Happy Birthday, Vincent!!

Today is Vincent Van Gogh's 156th birthday. Our world is a more beautiful place for him having lived in it. Although fame and success eluded him during his tragically short life, he is now one of the most recognizable, influential artists in the world. He began his journey as a minister in a depressed coal mining village in Belgium, but was soon dismissed from his post for "overzealousness" (a character trait that followed him his entire life). He decided to remain there and began painting "slice of life" scenes of the people who lived there. His work during this time was punctuated by somber colors-browns, umbers, ochres-nothing like what we know of his famous work today. Eventually he moved to Paris to be with his brother Theo, an art dealer. While there, he was introduced to the Impressionists, and brightened his color palette and developed that famous frenetic, passionate brushstroke we are all familiar with.

History has labeled him as difficult, selfish, insane, abrasive, and abusive. The idea of the tortured genius seems to have been taylor made for him. In fact, there are medical reasons for his behavior. He was diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy, and the famous ear-cutting incident is now believed to have occurred during a seizure, not in a fit of madness and emotional rage. Scholars also believe he was bi-polar, although during Vincent's life, there was no official diagnosis for his periods of frenetic behavior that were often followed by deep depression and suicide attempts. It is also believed he was a victim of Thujone poisoning. Thujone is the main ingredient in absinthe, a very toxic alcoholic drink that was popular with artists of the time for its hallucinogenic properties. Vincent drank absinthe to combat his depression-in reality it aggravated his epilepsy. Finally, it is quite probable that Vincent suffered from lead poisoning. Paint at that time was made with lead, and Vincent had a habit of eating paint chips and nibbling on the ends of his brushes.

It has always been believed that Vincent lived solely for his art, much to the detriment of his relationships and personal well being. His relationship with Theo has always been viewed as one of the loving,long suffering younger brother taking responsibity for the tortured, brilliant older brother who was unable to care for himself. Scholars are now piecing together a different view of that relationship. The commonly held views of the two brothers are now being reversed, to a degree. It is now being suggested that Theo was actually quite wild, having lived with several mistresses and eventually going insane and dying from syphillis, while Vincent, on the other hand, is seen as more savvy and "in control" of how he wanted to be viewed by both his contemporaries and posterity. His suicide attempt from a gunshot did not cause his immediate death, and it is believed that that was intentional on his part. After he shot himself in the chest, he lingered long enough for Theo to arrive and spend his last moments with him-evidence of the enduring love shared between the two.

Whatever the truth may be, Vincent Van Gogh left a prolific amount of work behind, and although he only sold one painting his entire life, he has now taken his rightful place in art history as the brilliant master he always was.

About Pablo

Mention the name Picasso and visions of nearly undecipherable Cubist works and awkwardly abstract, almost nonsensical figures may immediately flood your imagination. You know they are masterpieces, because they were created by Picasso, even though you don't know exactly why. Some of his abstracts look almost naively simplistic-you're pretty confident you could do just as well. But there was genius behind those deceptively simple works, and rigorous training deeply rooted in the basic foundation of drawing. Throughout his career his work was based on remarkable drawing skills and a keen understanding of color. He could paint remarkably realistic figures-so unlike what we automatically think of when we hear his name. It's understood that you can't abstract the human figure in a polished, believable manner until you master the human form itself. Picasso mastered the human form a thousand times over. You can see the genius of his draughtsmanship even in the most simplistic, abstracted paintings. So I invite you to rediscover a Picasso you may not be all that familiar with. Focus on his work from his Blue and Rose Periods, and his harlequin and acrobat pieces. They exude grace and life.

Are You an Objective Observer? (How Do You Connect To Art?- part two)

In my last post I talked about narrative being an obstacle in fully appreciating a piece of art. Speaking as a painter, if I write about a painting I've done, I am, in a sense influencing you to see the piece as I see it. Should I want to do that? Clyfford Still refused to even title his paintings because he did not want to influence the viewer. He even forbade anyone from writing about his work, which stemmed, in part, from his contempt for art critics, but again, he wanted the viewer to be free to interpret his work. You may think to yourself, "but you painted it, I want to know what it means, and I want to hear your explanation". But I think an artist's life experiences have more value in "explaining" their work than even anything they themselves would write. Our own life experiences allow us to empathize, love, hate, and sympathize with others, and ultimately that serves to connect us in some way. So does an artist's character, personality, life have any bearing on how you connect to their work? Is it possible to separate the artist from the art and be a purely objective viewer? My gut reaction is no, because when someone creates something, be it a painting, sculpture, a book- whatever, a piece of them is in that creation. It's a very personal, courageous way to speak. When you feel yourself drawn to a particular painting, you naturally want to know more about the artist- that's just human nature. For example, the notion of the "tortured artist" is very intriguing, and perhaps it does influence us on some level. Does knowing that an artist suffered from mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or some other physical ailment make their work more interesting than the work of a happily married housewife? Perhaps. I think it may depend in part on what you identify with, or what you are drawn to. According to Tom Ludwig (whose article I referred to in the previous post) we need to be objective when viewing art. But let me play devil's advocate here: is it really possible?

How Do You Connect To Art?

I recently read an article by Tom Ludwig entitled "The importance of flatness and self-containment in the visual arts". Quite a long essay, but he addressed some very important points about the relationship between the artist and viewer, the role of the critic, new expectations that have been placed upon the artist, what we should expect from the visual arts and how these factors influence how we connect to art. I must quote Tom Ludwig's opening sentence, because it sums up what I feel has been lost in contemporary times. He states, "In the best art, the image triumphs over the narrative; the visual triumphs over the cerebral." As artists, (and I'm not speaking soley about visual artists, because I imagine musicians face the same expectations as well), it seems that the image (or the piece of music) is no longer enough- it seems like connecting to a work of art purely on an emotional level no longer suffices. As a visual artist, I am expected to write an "artist's statement"-an explanation of what influences my work, what I am exploring through my work, why I paint the way I paint, what that says about my work....(you get the picture). I'm fine with that-it's kind of an introduction to me and to my work. But I think that's where the "narrative" should stop. Because now, a great deal of importance is placed on an explanation of each individual painting. The end product isn't permitted to speak for itself, now we need to explain all the reasons we had for creating the piece in the first place and what we are trying to say, why we chose red paint over blue paint, etc. all to aid the viewer in connecting to the work itself. WHAT? In this case, words just get in the way. To be honest, sometimes I'm not trying to say anything, and I don't have a particular reason for painting a certain piece other than I just felt like it. Of course, something obviously inspired me to paint a particular piece, but as the person looking at the painting do you really need a written explanation about all that in order to fully appreciate it? I don't think the viewer is being given much credit here. Aside from the fact that I painted the piece, leave me out of it. Just look at the painting and let it say to you whatever it wants to say. Connect to it on whatever level your emotions guide you to. Isn't that the true role of art? There's so much that can be debated about this topic, I may have to continue in another post, but in the mean time-what do you think?

Abstract Expressionism

I recently read an article in the latest issue of ArtNews about Clyfford Still, the Abstract Expressionist painter and it got me thinking about that movement as a whole. Now, I have to admit, that Abstract Expressionism was never a movement that particularly interested me (from a stylistic perspective), but I appreciate the fact that it was a purely American movement, and I understand the desire the Abstract Expressionists had to break free of the viewed constraints of representational art and embrace a new approach . I think abstract art requires a very open mind to be fully appreciated, and I've heard countless people say, "I don't get it". At times I've agreed with them (I hate to admit). On a recent trip to New York I had the opportunity to go to the MoMA and the Metropolitan and stand face to face with some monumental Abstract Expressionist works. It's a breathtaking moment when you see paintings that, until that very moment, you've only seen in books. It's quite easy to overlook a painting that's represented by an 2 in. by 2 in. picture, but in person, they take on an entirely new meaning for you, and in that one trip I think I gained a whole new perspective on Abstract Expressionism. Whether it be the spontaneity of Pollack, the spirituality of Rothko, the grotesque figures of Kandinsky's Woman series, or the flames of color bursting through the canvases of Clyfford Still, I suddenly felt like "I got it". For someone who somewhat favors representational art, and whose own art falls under that category, abstract art can be a challenge to understand. What I think the great thing about Abstract Expressionism is, is that it doesn't really need grandiose explanations or interpretations. All that's required is that you open your eyes and your mind and feel. Here's a quote by Clyfford still that I just love: "To be stopped by a frame's edge is intolerable" . If you look at his art, you'll know exactly what he meant.

Welcome to the ArtHouse Cafe

If there was one thing I could choose to do in addition to painting, it would be to own my own cafe. In my dream I would make the food (nothing too elaborate, but sophisticated and scrumptious all the same), play really cool music, create an eclectic atmosphere with cozy lived in furniture, my own original artwork (as well as that of other local artists) peppering the walls, and an ever-changing, ever-growing library of books and magazines for my patrons to enjoy as they sat back and experienced the ambiance.

So, this is the next best thing. I've decided not to wait around for a "brick and mortar" building to house my dream cafe. This blog will do quite nicely. This will be the place where all my interests will converge-music, food, books and articles, and especially art. In the coming weeks I'll be posting new works of art, talking about food (and offering the occasional recipe), and discussing music and books. I hope you'll join me!

Heather