Showing posts with label experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label experience. Show all posts

Friday, April 25, 2014

The Gift of Failure

“There is no such thing as failure — failure is just life trying to move us in another direction.”
Oprah Winfrey
Ride the Peace Train

One of my favorite blogs I follow religiously is a blog called "Brain Pickings" - a site I only discovered because a dear friend pointed me in that direction. The author, Maria Popova, is articulate, extremely well-read, refreshingly insightful and she always writes on art and literature with such a perfect sense of what is important in the work she's reviewing.  The author herself calls Brain Pickings a "weekly interestingness digest.
and she'd be right. I've yet to scroll through the Sunday edition without getting caught up in the valuable lessons she shares through the work, writing and art of others, not to mention her own remarkably astute commentary. 

A few weeks ago, I marked an article to read later and then, as often happens, forgot about it in the crush of springtime activities - Easter, family visits, my Mom's 90th birthday, etc. But once I had a brief moment to go back to the file, I discovered this marvelous gem amidst all the other great articles on the Blog. It's an article on a subject we've probably all encountered but often neglected to dig into - failure. We avoid the topic because it has negative connotations, particularly in a society where it's often "winner take all" and "dog eat dog." Even our television shows express clearly how we feel about this subject - "Failure is not an option." 

We reject it because it has negative associations for us - failing damages our self-esteem, destroys our dreams, labels us as less than worthy. Or does it? As this marvelous quote above from Oprah Winfrey suggests, there are a gazillion lessons in failure and as many treasures to be found in those lessons that we would not learn any other way. It IS why and how we change direction and find another way around what seem to be insurmountable obstacles. There really could be no true success without a willingness and a capacity to accept what failure has to teach us. 

Popova's blog on the Gift of Failure comes from the title of a book by Sarah Lewis - 
The Rise: Creativity, the Gift of Failure, and the Search for Mastery.  Lewis is the former curator of the Tate Modern Gallery and MoMA and a member of President Obama's Arts Policy Committee. In her book, she uses the example of Thomas Edison who tried endlessly to create a working lightbulb and said of his efforts, "I have not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that won't work." I think there are so many valuable lessons that Popova and Lewis have explored that I'd like to turn you on to the blog site with this introduction: 

Creativity, the Gift of Failure, and the Crucial Difference Between Success and Mastery

You  won't  be  sorry  that  you  were  introduced  to  this  wonderful  online  source  of  profound ideas  and  insight guarantee.
Speaking of failure, however, I wonder if you noticed that there is no link beneath my own artwork above. That's because it's not posted on any of my sites yet - and it may not ever be. I've reworked this piece 100 times - starting with a simple photograph that was small and not terribly good to begin with. But I loved the composition of the piece and I was listening to Cat Stevens singing Peace Train one night and decided to try to do something with this. I consider this work a "failure" in the sense that I've not managed to achieve what I hoped with it - it doesn't "deliver" the feeling I wanted it to. But each reworking teaches me something new about digital art and painting and that's invaluable to me for the future. I may not ever finish this work to my satisfaction but what I've learned by failing to do it has stood me in very good stead in other works. 

Sunday, January 26, 2014

What makes art good...or bad?

[Disclaimer: the following quote is for the purpose of opening up the debate only, not the author's opinion.]
 "Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."
Al Capp

Grasshopper Luncheon
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/grasshopper-luncheon-lianne-schneider.html
To my friends out there who are abstract painters, or digital abstract artists, creators of fractals and geometric artworks, my apology for the use of such an opinionated quotation as my thought-provoking ice breaker. But I needed something outrageous to provoke a response to the question - what makes a work of art good...or bad? It's a subject I was debating with a young friend of mine who began his side of the debate with a response to my statement that what constitutes "art" is a very subjective thing. I touched on it briefly in a previous post on empathy - art is good when it creates an empathetic relationship in which the artist's feelings about a subject or object are not just seen but felt and shared by the individual "receiver."

My young friend disagreed - he said, "I don't agree that art is subjective...there is good and bad." He was supported by another friend who said, "All art, painting and the like, have to have good designs, values, color theory...even the most abstract." In other words, there are "rules" to follow in order for a work in any genre - painting, digital artwork, sculpture, music, dance - to qualify as good. By that standard, the work I posted above is far from good - it's technically all wrong, it has a lot of "digital noise" at full resolution. it's not as sharp or clear as it should be and...it's out of balance in terms of composition. Still, I like it...and apparently a lot of other people do too. Does that make it good art? For them maybe it does - some people out there seeing this, felt what I felt about nature and color and light...and grasshoppers! Yet another person, jumping in on my side of the debate said, "I think some people like to elevate art to some kind of euphoric experience every time they see a piece when in reality art is a connection between artist and patron." .

CHALLENGE: Take these two little quizzes (and if you went to art school no fair) and see if you come up with the same standard of "good" art that history and the critics have given us:
 

My young friend responded by saying that my liking a work was no measure of whether it has merit. Perhaps not - by my subjective response, I would have labeled Pollack bad art and a couple of paintings by dogs or cats as better (not good)! And I certainly would have placed several works by "unknown" artists above those considered great art according to some art critic somewhere. But the point I'm making really is who makes that decision...isn't it a bit of art snobbery to say that only work done with a real paintbrush, or with a film camera, or in marble rather than plastic wrap, or by some well known crooner like Perry Como from the 50s instead of Justin Bieber, is good art? 

I'm still saying that for both the artist and the receiver of the art there has to be a subjective relationship - I don't stand in front of a Bouguereau and measure to see if he kept the rule of thirds, whether he had the audacity to shade with black or whether his figures are larger than their backgrounds. I don't examine the Pieta and say Mary's hands are too big - in fact she's too big period. No I stand in awe - because those works of art speak to me and I don't care if they kept the rules. Think of Mozart - if you recall the film - the Emperor telling him his music had "too many notes" - it didn't meet the objective standard for "good" music then. 

Where would we be if individual artists hadn't tried to express their own vision in their own way regardless of the rules? We've entered the digital age - more and more art is created digitally today. Cameras come equipped with lenses and filters and editing software that can immediately improve or alter what the photographer actually saw with his/her eyes into something else entirely - something that expresses how he/she felt about what they were photographing. Is HDR photography less of an art form than the photo-montage and retouched images of Pierre et Gilles (who are listed among the top 100 most influential photographers of all time)? Is a true digital painting - done from scratch even if using some additional editing software - not just as much a painting as a Pollack? 

Art is only good when it expresses something honest about who the artist is and that something speaks to and is felt and experienced by the viewer/reader/listener. In my humble opinion that is.  Pollack himself said, "Every good painter paints what he is." (I've honestly no clue who that is but I'm sure some of you can relate and love his work). For myself, I will continue to evaluate an artwork the way Schopenhauer suggested: