Tying up loose ends

Tomorrow is my last day in Canada, and although I'm excited to go back home, I'm a bit sad to leave. Alberta is such a beautiful province and I would have loved to see it in the springtime. Also, Canada has poutine and ginger beef. Like, what more could you want. I've learned a lot over the past several weeks and really enjoyed being able to develop my art skills. My internship itself is at an end, but I don't consider my project to be finished. I still have a bit more research to do, and I am planning on working on my own art a little more. I think I'll dabble in illustration, which has become more appealing to me over the past few months. Another thing I'm considering is opening my own poutine shop in the states, cause I've go some pretty good ideas (for example: Thanksgiving poutine with turkey and stuffing). So if my artistic career fails, I'll have that as an option. Anyways, I'm so glad I had this opportunity to see what the life of an artist is really like. Here are some pictures in commemoration of my last day:

Me, an artist

Seriously. Ginger beef.

Untitled Oil Painting

At a talk given by photographer Jeffery Spackman + free sandwiches

Untitled Watercolor Painting

"If you're trying to fit the trends, you're already behind the curve."

-Shannon Bingeman

I had interviews with 3 more people this week. The first was Shannon Bingeman, the curator for the government-initiated Traveling Exhibition Program (TREX), which is produced by Alberta Society of Artists (and other organizations). This program makes art more accessible for citizens and students throughout Alberta by providing art exhibitions that circulate to various venues and classrooms. These exhibitions include a variety of contemporary and historical art, though not much of it is very traditional. Some of the recent exhibitions focused on weaved tapestries (contemporary), performance art (not theater), and a collection of photographs from the 1920s. While paintings were included in some of the exhibitions, there weren't very many compared to the number of alternate pieces. (I haven't actually seen the exhibitions, just the catalogs from them).

Anyways, it was pretty interesting to talk to Shannon because she studied a lot of art history and has a deep appreciation for traditional art, but she generally selects more contemporary art for the exhibitions. For the questions I used for the interviews, see my previous post. Here are some of the things she said in the interview (paraphrased by me because I can't take notes that fast):

• Traditional art: historical, landscape paintings, etc.
• Non-traditional art: multidisciplinary, immersive, engages public (for example, video and performance art)
• [when asked about art that is popular today] Everything goes through phases/cycles; new media comes and goes, but usually handmade materials are valued
• Mediums and techniques go in and out of style, but can take years to do so
• Good art usually depends on aesthetics, what speaks to the viewer, and the message conveyed
• Artists shouldn't necessarily depend on fitting the style or what's popular right now because that will change. Focus on what appeals to you as an artist.

I also interviewed artists Peter Deacon and Linda Craddock (at the same time). Peter Deacon does a lot of mixed media/collage artwork, while Linda Craddock does mostly painting. Here's some of what they had to say:

• Traditional art: what is local/native; historical, representational
• Painting is becoming less common due to technological developments (digital prints), which creates a "democratization of creativity" but also prevents art from being unique and lasting
• Digital art leads to mass production and loss of originality; it is mostly about grabbing attention
• Art has more (cultural) value if it has tactility
• Art cycles (revisits/repeats past styles)
• Contemporary art is any art that is being made now, includes a wide variety of styles and techniques

As far as my understanding of contemporary art and the level of traditionalism it retains, things are becoming a bit clearer. Art is always changing, but history repeats itself. Painting can go out of style for a bit, but it always comes back, as do a lot of other mediums. Digital art is hardly a replacement for physical art, which still has a higher standing in the art world. As for subject matter and level of abstraction/representation, the lines are a bit more blurred. I've noticed that there aren't many realistic pieces in galleries or museums unless they're from a century ago. The most realistic I've seen so far is similar to impressionistic or pointillist paintings. Even my painting is slightly impressionistic (though not much). My point is that the majority of art today is in middle ground between traditional and non-traditional, and most people seem to like it that way.

As for what I've been working on this week, I haven't been able to do a lot of my own work because some family members asked me to paint a mural for their children's room. It took a lot longer than I expected, and it turned out pretty well, even though I believe anyone could have done it. That's kind of the life of an artist though. Whenever friends or family have a task that requires a little bit of creativity they want you to do it. Not that that's a bad thing. But it sort of is because you don't get paid. Just kidding. It was fun. Also, more pictures of artwork will be uploaded soon.

Yeah I got questions

This week I went to several galleries in downtown Calgary and interviewed some of the curators for my research. I have only interviewed one artist so far, but that is going to change. Here are some the questions I asked:

Artists:

• What do you think of when you hear “traditional art”?
• What mediums do you typically use?
• Do you think painting is less common today than it was about 50 years ago? Or perhaps 100 years ago?
• What is your opinion on digital artwork?
• How would you define contemporary art?
• How do you sell your artwork? (online, galleries, etc.)
• What issues have you encountered with selling your art?
• Do you have another job or do you earn your living just with art?
• What motivates you as an artist?

Curators/Gallery owners, etc.

• What do you think of when you hear “traditional art”?
• How would you define non-traditional art?
• Do you prefer traditional or non-traditional art?
• What kind of art do you think is most popular today?
• How would you describe the audience that this gallery has?
• How do you determine if a piece is “good” or not?

The curators I interviewed were from the Gibson Fine Art gallery and Paul Kuhn gallery. The art in the Gibson gallery was about 80% paintings, but at least half of the paintings were abstract or had non-traditional subjects. The Paul Kuhn gallery was exhibiting the work of one artist, Martin Pearce. His work was all what I would consider non-traditional, as it was made with wax (and abstract). Here are some things from the interviews of each curator:

Gibson:

Traditional art reminded her of landscapes and western pieces.

Prefers non-traditional art, but has to make decisions on what to display based on what she thinks people will buy. She determines what is good by her instinct and knowledge of what generally sells well.

Kuhn:

Thinks of traditional art as European, representational paintings with historic uses. Non-traditional art is the "art of the now," generally having disruptive tendencies in subject matter and materials. Traditional art exists now, but with "tweaks." The audience of the gallery is the general public, although many people don't care to engage in art and learn more about it. however, "the community likes to know that [the gallery] is here." Good art has a lot to do with the artist's motivation (money as motivation generally makes bad art). [when I asked about digital art] there is nothing wrong with it, it is a tool and means to express, but the technology is doing the work that the artist takes credit for.

The artist I interviewed last week was Nadien Cole, a painter who specializes in watercolor (and occasionally uses acrylic). She is also a graphic designer, which is her main job. She was an interesting person to interview, because although here job involves technology, her attitude toward art is very conservative. She believes that painting is here to stay, while digital art is just a fad. She places more value on hand-made pieces that are made for more than just selling. She defines contemporary art as "doing things differently."

While I'm not sure I agree with everything my interviewees said (I believe there is a lot in store for digital art; and I know from experience that digital art requires a lot of skill), their answers provided an interesting insight for my project. I visited some other galleries that I didn't get interviews from, but it was interesting to see how they varied. Some were mostly traditional, others mostly non-traditional. Some seemed more customer-friendly, others seemed more like museums where you can't talk or touch anything. And some galleries were just crap.

As for my most recent paintings, I've decided to not post some of them yet so that they can remain a surprise for the presentation of my project. So far I have done two oil paintings and another acrylic and watercolor.

Hanging Artwork is Not a Thrilling Experience/A Discussion on Newness

But then again, life cannot consist solely of thrilling experiences. Last week, I had the opportunity to help set up a travelling art show at a cultural/recreation center in Drumheller. Because it was just the two of us (myself and my grandpa), it was pretty much an all-day task (it takes about 2 hours to drive there and 2 hours back). First we had to transport all of the artwork from the car to the room, and then we spent a couple hours unpacking the artwork and trying to figure out how we wanted to arrange the art in the room. My grandpa did most of the arranging and hanging while I wrote down the name of each piece in the order they were hung. I guess one thing I learned about this is that it takes a lot of work to set up a show. More importantly, however, was the artwork itself. The theme for the show was "Bridges", but you couldn't really tell that by looking at some of the pieces, which took a more conceptual approach to the topic. A few of the pieces were paintings, or in other words, traditional pieces, while most of the others were non-traditional. Among the non-traditional were collages, cross-stitchings/textile art, photographs, mixed media, etc. In this instance, I would say that traditional art was in the minority. One of the artist statements captured an idea I have about contemporary art almost perfectly:

"Within contemporary art, the mediums and materials have expanded [...] The bridge between the two discourses [art and craft] has opened. Whether art or craft, the lines are blurred."

While the idea of craft vs. art isn't the main thing I wanted to focus on for my project, it is an important topic being discussed today. Contemporary artists are taking traditional crafts (quilting, embroidery, ceramics, etc.) and using them to create pieces of art that don't have a functional use. This is one of the places where the line between traditional and non-traditional art becomes blurred. The type of art I described is less traditional and more non-traditional to me simply because the mediums (despite the duration of their existence) are being used in a drastically new way. 

I suppose that's how I would describe non-traditional art: New. The older the medium/style, the more traditional it is; the newer, less traditional. For example, oil paint is over 600 years old, while photography as an art form is about 150 years old, and digital photography is less than 20 years old. Style also plays an important role: artwork before the Modern Era was almost strictly representational, even during the Paleolithic Age with cave drawings. Abstract art and even impressionistic art is about a century old. While abstract art isn't very new today, it is still on the more non-traditional side. 

The most unconventional or non-traditional you can get would probably be installations (such as the "Fireflies" exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum) or digital paintings, or most of all: virtual reality painting. Yes, it's a thing now:

So basically what I mean is, does art have to be "new" to be appreciated? Or can it recall the antiquated materials and styles of the old classics and still have a place in today's art world?