Paintings

Ah...  I can't listen to that song here at work... but I am noticing something interesting about my interpretations of these pieces.

I do find that I am taking a very strong cue from the title of the piece.  It speaks to what specifically I am supposed to "focus" on in regard to how it's presented.  So the word used in the title itself is almost more important than the physical art.  Without it ... I could make up just about anything that would "fit" into the view presented to me.  It's like a guided meditation of sorts.

I also like how each person's expression and feelings for the word used as the title; as well as the reaction to the visual cues most likely makes the art larger than it originally was... it becomes a beautiful harmony... which inevitably pours out, and reminds me of song.

I did a search for Wildflower song lyrics and found this.  I've never heard it but it sounds like a beautiful song that adds to this imagery for me:

Wildflower
by Skylark

She's faced the hardest times,
You could imagine
And many times,
Her eyes fought back the tears
And when her youthful world,
Was about to fall in
Each time her slender shoulders,
Bore the weight of all her fears
And a sorrow no one hears
Still rings in midnight silence
In her ears

Let her cry,
For she's a lady
Let her dream
For she's a child
Let the rain,
Fall down upon her
She's a free and gentle flower
Growing wild

And if by chance,
I should hold her
Let me hold her for a time
But if allowed just one possession
I would pick her from the garden,
To be mine

Ummmm....................
Be careful how you touch her,
For she'll awaken
And sleep's the only freedom,
That she knows
And when you walk into her eyes,
You won't believe
The way she's always payin'
For a debt she never owes
And a silent wind still blows
That only she can hear
And so, she goes

Let her cry,
For she's a lady
Let her dream,
For she's a child
Let the rain
Fall down upon her
She's a free and gentle flower
Growing wild

Let her cry,
For she's a lady
Let her dream,
For she's a child
Let the rain
Fall down upon her
She's a free and gentle flower
Growing wild

She's a flower
Growing wild

She's free.......

Yeah... Titles... that's something I've struggled with. Not titling my work, but whether or not I "should"... because for a long time... I didn't want to influence the viewers interpretation at all... I wanted the painting to do all the "talking"... "Purely Visual Poetry"...

I didn't really want to hear an artist's explanation of a piece until I developed my own interpretation first. But there's a difference between a paragraph explanation and a title... so I guess I'm ok with it now.

Well... it's not "purely" visual, but I get it that the titles you have are a bit like minimalist poetry.

I personally don't have a distinct preference of visual vs. verbal expression - so I'm going to value the presentation as a whole.

For me, a paragraph from an author on any kind of art they've produced is not something that would distract me from whatever interpretation or meaning that I find for myself personally in a work of art.  What I see and feel is all about me.  I have no problem separating that from what the artist or an "experienced art critic" sees.  A conversation or description like that - to me is about learning about the person/artist and their point of view - it doesn't teach me much about the meaning of the work of art itself.  I can take or leave whatever anyone else has to say about it, even when they claim to have some authoritative knowledge or superiority.  The magic I find, is what I bring to it - it's not manipulated out of me; and even if "inspired" - once it's out there what I find can never be "owned", controlled, or taken back.

This video is a really funny reminder of that to me - how subjective and personal the experience of a work of art really is:
Creature Comforts

I just don't lose myself in other people's stories.  I don't redefine myself or my interpretation based off of what someone else sees or interprets.  I guess that's because I've got a pretty strong self identity.  In that way, actually I believe that by bringing my own life experience and identity to the piece - when viewed actively like this instead of passively - I actually become the artist.  From there the conversation about the art becomes art.  I can let the beauty spiral out of control because I'm not trying to constrain it to only my small frame of reference in the grand scheme of things.

I think this is why I also strongly connect to song.  I like to harmonize and leverage my experience of art over many mediums... the people I interact with become a part of that - no more important, no less than me. 

Ah... I found this quote that reminded me of this conversation:

The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

I think that's a beautiful description of the cooperation I see that takes place between artist/viewer. 

That quotation was reminding me of something by the poet Frederico Garcia Lorca--which unfortunately I can't seem to find online (I hope I have it stashed away on the computer at home somewhere).  But searching around I did two other really interesting things--one was another thought on the relation of artist and audience of Lorca's:

'like all true artists I yearn for my poems to reach your hearts and cause the communication of love among you, forming the marvellous chain of spirtual solidarity that is the chief end of any work of art'

The other was a theory of art that Lorca proposed based on the spanish mythos of the duende--a kind of goblin trickster figure.  And I think Lorca proposes that all artists must incorporate the duende, and that all art is about the confrontation of death.  That seems very related to what was being discussed about the Pilothouse song 'Heroes' on the Hero thread.

Creature Comforts! I'm livin' the experience! I love that show.

I agree--the conversation precipitated by the artwork is also art. This is a perception I try to convey to students as they don't trust in their own reactions enough (and really haven't been taught to before) and are often looking to me for the "right" answer. A somewhat more rare response is the kind of solipsistic one in which someone takes my saying that there is no one authoritative answer to mean that someone can make any claim they want without evidence which denies the whole idea that art is a symbolic interaction.

... and along these lines can't help but this of this song.

Not sure if the link works - it's "Imaginary" by Evanescence.

My work is often inspired by strong feelings and emotions that I've either had personally or related to in a movie or book. And regardless where the inspiration comes from... it always excites me when a viewer can sense the passion and intense emotion that fueled my painting.

Of course I want the viewer to get a glimpse of what I am feeling and what I am striving to be, yet I typically do not like to say too much about my work. The reason being, that I do not want my thoughts and opinions do not influence the viewers interpretation of the piece. I think art is powerful enough to communicate deeply with the viewer on a personal level, without words and explanations from the artist.

I think that art should speak for itself!

:)

(well... I wouldn't worry about it... it wasn't important)

As far as art goes - I used to be of the mind that language was so imperfect and that art was the only true unambiguous way to communicate.

Words always needed interpreting and people seldom agreed on the message.  For awhile I think I had a sort of prejudice against using words.
I thought painting and drawing were better ways to express emotion.  Perhaps even because of its abstract nature.

I realized at some point, that even painted (visual) art still needs to be interpreted by the viewer as well - and there were no guarantees that you will always evoke the right response.

After realizing that - everything is art to me.    I really wish I had a way to share a song I know that expresses this beautifully... I'll submit in a comment later if I can ever attach it. 

This article speaking about the "Postmodern Self" touches on this in a great many ways.

Now no art is complete without its context of presentation. Taking a work that is ordinarily presented at a vanity gallery, to a museum would change the meaning of the work. For a conceptual video artist to paint a pretty picture of roses, has a different implication from for an artist who only paints pictures of roses, to paint yet another picture of roses. For an established artist who shows only at top galleries, to show her work at a street fair, could certainly be an artistic statement. In the Postmodern world, everything can be a signifier, and nothing by itself is significant.

I started to acknowledge things in a broader sense when I noted the parallel in "artistic" written material - poetry and the like.  For example in pondering William Shakespeare I can make the parallel that his words were paint on a canvas  ... but not everybody agrees on what Will was trying to say with his work overall.  It was never the medium of expression that brought an understanding in the listener, but a cooperation.  There is no "perfect medium".  It's not about the artist being a "master" either or even what they might have been feeling when they created the piece.  It's about a shared or common subjective connection. 

The feelings that the viewer feels are indeed not the artist's but their own.  The art merely provides the context ... and if it's good it touches on a common denominator that the viewer can relate to and experience in unison.

...and see I forgot to get to the point.

So in short - what I'm trying to say is that your words describing the piece, do not detract from its beauty at all... and are even beautiful in and of themselves in a certain subjective way. 

I think that division of language and art comes down to the concept of the individual in isolation from the world--which to me has its roots in the Englightenment-Romanticism-Capitalism.  So art is looked at as a transparent medium for the emotions-the inner world.  Language (except for poetry maybe) stands for some kind of transparent medium of representing the outer world.  Both of those are false.  In that high culture/low culture divide it misrepresents the way in which art is a part of "worldly" forces like politics and economics.  And similarly misrepresents language as some kind of medium of cold analytical truth about the external.  Science takes on the appearance of objectivity.

I actually found the article you cited going a bit off course in maintaining that division--I think the author is still thinking of a "true" interior self vs. a "semiotic" self presented to the world (the Cary Grant example illustrates this).  And I would disagree that Postmodern Art always has to have the context of the author's brand and the contrast the author makes with subjective art--that there the author does not need to be known as the work speaks for itself (as a transparent medium of Beauty).  Again that seems to betray a division the author is making between the semiotic (Postmodern Art) and the true (subjective art)--which of course would result in the kind of cynicism the author talks about wanting to get away from.

Instead if you eliminate that division (the isolated individual/the world)--a work of art becomes, as you suggested, DL, a communal process rooted in symbolic exchange.

I run into this division a lot--from my students who tend to see my analysis as "robbing" them of their subjective emotional experience (instead of being a way of continuing the exchange)--to friends who feel distanced from me when I want to have an analytical conversation.  I think for women especially this poses a problem as stereotypically our realm is supposed to be the "emotive."  You know, I don't know the origin of dualism--whether it's in gender, or in subjective/objective, or what--but sometimes I think that's the root problem

I think the way that I saw the Cary Grant example was that the viewers were confounding the artist for the art he presented... which was the actor in his role.  To me it seemed like it wasn't really about selling, but an incorrect framing of sorts.  Cary Grant seemed comfortable with this incorrect framing not because it sold - or that a dichotomy had to exist in order for it to sell, but that it speaks to that not everyone who buys a piece of art is truly going to understand the frame of the artist and that shouldn't prevent him from engaging in his art.  I saw it as a kind of acceptance - not cynicism.

In the end, that's what marketing is about -- presenting an appealing frame... whether or not the artist connects with it personally.  What I think the author was trying to convey is that postmodern art - in an attempt to eliminate the division of the isolated individual vs. the world - has become sentient of the frame and has to come to acceptance with it in the end.  That art is not a transparent medium of beauty or separate from the business transaction ... it is both, and that's ok.  In becoming aware of this - the beginning of the postmodern movement focused on rebelling against the frame.  I do not think this has to be intrinsic to the definition of post modern itself.  The artist may even be better at marketing the items when they actually do have a connection to the frame they are selling.

You totally get where I'm coming from! That is so awesome to me!

I love how you articulate it... "feeling of depth and something promising in the distance."

So that it's not so much about an amorous longing in my soul that "may or may not" be found... but rather a celebration of what has already been found. But it the journey doesn't end there... the moment it's found... no, it just begins... thus you still anticipate this love growing... and you can't help but be filled with joy and hope and excitement.

So it's not about one person searching for something... but more about 2 lovers on a journey.

And thank you too.  You actually put more up since I posted that.  Poppies is another favourite of mine.  It has a lot of movement to it even though I guess it's kind of a still life.  And the light again in the background--but this time without the horizon line--as if the flowers and the light and shadow are all part of one thing instead of objects against a background.  Light draws you in again, but not in the sense of a journey but more like a falling into a substance.

Heh, I didn't get that "Bliss" was bout 2 lovers which I suppose should have been obvious from the title (d'oh)--so actually maybe DL's association was more on target.

I love your perspective on these, Jaz.  There is a lot of value and depth, both analytically and emotively to these pieces for sure.

I have to say... my thought about Bliss seems silly in comparison.  It  had more to do about a vacation I took and who I was with.  We were on this isolated beach out by a lighthouse in Michigan, and this painting reminded me of the waves on the shore there.   Even the sand was perfect - I just can't even describe in words.  It's a place out near Paradise, actually. 

The word "bliss" by itself came to my mind even, at the time... but sometimes words seem so flat by themselves, you know?  This painting helps me recall those feelings and allows me to add my own personal emotive depth to it.  ... a completely selfish motive on my behalf for sure.  I think that's what I've always found really cool about art... that flexibility for a person to apply the subject matter in a way that speaks only to them.

I'm glad you like it.

Bliss is one of my very favorites!! Mostly because of the inspiration behind it. And everytime I look at it... it takes me to that very special place... a place of pure bliss...

...which is why it's priceless to me...

I just finished "Engagement" for a friend who actually commissioned me to do it. She gave me a photograph to use. It is the actual location where her husband proposed to her. This is her anniversary present to him.

She is very pleased with it... she actually teared up when she first saw it. That made me happy! :)

Anyway, I'm glad you like it! :)

...oh and Happy Belated Birthday! I hope it was wonderful!!