Artist Willem de Kooning's legacy is currently on display in a milestone exhibition of his works rendered over seven decades. de Kooning, a Retrospective, is open at the Museum of Modern Art from September 18, 2011 through January 9, 2012.
Dutch-born de Kooning emigrated to America in 1926 the way he felt he had to, via stowing away on a merchant ship. Inhabiting the kind of artist's flats in Manhattan that are part and parcel of the great romantic 20th Century American art story, the young de Kooning labored over his canvases. The results are now part of the art history canon, and yet for me personally, WdK's art challenges me to struggle. How can I leave well enough alone when there is more to say?
"Ambiguity prevails in an art and in an age where nothing is certain but self-consciousness." Willem DeKooning.
Edvard Munch The Scream, 1893 o/c, tempera & pastel
A work of art can't be questioned or dismissed. Saul Bellow.
The obscure word ethos has a different meaning today than it did seventy years ago, and it has traveled a malleable path since the days of Aristotle. Whereas, today, it is a corporate creed, it formerly held a deeper meaning. Pre-war artists owned the word - it was the artist's ethos. My 1936 Webster's dictionary has the following:
Webster: From the Greek, ethos, ἔθος, character. The moral, ideal or universal element in a work of art as distinguished from that which is emotional in its appeal or subjective.
How do the artist's ideas exhibit themselves in an artwork? Is it important for an artist to express an ethos through the making of art?
We have been considering The Artist's Ideas, with these previous posts:
The Greeks saw ethos as the first proof of debate, and it had to do with trusting the moral competence of the rhetorician. Fast-forward to our concerns and the artist's ethos. Let's unpack the definitions of moral, ideal and universal elements.
The Moral Function of Art.
Webster describes a moral element in a given artwork, which is, by definition, an illumination of right or wrong. As concerns the formal parts of art, there is no right or wrong. "There is no must in art because art is free," Wassily Kandinsky. So, we are left with artworks that reveal a moral quality intended by the artist, such as in the case of Sacred Art. See below some artworks that reveal strong moral qualities in a broader context. See The Sistine Chapel for Sacred Art.
John Dewey said that “Art is more moral than moralities.” Artist and blogger Katherine A. Cartwright is reading Dewey's important 1934 book, Art as Experience, and hosting a community discussion on The Moral Function of Art. See here, here and here, and remember to read the comment fields.
Here is the "see below." For my part of the discussion at Katherine's blog, I have been illustrating the moral function of art by identifying individual artworks that I see as strong moral forces in the canon of Western art. Blogger/artist Linda W. Roth had the idea first, and she chose Edward Munch's The Scream for its moral content. I think she's right on with that, and I thought of Andrew Wyeth's Groundhog Day, and Willem deKooning's Woman 1. These artworks are linked below.
The following opens a window into Dewey's thinking: Art is morally powerful because it is indifferent to moral praise and blame (loosely quoted). Do you agree?
Ideals - The Artist's Ideas.
Notice that the Websters definition relates to a work of art, and not the group known as artists. My understanding of "the ideal" is that an artwork must, to be true to the artist's ethos, reflect his ideas. See these quotes on The Artist's Ideas.
Universal Elements.
Art is a universal mode of language. John Dewey. Philosophers will tell you that language is wanting in descriptive power - it falls short of expressing what man is able to think. Art is a huge bridge in "speaking" to mankind aught words.
I doubled the quality of my art before I went to my show last September, by throwing out half of it.
This final installment in the How to Paint for the Prize series concerns your own ability to edit your work. Be brutal and hold up only the best works for show. The great American artist Willem de Kooning threw out almost everything he painted early in his career, and made a reputation for himself while doing it. He kept only the few paintings that he felt had merit.
Many of my own feelings on editing were posted here: The Axe Falleth.
I wrote:
"A thing I do is, after completing a run of artworks, I will spot a couple of dogs in the lot, and axe those. Then, I will look at the remainder, and axe the two or three weakest paintings, as well."
The post continued as a reprint of comments:
Carolyn L. asks:
"While you are 'axing' what questions do you ask yourself? What do you look for? Do you have a specific set of guidelines you apply? While I am sure the process is not entirely objective, there must be a thought process you pursue. Learning to evaluate one's own work is not easy. It is not a skill directly taught in art class. I would like to hear your take on the subject."
My response:
Good questions, Carolyn.
Sure, the first thought is something subjective. A niggling something that isn't right (usually a compositional problem). Often, the compositional issue has to do with proportion. Some element is too big, or too small.
The big problem is when it's close to okay, and then the struggle starts.
Distance of a day helps. I sit and look at my work a lot. I tape or tack the series on the wall and stare and evaluate. I use mats or tape to frame them. I get the rejects out of the way, although they still reside on the wall somewhere out of the way. A stack of rejects (or 2 or 3 stacks) sit around the studio, and I can refer to those for ideas later.
No guidelines. That's a little too static for me.
I look for strength in a painting.
I don't outright reject a work for technique issues. Some mistakes are okay with me if the point comes across. And, meanwhile, I am on a program to improve my technique! There's a contradiction there for you.
Some very important reasons for rejecting an artwork are if they don't fit the series, or my style direction. In that vein, I will get rid of works that have too many sharp or defined edges, or too much detail, compared to the whole.
Another issue can be dull spots where the paper just packed up too much with pastel.
Another problem can be value comparisons. Bad value progressions - too stark or too similar, are a bad thing.
Maybe a shape of an element isn't right. Too regular; wrong size or direction.
"Casey, your review of critical axing is very useful. But how is it when you begin a series? When you are in the heat of creation, what do you do with your critical hacking voice? If the hacker is asleep, I can see how you might become caught up in one place adding unwanted, useless details."
Me:
Well, Diane, it sounds like you are asking two questions. One: how to edit a whole series at the start. The other: do I get caught up in a the process and add superfluous stuff?
Or, perhaps you are asking that if the series is in its infancy, how can I tell which parts belong?
I never choose a series from an idea. The series presents itself based on a successful image that needs to be explored many times. So, the series is already a successful image and hopefully never contrived.
What are the qualities of that first successful image (or two)? These become my criteria. Also, my whole art statement comes into play (color - modern treatment - realism - abstract heavy).
Superfluous stuff? I go down that road often. That's why I have to edit the works after they are done. Interestingly, I will be in the groove and create nice works with new and fresh passages, and all is well then. Other times, I won't even know what I am doing in the studio!
In summary:
Get distance from your art, by a day or two.
Look at them upside down; squint; view through a mirror (okay, I added these).
Make sure to focus on unity of thought, so the series doesn't wander or add extra, unnecessary clutter.
Don't just look at technique, but rather the emotion or message.
In addition to these things, I will caution against self-criticism. The exercise of editing your art to save the best art is not a self-deprecating one. Neither is it a self-aggrandizing session. Possibly, you can step outside yourself a bit and see your art in new lights, and then you will sit in front of your exhibit of art, and be moved by it.
One telling story. The absolute last choice of my own art for my September show, one that almost got cut, actually was the first one that sold. Maybe I held the axe just right for my cuts.
Abstract/Abstraction: Pollock, de Kooning and American Art, 1940-1976, is open at The Jewish Museum from May 4th through September 21st, 2008. The famous action painters were chronicled, commended and enshrined by the art critics Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg. The way Peter Schjeldahl has it in the current issue of The New Yorker, the real action figures may have been Greenberg and Rosenberg. See what you think.
Coming soon to The Colorist: The Jackson Pollock Researcher. My hits on the subject of JP are so numerous, I will serve humanity by posting the catch all, end-all collection of Pollock links.
Robert Rauschenberg Detail of Erased de Kooning Drawing 1953 Collection SFMOMA and Rauschenberg estate
Here's my round up of the late Robert Rauschenberg buzz. The following will be the most comprehensive linkage to the esteemed man's obituaries, reviews and articles that you have seen.
My first impression anytime a famous contemporary artist passes from the scene is, "good on him for making it big and living an artist's life." Then, if I am at all curious, I read up on the subject and (graciously) pass my own judgment on their corpus. That means the work.
Rauschenberg is counted among the Pop Artists. They being the ones who supplanted the Abstractionists.
The story that sticks with me is Robert going over to de Kooning's studio with a bottle of liquor under one arm, and asking for a self portrait of the great Abstract Expressionist. Willem de Kooning says, "I know what you're doing," and graciously gives up the charcoal and graphite portrait. The young acolyte takes the art and erases it. It takes much effort and many erasers to destroy the master's work, and the point is well taken.
Links:
Rauschenberg defends his erasing of de Kooning (You Tube). Tyler Green's incomplete round up. Jen Graves Regina Hackett Roger Kimball Is it okay to take a shot at the newly deceased artist? Kimball does, which rounds out this round up.
Posts
