I know very little about today's artists and their works and as exciting as it is to learn about each one, in some ways I am saddened because I feel with every bit of exposure I get I am even less likely to find my own place in art.
I am not satisfied to think that my work should be relegated to the world of "yet another hobbyist." But with each new artist "discovery" I make, I realize how my work falls short of having the kind of impact I get from viewing the works of other artists.
For me it is not about a desire to become a great or famous artist, it is however, most certainly about wanting to create great works...works that have impact. Works that fully express what it is inside me that I feel compelled to say in a language of colour and stroke.
Perhaps I am on a safari of sorts right now, not settling completely into specific subjects, colors, themes, or application techniques... hoping that I find the one style that truly feels as if it is "mine" and takes me down its path of new discoveries.
I think I should learn something from this interesting response of hers to one of the questions asked:
Q: As well as the lecture, you’ve also been doing some teaching in the painting studios. How important is working with students for you?
A: I see teaching as a very important thing, and not only because I teach them things, but also because we have a dialogue, and you see what you really want. You find things out. I still believe in the Socratic dialogue. Art is really something that you learn from being around people. My own experience in South Africa was that the art school was part of the university, so I learned such a lot in general, not just about painting.
I am from a generation that seems to want to copyright their inventions, but I am not one of those artists who think they invented everything. You are part of a tradition. It’s the same as when people write books—they have read other books that they relate to. Painting is part of a visual tradition.
The worst kind of artist is one who thinks they’re so wonderful because they don’t understand that there have been all these wonderful things done already, and that you exist in relation to that. Just because an artist from the past is dead doesn’t mean the work is dead. Art is something that relates you to the past, and hopefully to the present as well.
Boy, would I love to take classes from her!
Also, I really like the description (especially Dumas' own quote) of "Jule-die Vrou" on Saatchi Gallery's website:
Jule-die Vrou is a disembodied portrait painting framed in extreme close-up; only the model's eyes and lips are fully rendered attributes of seduction and sexuality. The rest of the painting is obliterated by a corpulent fleshy pink, suggestive of femininity, sin, violence and womanhood. The contrast between representation, and abstraction suggests a psychological disparity, where morality, representation, and social convention are questioned.
‘I don't have any conception of how big an average head is, I've never been interested in anatomy. In that respect I relate like children do. What is experienced as most important is seen as the biggest, irrespective of actual or factual size. In the movies everything is larger than life and yet you experience that as real(istic); all my faces are much bigger than human scale. From blowing up to zooming in, for me the “close-up” was a way of getting rid of irrelevant background information and by making the facial elements so big, it increased the sense of abstraction concerning the picture frame. The elimination of the background also did away with the place of being and environmental context.'
‘As the isolation of a recognisable figure increases and the narrative character decreases (contrary to what one might initially assume that this lack of illustrative information would bring about), the interpretative effects are inflamed. The titles re-direct the work, however, they do not eradicate the inherent ambiguity. One cannot interpret the painting of Jule-die Vrou without entangling some of the root metaphors applied not only to the female, but to the idea of portrayal in general'. Marlene Dumas, 1992.
If I had lots of money, i think this painting would be staring at me every day in my house.
2 comments:
Certainly this post deserves more than just my response! Where is everyone?
Did you add to this post? I remember reading this earlier and thinking that I should respond because you left it at contemplating your own mark on the world with your art.
Fascinating woman. To me, art has always been a selfish act, when people comment that they like it or find it interesting is a really nice bonus. I find myself lost in the moment, and love a work while I'm painting...but when I'm done, I rarely have any attachment to a piece at all. Odd, because for most of the work that I have collected I would not want to part with.
Cheers!
I agree! The act of creating is a wonderful world all its own! I 'spoze what I am thinking about is after that process is done and your relationship to the painting is reduced to nothing but a spectator, what does the painting do then?
Like you, I would NEVER want to part with the works of the other artists I am fortunate enough to have in our house. I never get tired of them, they are sort of like symbolic children and with their painted lives they invoke my admiration, many quiet smiles, as well as other emotional responses.
Post a Comment