Still Life

ePainting

Inspired by the works of iPhonographers such as Sarah Jarrett, and established painters like John Currin and my fellow artist Oliver Winconek, I have decided to produce a series of ePaintings. This is my first. Hopefully my skills will improve with the continuation of the series. And if they don't, I'll just have to try something else! lol

 

 

Untitled (Red Square, Blue Butterfly)

From Antiquity To Abstraction

Hours and hours of hard work in less than 60 seconds...

Design for a Forthcoming Exhibition

Pop-Up

Finally managed to process the HDR images I took at the 'Pop-Up Show' at the end of November, over the last couple of days, and here are the results...

Stencil

I have recently been converting some of my photos into 'stencil paintings'. and am quite pleased with the results.

EKOH

As part of the East Kent Open Houses 2012 I am showing 20 pieces at venue 2 of the Herne Bay walk at the BayArtGallery. The gallery is open for the last 3 weekends in October, from 11am to 5pm.

*****Update 20/10/12*****

I have sold one of the pieces - hurrah! Only 19 more to go...

Issues Within Contemporary Fine Art Practice

In this essay the issue I will be addressing is ‘Can we apply the traditional criteria and philosophy concerning aesthetics to twentieth century art? And should we? Art is defined as being pieces such as paintings or sculptures depicting a beauty, produced by a skill or ability in such work. The arts are defined as being ‘…subjects in which sympathetic understanding plays a great part, as opposed to sciences where exact measurements and calculations are used’1. Science plays a large part in art, as art does in science. Leonardo da Vinci said that artists make ‘…the best scientists: not only do they observe things better than other people - they think about what they see and then tell the rest of us about it in pictures.’2

Existentialism can be defined as ‘…a philosophical theory which emphasizes that man is responsible for his own actions and free to choose his development and destiny’3. Therefore existentially the ‘old’ use of the word art (in the present tense) meaning ‘to be’ defines art more substantially than other definitions. ‘To produce art is simply to be’. If ‘to produce art is simply to be’ then why are some professions considered to be more artistic than others are? The answer may lie in the interpretation of what is considered aesthetic -and what is not. Aesthetics are ‘…the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of such concepts as beauty and taste, as the rules and principles of art’4. Immanuel Kant, who was perhaps the most important European philosopher of the eighteenth century, was the first to give aesthetics a distinctly logical and philosophical role within an entire philosophical system. Kant’s topics were:

The ambiguity of taste.
The analysis of the beautiful and the sublime.
The logic of aesthetic judgments.
Genius and creative freedom.
The moral function of the aesthetic.

These topics are among the principal criteria of the discipline even today. I am concentrating on the first two of Kant’s topics. It is important that we dismiss all of the baggage that is associated with the term beautiful. We are concentrating on the philosophical, and this requires that we start anew with our approach to the term beauty. The dictionary defines beauty as being ‘…the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind’5. For sublime the dictionary says ‘…of high moral, aesthetic, intellectual or spiritual value…inspiring deep veneration, awe, or uplifting emotion because of its beauty, nobility, grandeur, or immensity…the ultimate degree or perfect example’6. Taste itself can be divided into two categories: the physical – ‘…the sense by which the flavour of a substance is distinguished by the taste buds’7, and the metaphysical – ‘…an inclination toward something…the ability to make discerning judgments about artistic matters…judgment of aesthetic or social matters according to a generally accepted standard’8.
Voltaire wrote on taste, and compared the two meanings of the word, acknowledging the subjectivity of it. He suggested that the metaphysical definition of taste must sometimes be trained, or acquired. He wrote that ‘…if one were to ask a toad what beauty was, the toad would reply that it was his female’9. This illustrates the subjectivity of good and bad taste, and emphasizes that ‘…beauty lies in the eye of the beholder’10. This is in direct contrast to the views of the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume was of the opinion that there was a defined and invariable method by which one could judge whether something was beautiful or not. The painting by William Hogarth, ‘The Rake arrested’ (1733), is one of a series of eight scenes called ‘The Rakes progress’. It is beautiful and it is sublime, however, because of the subject which it is portraying (punishment of vice in a lurid manner) David Hume would say that it is of bad taste and would question whether it was truly beautiful. ‘Portrait of the artists sister’ (1899) by Pablo Picasso, is a traditionally beautiful painting. ‘The bathers’ (1933) is not, but it is pleasing to look at. Arguably it is only because of the ability and the skill of Picasso, that ‘The bathers’ could be accepted as being art. What he has succeeded in achieving in ‘Portrait of the artists sister’ we can know he has abandoned deliberately, to produce the stark image of ‘The bathers’.

It could be argued that ‘Act of love’ (1915) by Egon Schiele, is not a beautiful piece of work. However it could also be argued that it is sublime, as it has a perfect simplicity of line and yet expresses movement. Although the subject matter could be said to be of bad taste, and David Hume most definitely would have, the sense of voyeurism that the artist places on the spectators shoulders almost goes unnoticed as we continue to explore the drawing somehow compelled to watch this intimate act. In the sense that the simplicity of ‘Act of love’ does delight the senses, and please the mind, conversely we could say that it is beautiful. ‘Europe after the rain’ (1940-1942) by Max Ernst is described by Robert Hughes in ‘The shock of the new’, as ‘…a panorama of a fungoid landscape seen as though in the aftermath of an annihilating, biblical deluge’11 -but is it beautiful? ‘Number 1A’ (1948) by Jackson Pollock is a prime example of abstract expressionism and illustrates the energy and enthusiasm that can and does go into a painting. Although Pollocks working methods were executed in a traditional manner ‘Number 1A’ shows that composition, and the traditionally structured approaches to painting need not apply, but is it beautiful? Mark Rothkos ‘Green and maroon’ (1953) is another example of abstract expressionism, this time focusing on basic human emotions, but still consciously abandoning the traditional approaches to painting. This piece is almost certainly sublime - simply for its spiritual value - but is it beautiful?

In 1956 at the London Institute of Contemporary Art a pioneering exhibition was held, it was called ‘This is tomorrow’. One of the pieces shown was a small collage, which was destined to become hugely prophetic, almost directing the route which art would take from that moment in time to well into the next century. The work was titled ‘Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing?’ and the artist was Richard Hamilton. Hamilton wrote his own criteria for what contemporary art should be:

Popular (designed for a mass audience)
Transient (short-term solution)
Expendable (easily forgotten)
Low-cost
Mass-produced
Young (aimed at youth)
Witty
Sexy
Gimmicky
Glamorous
- and -
Big business…

This was not art that could be made by the people, but by the elite. It was art that ‘…was done to the people’12. It was not popular art -but ‘Pop-art’, and it was a revelation. ‘Just what is it…’ was the perfect example of ‘Pop-art’ and was therefore sublime, but is it beautiful? No -and further more it is not supposed to be. ‘Pop-art’ was based on the imagery of consumerism and popular culture, and rejected any distinction between good and bad taste.
Andy Warhol, perhaps the most famous of the ‘Pop-art’ artists sold the idea to the public. As his work was based on the media and advertising imagery, so his art became his own commercial and he succeeded in what he aspired, to become the product himself. This period of art was the turning point, and it opened up the possibilities for future generations. As Sir Isaac Newton said, ‘If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants’13.
Piero Manzoni took the ideas behind the commercialization of art and modified them, producing work which specifically commented on the cult of the personality, such as the artist, as the ultimate product and bi-product in the form of ‘Merda d’Artista’(1961). Manzoni was one of the forerunners of ‘Conceptual Art’; where the idea for a work is, in itself, a work in progress and is considered to be more important than the finished product -if indeed there is one. How can one judge the beauty within a work, when the work need not be produced to authenticate the idea? It is at this point one must ask whether the traditional criteria, for placing a judgment on aesthetics, can still be applied? With Frank Stella’s relief piece; ‘Kozangrodek’ (1975), we again find ourselves asking the same old questions -is it beautiful? - Is it sublime? - Is it of good taste? Unlike the ‘non-evidence’ of ‘Conceptual Art’, we have a product to analyze, but unlike the work prior to Manzoni’s we are now presented with a dilemma: should we be asking the same questions as before? Or should we be asking different questions? And if so, what?
Frank Stella was a post-painterly abstractionist who believed that a painting was not representational of something else, but ‘…a flat surface with paint on it’14. He does have a point, and who are we to question further the artist’s achievements? He has produced what he set out to produce, and to ask -is it beautiful? - would not only be futile, but offensive. ‘Leg’ (1984) by Elizabeth Murray has an intriguing element, and an undercurrent of sublimity. Accompanied by a hint of obliquely portrayed obsessiveness of the body’s presence it takes on an almost sexy quality, but can it be said to be beautiful? Because of the effect that ‘Pop-art’ and ‘Conceptual Art’ has had on the art world, we must question the questions.

The second revelation has occurred in the 1990’s, partly because of the freedom that the ‘Pop-art’ of the fifties presented. There has now come a second bout of young ‘Brit.-pop’ artists, and the works of Jake and Dinos Chapman, such as ‘Zygotic acceleration, biogenetic, de-sublimated libidinal model (enlarged x1000)’ (1995), are much more closely related to that of Richard Hamilton than Frank Stellas work was. As Jenny Saville’s is to Andy Warhols, more so because the imagery has simply been updated. Yet there is a stronger underlining message about the representation of the female form not only in art but also in society within Saville’s work, as the painting ‘Shift’ (1996-1997) illustrates. It has been argued whether or not this painting is sublime -but whichever way you engage with it, it is still incontestably ‘Pop’. And what of ‘Away from the flock’ (1994) and ‘This little piggy…’(1996) by Damien Hirst, are these pieces true commercialism? Or a statement about the consumerists attitude towards the specific mass-production of intended meat products and the means of presentation and preservation of such? Are we all simply suffering from ‘The Emperor’s new clothes’ syndrome? Appreciating what we have been told to, and detesting for the same reason? Or are we simply looking for out-dated archaic qualities in work, which contains properties that could not have been properly articulated, or even conceived of at the time when the traditional criteria for judging art was established?

So the issue, which I have been addressing, is: ‘Can we apply the traditional criteria and philosophy concerning aesthetics to twentieth-century art? And should we?
It is my opinion that at the same time as we can apply the criteria but we should not, we can not apply the criteria but we should. If we take Richard Hamiltons’ ‘Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing?’ for an example, with this piece we can apply the criteria, however, if we have applied it rigidly we will conclude that it is not art. So in one sense we need to reject the criteria for this piece and others of its genre, in order to accept it as art. Having accepted the work as a piece of art we can apply the specified criteria to it, and if we then change the perspective, it is at this point we find that it is the ultimate degree of ‘Pop-art’ and is therefore sublime.

We should apply the specific criteria because if we do not have an established measure to compare pieces of art against, we can not begin to talk about them in any meaningful way. However, we should not apply them too rigidly, because if we try to measure something gargantuous using microscopic calibrations it makes no sense, and renders the measurement meaningless.


Footnotes

1. Sinclair, J.M. (1994), p.84
2. Janson, H. & Janson, D. (1982), p.108
3. Sinclair, J.M. (1994), p.544
4. Ibid, p.24
5. Ibid, p.137
6. Ibid, p.1536
7. Ibid, p.1579
8. Ibid, p.1579
9. Eliot, S. & Whitlock, K. (1997), p.313
10. Ibid, p.313
11. Hughes, R. (1996), p.255
12. Ibid, p.344
13. Honderich, T. (1995), p.620
14. Chilvers, I. (1996), p.507


Bibliography

AYTO, J. (1990) Dictionary of Word Origins London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
BARTHOLOMEW, M. ,
HALL, D. & LENTIN, A. (eds.) (1997) The Enlightenment- Studies 1 Milton Keynes, The Open University.
BUTLER, A. &
STIRLING, S. (1996) The Art Book London, Phaidon Press.
CHILVERS, I. (1996) Concise Dictionary of Art and Artists Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ELIOT, S. &
WHITLOCK, K. (eds.) (1997) The Enlightenment-Texts 1 Milton Keynes, The Open University.
GOMBRICH, E.H. (1996) The Story of Art London, Phaidon Press.
HONDERICH, T. (1995) Oxford Companion to Philosophy Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HUGHES, R. (1996) The Shock of the New London, Thames and Hudson.
JANSON, H. &
JANSON, D. (1982) The Story of Painting London, Thames & Hudson.
JORDANOVA, L.J. (1986) Languages of Nature London, Free Association Books.
MOORE, E. &
MACKENZIE MOORE, F. (1993) Concise Dictionary of Art and Literature London, Tigerbooks International.
SINCLAIR, J.M. (1994) Collins English Dictionary Wrotham, Harpercollins Publishers.

State Patronage

This essay will examine some of the problems associated with state patronage in contemporary Britain. Evidence will be presented to support the argument that state patronage is necessary and should continue.

In contemporary debate, it is sometimes suggested that the arts should be free to thrive or dwindle as public taste and choice determine. It is possible to argue that this leads to greater public freedom of choice and to cultural evolution, with art forms discarded when no longer ‘popular’. However, there is a parallel argument that without state intervention, the interests of minority groups might not be served and that some non-commercial art forms may disappear, resulting in an irreversible cultural loss. This argument places the state in the position of defender of public freedom of choice. This is the key issue in discussing any and all problems associated with state or public patronage.

Barnard (Art, Design and Visual Culture, 1998) 1 identifies public and state patronage as synonymous in one sense, as both represent governmental actions, yet different in another, with state patronage being national and public patronage the action of smaller, local authorities. In addition he says that to describe both bodies as fulfilling the wishes of the wider society makes ‘the definition of public bodies as patrons either difficult or impossible’2. For whilst these bodies may be described as ‘public’ the public has little to do with the decisions made in their name. The Millennium Dome is a case in point. This project uses vast amounts of public funds, yet due to its location is not easily accessible to most of the population. Another aspect of the debate surrounding this project has been that of inadequate public consultation as to its nature despite almost universal compulsory contribution through taxation.

Whilst state patronage can be seen as benevolent, if state patronage is dependent on state approval, then it might also be said to represent an effective if implicit means of censorship (where state disapproval results in patronage being withheld). This has possible implications for public freedom of choice. For example, in local exhibitions (typically in libraries), the final decision about what works may or mot not be displayed rests with the local authority. This means that for the public the only significant choice to be made is whether or not to look, rather than what to look at. It is seldom feasible to say that public art is the result of patronage as public opinion is not usually sought and the artworks themselves may be seen, as Selwood suggests, as ‘a combination of rampant profiteering…and arrogant professional individualism’3. Nevertheless, whilst public patronage must always have its limitations (you can’t please all of the people, all of the time) few would argue that it is intended to be other then benevolent. A positive example of public patronage is Artabout. This is a partnership project between various local councils and local professional and amateur artists to work in the community. This project incorporates mainstream and minority interests and certainly appears to fully support public freedom of choice at a local level (see appendix 1).

The state in Britain, having accepted its position of defender of public freedom of choice, recognises a responsibility to ensure that the interests of minority groups are defended and represented. This responsibility extends into the arena of public patronage of the arts. There are several categories of minority groups whose interests benefit from state intervention. These groups include religious; cultural; ethnic; special needs and special interest minorities. There is no significant resentment voiced toward public patronage awarded to special needs groups, and little resentment is evident towards that support offered to religious, cultural and ethnic minority groups, except in areas and at times where racial disharmony exists. Resentment over the issue of funding for these groups is sporadic and local. However, considerable resentment is generated often, and at a national level, towards public patronage of special interest minority groups, such as ballet and opera. On a superficial level at least, it is perhaps a simple matter to understand this resentment: both ballet and opera are arguably elitist interests. Certainly they receive more support from public funds than other interest groups. This investment can be seen as necessary to keep costs down and therefore accessibility up, in order to make these art forms more truly available to all and therefore less elitist. Indeed, Harris (Government Patronage of the Arts in Great Britain, 1970) argues that ‘few observers of contemporary Britain will deny that of all the arts, those most urgently in need of patronage are opera and ballet’4. However, there is a strongly subscribed school of thought that suggests that a vast majority of the population of Britain have no interest in either ballet or opera. It is this school of thought that leads to the argument that state backing should be removed from these elitist areas, forcing them to find alternative financial support and if necessary to evolve in order to attract this support. With the advent of the national lottery, public funding for the arts has changed significantly and there currently exists an uneasy consensus about the issue of public funding for ‘high-brow’ art forms. There is also an equally strong school of thought whose subscribers argue that art forms such as ballet and opera represent something truly sublime and that they are innately valuable. To abandon these art forms to market forces may be to consign them to extinction, the result of which would be a tragic and possibly irreversible cultural loss. It is for this reason that public funding for these art forms continues with a broad base of support from among those interested or concerned enough to comment on the issue.

State and public patronage are not the only means of support available for and to the arts and artists. The church, the court and private collectors (who may be individuals or groups of individuals) also offer patronage to the arts, particularly to the visual ‘fine arts’. Prestigious independent private collectors and patrons of the visual arts, such as Charles Saatchi, are able to exert a significant influence over the availability, accessibility and acceptability of art that is seen by the general public. The media attention surrounding exhibitions like Sensation influences public awareness, which arguably influences or is able to influence public patronage in turn. This influence from the free market on public patronage ensures that there is an accountability to public taste in the allocation of public funds for sponsorship of the arts. This very accountability, or rather its absence, is usually cited as a major factor in arguments for the removal of state backing for the arts, however it is unlikely that private sources of patronage would be able to generate the volume of support which would be required were they to replace state patronage. This same accountability to public taste also represents the key to ensuring that the integrity of those artists who choose to accept public patronage need not necessarily be compromised. Those artists for whom this accountability is insufficient guarantee of artistic freedom remain at liberty to reject public patronage and trust in market forces. However, there are not many Damien Hirsts: faced with the options of a possible partial compromise of integrity or freedom and the inability to practice ones art due to financial difficulties, few artists would choose the latter.

Education is the principal way in which the arts have been patronised by the state for they (the state) have ‘employed fine artists as teachers, either full- or part-time, for many decades, thus enabling them [the artists] to survive and subsidise their studio work’5. Similarly, an artist attending a full-time course receiving a grant toward their tuition fees (regardless of any other support they may or may not receive) is in direct receipt of state patronage of the arts through the auspices of education. For artists receiving patronage through the education system there is a ‘pass or fail’ element to this patronage. As a consequence of this, there is a perceived pressure to produce works that conform to the standards required for assessment. Failure to conform to these standards is likely to result in censure and ultimately the withdrawal of patronage. Provided that there is no pressure to produce work of an ‘approved’ nature or type, then this ‘pass or fail’ pressure can be said to be beneficial. Indeed, it can be argued that the state deliberately upholds a particular standard in order to develop a greater understanding, increase the accessibility and improve the standard of execution of the fine arts. It has been said that the ‘ability to develop and sustain a high level of artistic achievement lies at the centre of any national policy for the arts’6.

That the state recognises a responsibility to inform and educate the public about the arts is further demonstrated by the inclusion of art in the national curriculum. However, at infant level one hour in twenty-five spent in the classroom is allocated to art. At junior level this becomes thirty-five minutes per week. This is in sharp contrast to the seven and a-half hours spent on english and the five hours on mathematics. This contrast has become more marked since the advent of the literacy and numeracy hours recently introduced in primary schools. Whilst the importance placed on raising national standards in literacy and numeracy are understandable, this loss of time for the teaching of art is to be regretted. More alarmingly, a recent Ofsted report of a local primary school said that whilst teaching in most areas was satisfactory ‘the quality of art teaching is…unsatisfactory’ and that ‘the school needs significant curriculum support, training and advice in…art if it is to raise standards and improve the quality of teaching’ (see appendix 2). This poor standard of teaching in art might appear to give cause for concern, but the very fact of its inclusion in the Ofsted report suggests that in fact the state, through the department for education, is addressing this problem appropriately, as far as time constraints allow.

This essay has examined some of the problems associated with state patronage. It has been demonstrated that it is necessary that state patronage should continue, because even combined, the other sources of patronage that exist could not hope to take on all aspects of the role that the state currently performs, particularly in the areas of education and community access to the arts. State patronage has been shown to be benevolent, accountable to public taste and unlikely to represent a significant threat to artistic integrity and innovation. It has also been shown to have accepted a responsibility to defend public freedom of choice for both artist and audience. It can therefore be seen from the arguments given and the evidence presented that despite some limitations state patronage of the arts in Britain is necessary and should continue.


Bibliography


ARTLEY, A. (1980) Artist, Architect and Patron London, The Architectural Press Ltd.
AYTO, J. (1990) Dictionary of Word Origins London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
BARNARD, M. (1998) Art, design and Visual Culture London, Macmillan Press Ltd.
CHAPLIN, S.
& WALKER, J. (1997) Visual Culture: An Introduction Manchester, Manchester University Press.
COLLINS, M. (1997) Blimey Cambridge, 21.
CORE, P. (1984) The Original Eye London, Quartet Books.
FORD, J. (1979) Arts Council Collection London, Arts Council of Great Britain.
FOSTER, H. (1998) The AntiAesthetic New York, The New Press.
FRITH, S. &
HORNE, H. (1989) Art into Pop London, Routledge.
GOODING, M. (1998) Public: Art: Space London, Merrell Holberton.
MIRZOEFF, N. (1998) The Visual Culture Reader London, Routledge.
OSBOURNE, H. (Downloaded 1998) Aesthetics and Art Theory The Internet.
PEARSON, N. (1982) The State and the Visual Arts Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
READ, H. (1945) Art and Society London, Faber and Faber.
ROGOFF, I. (1991) The Divided Heritage Cambridge, Cambridge University.
ROBINSON, O.
FREEMAN, R. &
RILEY, C.A. (1994) The Arts in the World Economy Hanover, University Press of New England.
SELWOOD, S. (1996) The Benefits of Public Art London, Policy Studies Institute.
SHEPPARD, A. (1987) Aesthetics Oxford, Oxford University Press.
TURNER, G. (1996) British Cultural Studies: An Introduction London, Routledge.
WHITING, C. (1992) A Taste For Pop Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WILLIAMS, R. (1981) Culture Glasgow, Fontana.

Other Sources of Information

The Internet