POST FOR TODAY

I had posted a post about Romanticism and Landscape Painters earlier today not realizing that the post could be used for other purposes than I expected due to what I am learning in a current class.

I will write a post later today if not tomorrow to make up for it, so don't worry!

STRUGGLING ARTIST? NO MORE!

I would have never picked up the book “I’d rather be in the studio” by Alyson B. Stanfield if it wasn’t for my class. But I am so happy that I own this book now. Why? Because it really made me want to promote myself and be a professional. Not only did it make me desire it, but it also taught me how to get started and how to maintain an art career. It is very hard being a senior in an art major track because of the uncertainty once you leave. It is very hard being in any art career track, not just studio. So how do you figure things out for leading a stable lifestyle?

Now this isn’t something I have figured out yet. I think a lot of people haven’t figured it out after being out of school for a few years. Yes many people go into teaching, few become renown, and most end up with multiple jobs just trying to pay the rent and try to focus on producing work. And sadly a lot of people end up forgetting about their dreams of being an artist for a day job.

Lets brainstorm for a bit… how many different art jobs are there? (this isn't the full list either)

-Artist                              -Therapist

-Curator                           -Agent

-Blogger                           -Auctioneer

-Teacher                           -Appraiser

-Small Business owner       -Investor

-Art Handler                      -Courtroom Artist

-Archivist/Conservator       -Police Sketch Artist

-Registrar                          -Layout Artist

-Historian

-Critic

-Journalist

-Restorer

-Designer

-Illustrator

-Director

-Studio Assistant

-Advertiser

I’m pretty sure that there are more than a couple of options for any type of artist. Once I realized what I truly an passionate about and I saw my options I became less scared of having to turn to a job that had nothing to do with my career path. The best thing is that no matter which path you choose you still will be able to be around art and appreciate it.

Now, how to push your freelance art career further? Check out the book I mentioned before. Seriously. It helps set up your Internet profiles, make important connections, stay organized, how to set up a resume, business card, or PR folder, write an artist statement, basically everything you’d need to know about how to be an independent artist. It’s important to keep up your web presence and make contacts to keep people interested in your work. The biggest thing is that if you’re passionate about what you do, let people see that because it will make them passionate about it too. Also not to be afraid to reach out to different magazines and submit your work into different call for entries. Talking to people isn’t really as bad as it seems and actually benefits you and your end result. So get out and promote and maintain that image you want of yourself.

+If you want more about this topic, comment and let me know!+ 

CRITICISMS: LOVE EM OR IGNORE THEM?

Like I've said many times, artist's are constantly being critiqued. We critique each other, we critique behind people's backs, we try to give helpful information, or we can't see past the negative aspects. It happens to everyone. But how do you respond when you're being critiqued?

When you have been working isolated for a long period of time, you only have yourself to figure out some pretty important decisions. You have to be the one to power yourself up and motivate yourself that what you're doing is truly awesome. So what do you do when someone comes in and doesn't see what you see? I think there are two main options, love it and use the criticism to make you see what other people may be seeing, or ignore it and just do what makes you the happiest. Now how do you choose what is the best option?

It's always hard to hear a bad review on something you hold dear. Especially when you thought you were doing great. So after that rest period of accepting the critique and wallowing in it, do you change it? or do you press on? The best option is to get a second or third or fourth opinion, someone you trust will be honest and helpful.

So now either they disagree, or support the criticism. If they disagree with the bad review then at least you can blow it off as just one bad critique and continue on. But you do want to fix what could be something bad, so take it in pieces, try and see what they see and fix it in their eyes but keeping to your overall idea. If they support the bad review, you've got some figuring out to do. You want to fix whatever you've got wrong, but you also want to stay true to your master plan. Maybe step back and work on something completely different for a bit. This will allow you to have perspective and maybe you'll see what they saw and scrap it. OR use that anger to fuel what you want to do without anyone holding you back, who cares if you just keep the piece to yourself. OR you can take their critique and build off of it, do what they say, in the end it could turn out exactly what you wanted. It might just take a different path to get there. 

Either way, trust in your peers and friends. Know who the people are that you can really be honest with and will guild you. If you don't have a support group, then try and build one. Find people on the internet where you can show your work to and help them as well. 

What do you do when you get into this situation?

PAINTING: SKIN TONES

Painting has a lot of amazing qualities about it from the color, detail, size, and subject matter. One of the things that amazes me the most about paintings is how artists' portray skin tones. There is such a variety of ways to portray a person and the tones of their skin can set the whole mood of a painting. Now, paintings during the Neoclassicism and before used basic skin tones. For instance:

Anton Raphael Mengs, Perseus and Andromeda, oil on canvas, 1774-9, Germany

(http://www.arthermitage.org/Anton-Raphael-Mengs/Perseus-and-Andromeda.html)
Notice the skin tones used are probably mixes of white, pink, Indian yellow, Naples yellow, burnt umber. Nothing too drastic besides the reds or slight purple tones. 
Now compare this to later artists like Vincent van Gogh: 

Self Portrait of Vincent van Gogh, oil on canvas, 1888

(http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/aug/21/vincent-van-gogh-painting-stolen-cairo)
As you can see during the Impressionism movement artists begin to see colors in shadows of skin tones. van Gogh includes brilliant colors like Alizarin Crimson and Prussian Blue. When I first was learning to see colors in shadows, it was like a whole different world before me. I never would have noticed how colorful a corner of a white room could be. 

One of my favorite artists, Lucian Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud), used color in a more natural sense even if there are still purples and blues. Although, he often got criticized for having lifeless looking paintings because of the colors he used as well as the Cremnitz white that makes a unique texture.

Leigh Bowery, Lucian Freud, oil on canvas, 1991

(https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/freud-leigh-bowery-t06834)
Now there are still lots of differences between the colors these painters use and how they apply them. But I do think the simple idea of seeing colors in places you wouldn't definitely is important in becoming an artist or appreciating pieces of art. Try it out!

DEBATABLE: DIGITAL AGE

There is a lot of controversy over the seemingly super speed jump artists are making into the Digital Age. Artists who could be strong in the traditional arts methods are now jumping right into being graphic designers. 
Why? 
Well for one, people now are very impatient and not willing to put a few months into a masterpiece painting, they'd rather take a few hours or days to complete something. This takes a lot of the handiwork out of a piece. People now would pay more for a painting than a poster wouldn't they? But companies would rather have things done fast, so that leaves the artwork less personalized. 
Two, jobs are more available to people who can easily create a pamphlet that can be easily copied and distributed than make pot. Going back to the fact that we're impatient, people like things to be done and how they like now. No wasting time. When I was deciding which major I wanted to be Graphic Design or Studio Art. I didn't want to have to pick, but I ended up with Studio Art because of the process and the intimacy of creating a piece. Yes, when you finish a painting there is such a tie between pride and hatred for it. But that is only because you struggled with it and you babied it into what it finally became. I knew going into Studio Art that I wouldn't have as many job options, so, like many other students, I took digital classes as well like Digital Photography and Intro to Graphic Design. That way I am slightly ambidextrous in the art world. The basic art principles are there, it's just the process that differs.
Three, kids now aren't learned cursive so their basic hand mechanics aren't going to be able to create beautiful brushstrokes. I've heard this from many people that kids are now taking typing courses instead of cursive. I don't really understand the thought process behind it because both skills seem very important to me even if you never use cursive ever again after 4th grade. It seems obvious, but our handwriting plays a part in how we'd draw a line in a gesture drawing. Consider the fabulous movement in figures and lines in this Rubens:

Rubens, The Calydonian Boar Hunt, 1611, oil on panel

(http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=267599)
How are kids going to be able to paint a perfect new age replica of a Rubens? They won't. But they might be able to recreate a digital copy of it, or print out a copy on a 3D printer. Which seems like such a shame and like cheating in the art world. But if you are a traditional artist, then the value of your work will skyrocket and the Rubens will be worth a ton more. 

I'm not hating on the digital age. I love some of the innovation that we have been able to create. We just need to find a way to keep the more traditional arts as well, so that we don't become a lost artifact. What do you think? Keep moving forward and forget the past? Or keep trying to combine the two into beautiful 

AMERICAN PORTRAITURE: PRESIDENTS

(continued from last post)
Later on in my project I was able to visit the National Portrait Gallery and see many different collections. But I’ll just start with the Presidents Collection so we can compare. When you think of all of the Portraits of Presidents, especially the official ones, you think of strength and power. Which is exactly what you get in the first few Presidents portraits, like George Washington’s:

George Washington (Lansdowne portrait) by Gilbert Stuart, oil on canvas, 1796

National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. 

(http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2013/02/george-washington-the-first-face-of-america.html) 

In comparison, Lincoln’s portrait shows him sitting in a chair, ready to jump up at any moment and also with a pondering expression. This posture alone shows how he thinks before jumping into action, but also is ready to go and help out our country. There is still a great amount of power shown in this painting, because of the detail in the chair and the very perfect lighting (This portrait is in the White House)

Abraham Lincoln by George Peter Alexander Healy, oil on canvas, 1869, State Dining Room in the White House

 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_%28Healy%29)

Now compare this portraits to the ones done by Thomas Eakins. See how humble they look? No wonder no one wanted a commission from him when you could be painted like a President!

Moving into the more current Presidents I again noticed a shift. Presidents began to look more like ordinary men. For instance, the portrait of George W. Bush: 

George W. Bush by Robert Anderson, oil on canvas, 2009

 (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/george-w-bushs-portrait-at-national-portrait-gallery-34317269/)

In this portrait he is not wearing a jacket AND he’s sitting on a couch (and not a fancy couch) looking at you like you just said your daughter just got accepted to go to college. This is a more casual, reach out to the people, I’m one of you moves. Presidents now are trying to not be as high and mighty but relatable. This pose is very comfortable, but it shows off his nice watch, and it shows off his hands (which generally means hard working). Now we see pictures all the time, so we’ve seen tons of pictures and videos of George W. Bush. Back when George Washington and Lincoln got their portraits done, people across the country didn’t see them as often so the impact of their pose and power was awe-worthy.

These are just some of the things I learned. There is definitely more to come with portraiture.

AMERICAN PORTRAITURE: THOMAS EAKINS

This past summer I had the chance to work on a research project I created. My topic was Class in American Portraiture in a Historic context and Contemporary.  During this project I was able to travel around to different museums to get a better understanding of portraiture.

The first place we went was the Philadelphia Museum of Art, home of a collection of Thomas Eakins paintings and sculptures. When we walked into the section that had a group of Eakins portraits gridded on the wall we just saw people. I had no idea why these would be so important to my research. Well, Thomas Eakins portraits were very different from most portraits during this time. They were humble, some considered them ugly, and they were hardly ever liked. One portrait he did of a school teacher we dissected:

Thomas Eakins, Portrait of Lucy Lewis, oil on canvas, 1896, Philadelphia Museum of Art

 (http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/thomas-eakins/portrait-of-lucy-lewis-1896)

Even though this is one of the only portraits that he painted someone with delicate beauty, she still fit the group in which he painted: middle class, educated, and active in her career. He painted all his portraits as if the person was sitting right next to you. There is no separation between the viewer and the sitter. Think to when you see a portrait of a President, there is this separation where they are more important than you, in this other world. This is very different than Eakins, and why he rarely received commissions for portraits. Moving on: 

Thomas Eakins, Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams, oil on canvas, 1900, Philadelphia Museum of Art

 (http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/thomas-eakins/portrait-of-mary-adeline-williams)

This portrait of Mary Adeline Williams. Comparing the two portraits, you can see how he paints them very raw and only hints at their money or success. For instance, in this portrait her energetic blouse shows she isn’t poor and represents her mood. In the Portrait of Lucy Lewis, she is wearing a tiny gold necklace which Eakins just slightly makes glimmer. 

In the next post I will do a comparison to the National Portraits of the Presidents!