention.
Now I am being a comment hog so I'll stop, but I will post this on my blog with a link to you and we'll see where it goes.
Safe travels and have a wonderful holiday with your family!
Thanks Deborah, yes, it is amazing and so interesting and your comments so important and relevant to me. I have replied at greater length in an email to you. Hope it becomes a continuing conversation!
ReplyDeleteHi Sheila. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, for the past year I have experimented with different styles, palettes and subject matter in order to find my own "voice". At times the journey was very frustrating, other periods I felt as though I had made progress. I've begun to realize that each experience is gradually leading me to where I want to go and allowing me to begin creating work that is genuine to who I am.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Deborah, style is to a great degree a matter of intention and one must first master the basics of drawing, composition, etc. Yet I also believe that an additional, element is that of innate expression / style within the artist that cannot be denied. I must use an analogy of music to explain. A vocalist will master scales, decide on a style of music they prefer to sing, but it is the very sound of their individual voice that is ultimately the hallmark of the artist.
Finding our unique truth and style in our work is not an easy process, but I believe it is one of the most important goals we can strive for. It is very tempting to walk on the "safe side of the street", but I believe this ultimately leads to stagnation at best, or being a "copyist" at worst.
I truly admire how you have experimented with your palette, subjects, composition and recently, brought in some gorgeous abstract elements into your work. For me, this is part of the incredible honesty and validity I see and admire in your work.
It's me (Materese) again! sorry when I posted the above, my webmasters "google name" was logged in not mine! I can hear you saying who the bleep is "crazyfish?"
ReplyDeleteTime for some more eggnog.
Now, maybe it will work this time!
ReplyDeleteMaterese Roche
Materese, I think your comment about an "innate" response (and the music analogy was well placed)is also true. I reckon we can still start with intentionality and the inner drive for certain approaches will not be suppressed. There does not need to be conflict between the two. As you say, the overall intention is "creating work that is genuine to who I am". Thanks both for these valuable contributions.
ReplyDeleteSheila,
ReplyDeleteI love your variety of style... it's what sets you apart from those who have more of a defined thumbprint. It's what keeps me coming back to see what you've done. You know some actors are the same essence of an actor in every movie they are in, to the point that casting agents think of them when a specific part comes along, but I think the truly great actors are those who you soon forget when they are immersed in their role, and every role is a different "person" as opposed to every role being an actor's interpretation. I hope this isn't too rambling, but I think of you as truly great in being able to pull off so many styles that I woulnd't necessarily know it was your piece automatically... let's just say, with all the styles, I'm intrigued enough based on the quality and the image to find out who has painted it... and I'm delightfully surprised when I find it's one of yours and I didn't know right off the bat.
Good luck with your artist journey, it's truly the most "unrecognizable" aspect of it all anyway.
Marietta
Sheila, thank you for posting your wonderful "ruminations" on the issue of style. Thanks too to Deborah, Matarese and Marietta for your well-considered thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe question of style is always a central (perhaps THE central) issue for artists. Sheila, like you I have wrestled with the issues you describe for most of my 35 years of painting...I'm still wrestling.
If I've come to anything remotely like a conclusion on this question, it's that perhaps we worry over it too much. "Different strokes for different folks," as the saying goes. Some people just seem to be able to focus their energies very admirably along an apparently clear and defined path. This usually works out very well for them in ways you all have touched upon: cohesive bodies of work that "hang together" literally and figuratively; an ability to judge progress in linear terms (something highly valued in our society); a sense of direction, consistency and purpose; and often a huge advantage in marketing, since an easily recognized individual style is what galleries and collectors tend to look for.
We all admire this kind of focus and intention in an artist, as long as it doesn't cement itself into boring predictability, or seem to be motivated only by the desire to create a saleable "product."
But I believe there are as many viable paths as there are artists. Walt Whitman in "Leaves of Grass" said "I am large, I contain multitudes." Why should we automatically dismiss an artist's work as inauthentic or lacking in rigor if they pursue different approaches, perhaps even simultaneously? Wouldn't most of us agree that a spirit of experimentation and play is central to the creative act?
We need to get beyond the idea that the only kind of viable approach an artist can take is the linear model. We are complex creatures. Thought processes and intuitions are sometimes not so easily boxed up. And style is not just how something looks. Style is an expression of the personality. It can be subtle, requiring sensitivity and considered looking on the part of the viewer to absorb it.
If we are startled by apparent stylistic shifts in an accomplished artist's work, maybe the fault is ours, not the artist's. Maybe we're not looking diligently enough for the connective tissue, which doesn't always reside just in the readily perceived "look" of something.
Oh wow, I'm sorry for rattling on! How can you say anything about this subject in just a few words? We've barely scratched the surface. Thanks for indulging me.
Wow, Don. I really enjoyed reading your thought provoking comments. As a very amatuer art historian, I think your comments about the linear approach are very well taken. Art history, as opposed to literature for example, is very much taught in a linear fashion-the "what comes next" concept, which I think has not served the discipline or artists well. That said, the linear approach is how we perceive our lives and history (although I personally like the idea of parallel universes and time travel!) As artists, there is no doubt we have cross currents that run through our work simultaneously. Art history is full of examples of artists whose styles changed dramatically or incrementally over time, and from the vantage point of a century or two later its easier to see that connective tissue you mention, which might have even been missed in the artists own time.
ReplyDeleteokay, so it works...so many user names, so little memory. Okay... for styles, Sheila, your work is very strong + identifiable+beautiful+true. A pox on those who try to stranglehold artists. It seems to me it's the gallerists + art academics/critics who pigeonhole/bully artists into "focusing" + branding-- all for their own convenience. I think artists should totally, blindly follow their muse(s). My personal muse is an eccentric rhymes with witch One day she has me painting a watercolour of an Elvis bust. The next day, an oil of my dog contemplating nature in the snow. The next day, a completely abstract, lyrical rendition of water, in acrylic on wood. To the artistically challenged it may seem like 3 different artists were at work, but anyone with half a (right) brain can see the same hand, eye, aesthetic, sensibility at work. I've worked in film/tv most of my adult life (while I painted) + often see my art work (+ works of other artists) in camera terms, eg. "establishing shots", "medium shots" "close-ups" or "flashbacks" or "fantasy" or POV (Point of View). The locations/setups change, lights/ palette/ actors/characters change to fit the story we have to tell, but the voice remains true + strong, if the conviction (the muse) remains true + strong.
ReplyDeleteGostei muito desse post e seu blog é muito interessante, vou passar por aqui sempre =) Depois dá uma passada lá no meu site, que é sobre o CresceNet, espero que goste. O endereço dele é http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . Um abraço.
ReplyDeleteHey Deborah, Materese, Marietta, Don, Edith and Paola (by email), Thanks so much for all your responses. They provide terrific "food for reflection" and I need to take time to absorb them much more fully (just back from Belgium a couple of hours ago). There are such important issues being raised here by each and every one of you. I don't want to rush in now and "wind things up" neatly because of course how can we do that? This is not a neat and tidy issue. It's complex and it sits at the heart of what we are about when we take up a paint brush. I want to come back to this in some way but I need to get some more painting under my belt first (and not agonise too much about it before I start) :)
ReplyDeleteI would like to say though that what this conversation has raised for me is not just concerns around the methodology of style (that is the "How") but the importance of the "Why?" Why is the issue of style an apparent concern for many artists? Your responses contain many pointers to your views on this but I have to ask myself why is it an apparent concern for me? And even if I don't do anything about it I should still know the answer to that question. So lots of food for thought and many, many thanks once again.
Sheila:
ReplyDeleteI actually think that your work demonstrates a cohesive look that hangs together. There is an apparent difference between your land/cityscape work and your still life work, but each genre feels consistent to my eye.
The more fuller version of the quote Don Gray used makes his point even better (it's one of my favorite quotes)...
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. "
Happy New Year!
Jason, thanks, its good of you to say and the Walt Whitman quote is so appropriate. I read him years ago and Leaves of Grass is an old yellowing copy on my shelves but I'm going to get it down and browse again. Hey I just checked out your blog (how did I miss you?) that portrait of 5th Jan is superb, the richness of the colour and the character of the sitter coming through. Wonderful.
ReplyDeleteI have been giving this subject a lot of thought,similar to the other artists who have posted here. Thank you for initiating the discussion. I am searching for cohesiveness of style in my own work, and read this with interest
ReplyDeleteRhonda, thanks for contributing to this and sorry, I did not notice straight away that you had. Yes, it seems to be an issue which is quite important to many of us. I still have not come to firm conclusions about it but the contributions so far I feel cover the main elements or alternatives but because it's a complex issue it continues to be an interesting one.
ReplyDeletei am late to this discussion, having just found it via Deborah's blog, but I am finding it timely, inspiring and comforting. I came to painting as an adult, am an avocational artist and have not had much formal training. I have been told that my style is all over the place, that to get into a gallery/be taken seriously/ be collected i need to focus on one medium and develop my style. because art is not my livelihood, i probably feel a bit more leeway, but i love to experiment. and i have success selling a variety of works- from landscapes in oil to photography to mixed media. even hang them all together in shows, and much like the comments on your style, they all hang together somehow. i think it's a sensibility that comes through a way of looking at the world.
ReplyDeletei keep thinking of the annie hall quote about how a shark has to keep moving or he dies. inspiration is like that for me. sometimes it dries up, but playing with something new is a good way to jump start and it's always interesting to go back to a standard medium/subject matter and see how the experimentation has informed the new work.
i have really enjoyed checking out your & deborah's blog, and this discussion
marianne