Fearless versus Ruthless, part 2

As to continue my theme this week of fearless v ruthless, I will put out to the universe a wee example for you, gentle reader, to examine.

Once there was an artist with some years of experience and a modest following of clientele. As this artist had a bit of business savvy by way of a previous career, said artist was generally in a habit of not overspending on supplies, cost cutting where possible and the like, coinciding with the artists already established sensibilities.

One measure this artist took on a fairly consistent basis was to re-use painted canvases. Uh, if you've just glazed over with that statement, let me explain: Occasionally, and I know this is shocking to hear, an artist may have a show of work, sell only a fraction of the presented work and be left with paintings that have been through one or more opportunities of exposure, leaving the artist with the sense that this particular art no longer has a place in the "catalog".

So, the artist then spends a bit of time soul searching about their worth on the planet (drama, yes?) and decides to either: a) paint over the now undesirable painting, hopefully creating new art that the artist will exhibit and sell or b) take the painting/canvas off of the stretcher bars and re-stretch a new canvas hence giving the artist a new opportunity to create new work. (audible gasp here) I will go out on a limb and offer up reasoning for both heinous acts: simple cost cutting. Other's may have opinions contrary to this. They may start their own blog to discuss.

Being a professional artist can also be a challenge of epic proportion as one needs to have available inventory at a moments notice, but not all opportunities result in the sale of work. So, one is left with financial challenges of regularity as to not spend an inordinate amount of time and money at the art store, (albeit fun times) instead, back at the studio or out on the pavement, drumming up new ways to expose ones art.

Now, so that this matter is not a confusing one, I am not talking about the artists of the higher echelon of contemporary art. (as in the contemporary time, not style) I have no idea what it is like being a Rothko or a Lichtenstein or a Ray. I'm examining this as one of the bajillion artists as I described: some years of experience and a modest following. Lets not get all lofty but keep this discussion down to earth, shall we?

So back to our hypothetical example of painting over or stripping the canvas. Shocking? Prudent? Resourceful? The highest form of re-use and recycling? Blaspheme?

I would love to hear my audience of five and lurkers of numbers too vast to count, weigh in on this with an opinion... any takers?

In part 3, we will discuss yet a third way said artist creates an opportunity for new a new "blank canvas" Stay tuned.

images Kate Paulson Salenfriend

POSTED BY KATE AT 9:35 AM

Fearless or Ruthless

I am in the middle of reading a book I recently checked out of the local library called: "Cezanne to Picasso, Abroise Vollard, Patron of the Avante-Garde" Rebecca A. Rabinow, Editor, Douglas W. Druik, Ann Dumas, Gloria Groom, Anne Roquebert, and Gary Tinterow.
The current chapter, "Bollard and Degas by Gary Tinterow, with research by Asher E. Miller", is of particular interest to me as I've been thinking quite a bit about how ruthlessness and fearlessness are used by the artist. This particular tome more so about the dealer of art, Abroise Vollard, and his relationships with the prominent figures of the french impressionists movement.

I must add that part of the conversation that I've been having with myself has been about the artists that I consider the game changers of art, not all individuals: the impressionists, Dali, Picasso, and Pollack are some of the last 120 years or so. This comment of course applies to the old masters, but for the point of this blog, I am merely focusing on the more contemporary. Feel free to comment on whom might be added to this list.

I recently watched a DVD about the art of Degas and although a interesting and visually lovely, I was intrigued by a section of the the film that mentioned how Degas had begun a new medium: pastelized monotypes as to generate up to three sellable prints from one original work. The film only touched on this fact and much to my surprise, the book listed above delves much more deeply. I regret that the following is not focused on the dealer Vollard, but rather the Durand-Ruels, also art dealers and promoters, contemporaries of Vollard.

"The Durand-Ruels, both father (Paul) and son (Joseph), had good reason to feel proprietary about Degas. Though they had no contract, their gallery had been the primary-though never exclusive- outlet for the works that degas wished to sell since 1874.
During the 1870's and 1880's Degas wished to sell almost anything he made (with the notable exception of sculpture), and he even developed a new medium, pastelized monotypes, in order to generate up to three works from the same composition and thus increase his salable "articles" as he called his commercial output. He needed the income because in addition to paying for an affluent bachelor's life, three to five nights a week at the opera, models, and a maid, he undertook, with his brother in law Henri Fevre, to redeem the debts accumulated at this father's bank by this profligate brother Rene. It was not uncommon for Degas to send his maid or a porter to Durand-Ruel, pastels in hand, with a note demanding that he dealer hand over 500 francs in cash to the bearer. Degas treated the gallery like his private bank, depositing work and withdrawing cash. He never never shrank from asking Durand-Ruel to pay his bills or to buy something-usually a a work of art- that he wanted."

Fearless? Ruthless? Or something else entirely?

All images shown are by Edgar Degas

When?

When Apples Dream.
That is the name of this painting. Sized at a not so large 12x24". My nod to Dali. And Magritte. And all things that don't make sense to me today.
What apples do when you've gone to bed and you think they're sitting there, quietly when in fact, they are deep in thought, down to their little apple core, just how big, how far.
"the world was created round so that we can not see too far ahead of us..."
When Apples Dream.

post script: yikes, this is the only photo that I have on file of this painting, taken by none other than myself with my not good and undependable poor excuse for a camera, camera. I have become hypercritical of this situation. The one where I am publishing bad photos. Stay tuned. Must. Do. Something. About it.