Dan Wilson on thu 10 oct 96
Kevin Hulch brought up what I think was an interesting subject when he and
Rhudy Dannon briefly discussed the influence of .......
As a student I was informed that only one percent of the population of
artists would rise to a position of influence within their field. (This
may have been a subtle message?:) At any rate, this proposition makes me
wonder about how one rises to a position of influence within the arts.
Exactly what are the characteristics that are required of the aspiring
artist in order to enter the one percent circle of influence? What
characteristics do they all have in common? I think ,in general, that it
may be the result of a complex of socio-cultural standards which, when
fulfilled, result in general agreement and acceptance of the artist among
the one percent that already exists. ( An achievement of the highest
order.) The question I have is: Should the aspiring artist be armed with
this information early, in order to consciously endeavor to emulate the one
percent? Influence and gain the acceptance of the one percent? Or does it
happen unconsciously? It also strikes me as odd that at a time when we're
all striving for uniqueness in our expressions we'd even be susceptible to
influence by anyone. It also strikes me that the influence of the one
percent raises the level of the work of the ninety-nine. Just wondering...
mayonaise
Kristin Conrad on thu 10 oct 96
>wonder about how one rises to a position of influence within the arts.
>Exactly what are the characteristics that are required of the aspiring
>artist in order to enter the one percent circle of influence? What
>characteristics do they all have in common? I think ,in general, that it
My suspicion??? You are actually talking about a "position of FAME". In
that case, I think one either has to be a natural born leader; or, a
natural born lunatic. Leaders (and I mean the ones that inspire us, not
necessarily the ones that get elected) in all fields seem to possess
charisma in addition to logic and skill. People gravitate naturally to
them. Lunatics, on the other hand, are oddities that peak our twisted
curiousity for anything titillating and different. And look how hard many
college art students try to fit THAT bill. I remember my first day of art
classes -- walking into the classrooms and seeing some of the students
trying so hard to be "weird", because they thought that was a requirement
for being an artist. Most didn't have much talent, but were desperately
trying to live out their fantasy vision of a famous "artist". I don't
think that many of them made it past the first year, though.
I think the 1% figure you were quoted must be referring to artists who
become internationally famous. I don't think this figure counts the many
artists of regional influence, or those who simply and happily make their
living as artists, within a small circle of influence. Many cultures do
not place as much investment in being "famous" as we do. I have much more
admiration for a pursuit of artistic honesty in one's work; than a pursuit
of fame. Making one's living from art IS a reward with or without the
fame.
Besides, we never realize who we influence, inspire, and instruct through
the living of our lives.
>influence by anyone. It also strikes me that the influence of the one
>percent raises the level of the work of the ninety-nine. Just wondering...
Again, I don't agree. The one percent who possess the personal qualities
and blind luck to "get famous" may not represent the best art to aspire to.
And the famous artists who I really do admire were just following their
own visions, and there is no reason for me to try to copy anything they
produced out of that -- except to try to live my own vision.
Thanks for provoking my thoughts this morning!
Kristin Conrad
Rollinsville, CO
Wendy Hampton on fri 11 oct 96
It seems that one consistant trait I have found in people that are "in the 1
percent" of the area of influence is drive. These people have a single
mindedness and energy that keep them going for days. They are so totally
immersed in their art that all else seems to be nonexistant. I don't think
there are very many of us that can do this.
I think that we are all influenced in one way or another by all art - not
just the recognized few.
Just some thoughts?
Wendy from Bainbridge Island WA
Dan Wilson on fri 11 oct 96
Kristin Conrad writes:
> I think one either has to be a natural born leader; or, a
>natural born lunatic. Leaders ... in all fields seem to possess
>charisma in addition to logic and skill.... And look how hard many
>college art students try to fit THAT bill.... because they thought that
>was a requirement for being an artist.
Its interesting you would mention lunatic. I wonder if this is connected to
a desire to emulate the "visionary" artist, especially on the part of some
young aspiring artists. Might this be the result of the way history is
presented to us? Or just a misinterpretation of history as it is presented
to us? On the other hand how do we distinguish between the loony
"visionary" and the just plain loony. Especially in the arts? Your
suggestion that Charisma in addition to logic and skill , along with Wendy
Hampton's suggestion that drive, energy and single mindedness of purpose
makes sense to me.
>I have much more admiration for a pursuit of artistic honesty in one's
>work; >than a pursuit of fame.
This term "artistic honesty" keeps croping up. Care to explain its meaning?
>And the famous artists who I really do admire were just following their
>own visions, and there is no reason for me to try to copy anything they
>produced out of that -- except to try to live my own vision.
I think I might agree with you here. But it seems to me they must be
working within some contex i.e. with something in mind. A proposition so to
speak. Is following your own vision the "artistic honesty" you spoke of
earlier? Maybe what begins as a seed when you are young grows in concentric
circles, reaching an ever widening audience through the mechanism of shows,
demonstrations, teaching and sharing ideas. This would require charisma,
logic and skill
and a tremendous amount of energy drive and single mindedness of
purpose.More than just a fashion show to be sure.
mayonaise
Karen Gringhuis on fri 11 oct 96
Wendy - Amen sister to "DRIVE" - read DISCIPLINE. My sensei keeps
saying "work, work, work" and "more work." You hit the nail on the head.
Hluch - Kevin A. on sun 13 oct 96
Karen,
A lot of people have "DRIVE/DISCIPLINE". Fewer people have CONNECTIONS.
Also a significant reason for cream rising to the top.
If I recall correctly the issue was the apparent disparagement of jurors
at the obvious effects of their influence on the jurees.
Is it possible to have our cake and eat it too? Can well-known jurors be
TOO influential on the field? Is that why they see so many "mannerist"
expressions in the jurying process? If those types of expressions (in the
manner of Cushing) are not appropriate, then the juror, seemingly, must
select work that is significantly at odds with their own sensibilities.
To ask a juror to deny their own aesthetic orientation does not make sense.
Certainly, that's one of the reasons for THEIR (I like this big letter
business) selection in the first place.
And simultaneously, perhaps the number of "mannerist" expressions in the
contest is evidence of the individuals impact on the field. Isn't that
a positive development?
Why wouldn't one want to see the heavy influence by a single
individual on the field? Isn't that called style? Consider Voulkos's
impact. We don't want to bemoan that large phenomenon now, do we?
Perhaps the jurees are DRIVEN to emulate Media/Gallery/Museum-documented
artists since those expressions are VALIDATED. Jurors, after-all are not
picked out of the ether either.
(Excuse me, I'm starting to get a vision of a snake consuming its tail.)
Kevin A. Hluch
Frederick, MD
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Karen
Gringhuis wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Wendy - Amen sister to "DRIVE" - read DISCIPLINE. My sensei keeps
> saying "work, work, work" and "more work." You hit the nail on the head.
>
Karen Gringhuis on sun 13 oct 96
Dear Kevin - Re: Fashion shows, jurors, connections etc.
Whoa, whoa - you've got the wrong gal! All I responded to was the
issue of discipline i.e.work. Where the whole discussion started Ihave no idea (well, I have a clue) & could care less. Puhleese --
do not associate me or my name with this whole topic. I'll watch my
mouth more carefully in the future but this whole discussion
is the type of thing * am trying to stay far far away from
and it's a good example of what was missing from the recent
Arrowmont conference & why it was therefore such a joy.
Eleanora Eden on sun 13 oct 96
Hi All,
I'll add to this thread my Grace Kelly Theory of Success.
It always seemed worthy of note that Grace Kelly was not only fabulously
beautiful etc. but a reasonably happy and well-adjusted person by all
accounts. We all inherited the Vincent van Gogh idea of success via
insanity and it was as obvious to me as to others here that is not the
kind of success one can bank on especially if one also has in mind a real
life with family and friends and, hopefully someday, grandchildren.
But contrary to that popular myth it seemed to me that the people I knew
or knew of who made it to the top were always people with savvy skills
and balanced personalities.
Eleanora
Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@maple.sover.net
Kristin Conrad on mon 14 oct 96
>Its interesting you would mention lunatic. I wonder if this is connected to
>a desire to emulate the "visionary" artist, especially on the part of some
>young aspiring artists. Might this be the result of the way history is
>presented to us? Or just a misinterpretation of history as it is presented
I have heard the above proposed as a theory. I can't remember where I read
it, but an author on that topic mentioned that the notion of the
"visionary, but unbalanced artist" really took hold in the early twentieth
century. This author even attributed the "crazy artist" model to a
specific artist, but again, my memory fails me on the details. After that
model had been held up, people obviously could look back in history and
find examples they felt proved it true.
I thought a visit I made to the Denver Art Museum a couple years ago was
interesting. I went to see an exhibit of Mayan artwork/pottery. The
exhibit explained that artists in that society were very highly esteemed
and were allowed to be well-educated at a time when mainly only the
nobility was allowed to be educated. They had a very defined and valuable
role in Mayan Society. I rather doubt that these esteemed members of
society behaved as lunatics.
To now somewhat contradict myself, though; there are studies that point to
artists having (as a group) having a higher percentage of members with some
form of mental illness. So, maybe that stereotype just gets exagerated.
>>I have much more admiration for a pursuit of artistic honesty in one's
>>work; >than a pursuit of fame.
>
>This term "artistic honesty" keeps croping up. Care to explain its meaning?
I said that in response to the statement in your post pertaining to trying
to define "what it takes" to be in that 1% of artists who "make it" or are
famous (I am obviously paraphrasing here). It strikes me that to try to
define this for the purposes of somehow changing ones own art/personality
in pursuit of it, denies that the person has any truth of their own to
express, or a personal destiny to fulfill. My feeling is that " aritstic
honesty" is the same as personal integrity in any walk of life; and is to
remain true to ones own path. I believe we all have a personal path (set
of experiences) in life that give us a unique vision to contribute for
others benefit. Everyone has this, but artists express this visually,
through music, etc. It is not always easy (sometimes even painful) to find
our unique contribution, and too many people simply try to adopt someone
else's that they admire (top 1% theory). I think those people are destined
to fail because they have denied their own destiny -- their own truth, to
try to be something else. That's my theory on artistic honesty or
basically a life of integrity. You may not have been implying all of this,
but it is what came to my mind when I read it.
>earlier? Maybe what begins as a seed when you are young grows in concentric
>circles, reaching an ever widening audience through the mechanism of shows,
>demonstrations, teaching and sharing ideas. This would require charisma,
>logic and skill
>and a tremendous amount of energy drive and single mindedness of
>purpose.More than just a fashion show to be sure.
I like the visual picture you paint of the seed and the concentric circles
of influence that grow from that seed. Do you think those circles of
influence would grow as far-reaching or be lasting if the person wasn't
expressing that "seed" that was planted in them?
Kristin Conrad
Rollinsville, CO
chull@startext.net on mon 14 oct 96
>Its interesting you would mention lunatic. I wonder if this is connected to
>a desire to emulate the "visionary" artist, especially on the part of some
>young aspiring artists. Might this be the result of the way history is
>presented to us? Or just a misinterpretation of history as it is presented?
Wasn't the Unibomber a mathmatician? "Lunacy" knows no occupational
boundaries.
Cynthia
TX
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 14 oct 96
Karen,
This is exactly my point...The Arrowmount Conference most certainly was a
place where people made "connections"...net-worked...shared
experiences...etc.
There is more to the art world that the lone lunatic working in the
studio and being driven. I suspect this aspect of success in the art
world is inescapable for potters as well.
Certainly, there were people there who might invite you to an exhibition
someday on the basis of the the quality of your work. But you might not
have that opportunity had you stayed away from the conference....
Nothing personal intended or implied.
Kevin
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Karen Gringhuis wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Dear Kevin - Re: Fashion shows, jurors, connections etc.
> Whoa, whoa - you've got the wrong gal! All I responded to was the
> issue of discipline i.e.work. Where the whole discussion started I> have no idea (well, I have a clue) & could care less. Puhleese --
> do not associate me or my name with this whole topic. I'll watch my
> mouth more carefully in the future but this whole discussion
> is the type of thing * am trying to stay far far away from
> and it's a good example of what was missing from the recent
> Arrowmont conference & why it was therefore such a joy.
>
Dan Wilson on tue 15 oct 96
Kristin,
"visionary" artist,....
>I have heard the above proposed as a theory. I can't remember where I read
>it, but an author on that topic mentioned that the notion of the
>"visionary, but unbalanced artist" really took hold in the early twentieth
>century. This author even attributed the "crazy artist" model to a
>specific artist, but again, my memory fails me on the details. After that
>model had been held up, people obviously could look back in history and
>find examples they felt proved it true.
I'm not quite sure but I think Van Gough may have been an example? Maybe
the notion evolved from an earlier belief that the artist was in reality a
conduit ; some how transmitting some ultimate truth of which the rest of
were not aware. This would explain the historically close association of
the Church with the artist In western culture and as you pointed out in
Mayan culture (probably many others as well). Maybe back in the darkest
times before the dawn of rationality the artist and shaman were embodied in
the same individual. Of course this is foolish speculation with no hard
evidence I can cite to support it. So I'll say no more other than its an
area of passing interest to me recently.
"artistic honesty" keeps croping up. Care to explain its meaning?
>It strikes me that to try to
>define this for the purposes of somehow changing ones own art/personality
>in pursuit of it, denies that the person has any truth of their own to
>express, or a personal destiny to fulfill.....
Good point. Although the notion of fulfilling ones personal destiny does
come under scrutiny now and then, I agree with it.
> My feeling is that " aritstic
>honesty" is the same as personal integrity in any walk of life; and is to
>remain true to ones own path......
Well done. Thankyou for a thoughtful reply.
>Do you think those circles of
>influence would grow as far-reaching or be lasting if the person wasn't
>expressing that "seed" that was planted in them?
If I said yes; I wouldn't agree with your definition of "Artistic Honesty"
above.
Mayonaise
| |
|
