Contrary to popular public belief, being an artist – and more importantly being a successful one – is NOT just about being good at drawing, skilled at sculpting, or a natural with a paintbrush. Of course there is an element of this within being an artist, as it is a skill based career, however, since the rise of urbanism, technological advances and art movements like post-modernism and minimalism, the requirement for a painter to be skilled at creating an exact likeness of a subject, is not necessarily the most intrinsic aspect of their work.
As Roland Barthes discusses when considering the death of the author and Walter Benjamin addresses examining the loss of aura, decline ofErfahrung and the rise of Erlebnis;it is due to a shift in the use of painting that our approach to and appreciation of it has changed. At its origin, painting was a luxury for the upper echelons of society to adorn their walls with skilfully produced images of themselves, their ancestors, horses and possessions, however with the introduction of photography, the skill of a painter to create a likeness became redundant. Fast forward to 2019, where everyone has a decent digital camera in the palm of their hand at all times, and painting for the purposes of documentation could not seem further from useful. In this sense, one begins to question what painting is used for, and without going off onto too much of a tangent to the focus of this discussion, let us just define the purpose of painting to incite an emotion, reaction or enjoyment by the viewer. Under this definition, it becomes evident that the ‘quality’ or ‘skill’ of the painting as a realistic representation, is nowhere near as important as how it makes us feel when we view it – which can be due to an endless number of factors, from colour and scale, to subject and title.
If we are to consider then, what impacts the reaction we have to a painting, we must unpack the way in which the painting was conceived, what it means and how we relate to this. Although painting is a subjective area and the concept of correctness in viewing art is problematic, because of the hyper-informed, immanent state we live in, our reaction and reading of a painting is often influenced by how the artist, gallery, social media or publication has chosen to present it. As such, the process the artist has used to create the work and their intention in its making is vital to how the work is interpreted, understood and appreciated.
Process has a number of definitions for different artists, for some it is simply a means by which their ideas come to being, for others it is more important than the finished product itself, but for almost every artist, their process is what defines their practice, gives them recognisable style and situates their work within the art world. Looking at some of the artists who are influential to my current practice, I find it fascinating to examine their process and how researching the stages their work goes through illuminates an entirely new reading and appreciation of their paintings.
In an interview with W Magazine, MoMA curator Connie Butler describes Marlene Dumas a “messy” and states that “painting is a really physical process for her” and Dumas explains how she keeps dozens of files, notebooks and media folders of potential source imagery, it is clear to see how finding the perfect subject for her emotional and confrontational paintings is an incredibly important part of her process.
Another artist whose process if massively important to her painting is Celia Hempton, who uses virtual chatrooms and the accompanying elements of chance to create her paintings. She describes the process as such:
I have a laptop on a table, with a small canvas laying flat next to it on my palette. Whilst the laptop is connected to the chat room, I start flicking through live feeds of people online, clicking next until I find an image that I want to paint. Depending on what the person in the image is doing, or if I can even see a person, I either begin painting without engaging in conversation, or I begin a conversation and then start to paint, perhaps asking them if they mind me painting them. They can usually see and hear me. Some interactions are slow, if for example I am with a person whose internet connection is poor, or if my ‘partner’ is using a translation tool or not speaking at all but using hand gestures. Another interaction might have a different pace, say with someone whose language I can speak. Either of us can click next at any time, so quite often the paintings look ‘unfinished’ – ie I stopped painting before I would have if they had stayed with me. There is joint control - albeit vastly fluctuating depending on the situation - between the sitter and I within the making of the works. It means that the paintings go in any number of directions that I could not conceive of before making them, though suppose I do have ultimate control and direction.
(Interview with Grace Banks for FRAME)
This description of Hempton’s approach to her paintings gives an incredible insight into her works and add an entire new dimension to the paintings she creates.
Along with the process the artist goes through to create their paintings, their intention in doing so – while sometimes not as obvious or publicised as their process – is also a key part in how the meaning of their painting is interpreted and how the work is received. Some would argue that the intention of the artist is irrelevant to how a work is judged, because the artist should not prescribe meaning to their work and try to influence the viewers’ reaction, however without intention, the work would not exist, therefore some awareness of said intention may be helpful in our appreciation of the work, even if this intention or meaning is only evident through the way the work is presented, its title or its relation to other works.
Abstract art, such as my own, certainly falls into this category, for without some notion of context, the works can only be judged aesthetically, which – though completely valid – may not encompass the full meaning of the work. For example, the works of Kathryn Macnaughton and Vickie Vainionpaa, while visually striking, also explore complex themes of the female form, conflict between digital and physical, and painting in a digital age, which the viewer can engage with more successfully with an idea of the artists intention, process and background.
Overall it is clear that an awareness and appreciation for process and intention is not only helpful to artists in the development of their work, but also to the viewer in how they understand and engage with a painting. Throughout my painting experience, I have found that when I am lacking inspiration or finding it difficult to resolve works, revisiting the stages of my process and researching the concepts which inspire me really helps me to reignite what motivates me to paint and find new ways of exploring my themes and intentions.
References and recommended reading:
Banks, G (2014). Interview with Celia Hempton. Available at: https://www.frameweb.com/news/interview-with-celia-hempton
Barthes, R. (1968). The Death of the Author. 1st ed. University Handout.
Boon, M. and Levine, G (2018) Practice, Whitechapel: Documents of Contemporary Art. London, MIT Press
Taylor, J. (2018). What Vintage Playboys Have to do with Fine Art and Sexual Empowerment. Available at: http://coveteur.com/2017/05/22/kathryn-macnaughton-artist-female-body-inspiration/