Meditating on Mark-Making

I find it interesting that some artists share certain graphic elements in their work. This is especially true with abstract painters. One might imagine that these commonalities might be the result of being inspired by others or even copying. That notion might be true to a small extent, however there are some aspects of the painting process integral to a collective consciousness of many abstract painters. I am specifically taking about the impulse for mark-making. Marks that range widely from recognizable symbols and letterforms to undecipherable gestural lines or graffiti-like scratches or drops. I have incorporated marks in most of my painting for decades. Marks that form patterns, marks that are derived from ancient letterforms (both mysterious and readable), marks that are unexplainable. What is behind this phenomena of mark-making in art? What possesses me to make marks? I am usually advised not to ask this kind of question – it is best not to explain I'm told. But I don't want to interpret these mark, I am interested in what inspires a group of seemingly disconnected artists to employ a common artistic language of mark-making in their work. Here are some examples of both emerging and famous artist's work to help illustrate my point about the collectiveness of mark-making (by the way, the last painting's mine).

The above examples are only a tiny representation of artwork that incorporates some form of mark-making. As I embarked on trying to understand why so many artists from all over the world are motivated to express themselves with some sort of mark-making, I felt it was necessary to establish a foundational premise to structure by thought journey. My premise is simply this: The realization that marks possess symbolic qualities beyond their gestural compositional value. It is not necessary to know what a mark symbolizes or even if there is an conscious intention behind creating it. The virtue and beauty of a symbol (mark) is that it can reflect a multitude of meanings.  Meanings that are conditioned by the experiences, culture, and degree of perception of the individual viewer.

Specially shaped marks may be identified as letters. Some letterforms have a lot in common with artist's gestural marks from a cognitive point of view. That is, if we are not of the age or location where the letterforms (symbols) originate we cannot decipher them, rendering us clueless as to their meaning. Despite this, there are some of us who can mysteriously connect with them, just like we do with artist's marks, not needing to know what they represent. Here are some marks or symbols of past ages that I can't read but they speak to me just the same.

These marks possess both meaning and aesthetic beauty. It is always a combination of the intellectual and the emotional. It is the head and heart embracing!

Continuing on my quest for deeper understanding, it seemed logical that I explore written languages. There letterforms were intentionally designed or arranged in an established order. When this occurs they increase in symbolic power – they become words. A letter has little or no meaning disconnected from a word. Words are symbols for concepts, both simple and complex. Because they are symbols they have the capacity to transmit more than one meaning depending on context. When words get organized in higher degrees, grammar and written language come into being, higher levels of communication is possible, understanding is increased and civilization advances.

Now here's a thought that thrilled me: Symbols – letters, numbers, alphabets, words, sentences, paragraphs, books, in fact all accumulated knowledge flows from a single point, which is in reality, the genesis of a mark. A tool pressing into soft clay, a quill or brush stroking papyrus, a pen contacting parchment, or my Pilot V5 fine point scratching the paper of my sketchbook – it all begins with a primal point and then flows in an infinite number of creative and symbolic directions.

Maybe this intellectual concept combined with the pure joy of creation is why I am attracted to mark-making! And possibly that's why collectively many artists (and especially children) are also attracted to it. Who can really say? Most of the time we operate on an intuitive level, we shun the reasoning of this kind of subject. We just feel it – the power of the indecipherable symbol, the cosmic metaphoric thrill of mark-making.

Labeling Art

How we think about art is of continual interest to me. For example, why is there a tendency to make a distinction between fine art and craft? Is it that something possessing a practical utility makes it less than art? Or is it just a way to classify what kind of art it is? Or does it have something to do with our definition of art in the first place?

If an ancient Egyptian were to be transport through time and visited the Metropolitan Museum in NYC, he would find a section called Egyptian Art. He would recognize the objects but he might not understand the "art" designation. All the objects displayed had a utility associated with them. However, the concept of "art" as we know it didn't exist in the ancient world. Everything had a function, it could be beautiful but it had a practical purpose. Wendell Castle's furniture is utilitarian. However in my mind, it's art even though I can sit in it.

I came across an interesting article in the New York Times, written by Stephan Hayman, entitled "Giving Meaning to 'Art'. The first part of the article sheds light on the way our conceptual framework of thought affects how we relate to a tool vs. sculpture or utilitarian object vs. work of art. The second part deals with concepts of originality that are tangential to the subject of the post, but so fascinating I included it.

The psychologist George E. Newman of the Yale School of Management studies how people use “quasi-magical thinking” to intuitively determine the value of certain objects. By analyzing celebrity auctions of John F. Kennedy or Marilyn Monroe’s personal effects, he has shown that the price of a piece of memorabilia is connected to how often it was thought to be used or touched by a famous person — as if there’s a kind of real-world value placed on a celebrity’s “essence.” 

Recently, Mr. Newman has switched his attention to the art world. In his latest paper, published last month in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science and co-authored by Daniel M. Bartels and Rosanna K. Smith, he staged a pair of experiments that show how flimsy or essential the term “art” can be.

Mr. Newman asked a group of Yale undergraduates to read a scenario about a plastic object, which a college student had made with a wax mold. In half the scenarios, the object was referred to as a tool; in the other half, it was called a sculpture. The students were told that the object was destroyed in a fire, but an exact duplicate of the original object was made using the same mold. Then they were asked whether they believed the copy was essentially the same object. Overwhelmingly, those who were told the object was a tool thought the duplicate was the same object, while those who were told it was a sculpture thought it wasn’t.

“Just labeling something as ‘art’ really changed people’s intuitions,” Mr. Newman said.

In a second experiment, the researchers showed the students an image of an original painting and said that, because of damage, a duplicate painting was commissioned, identical in every way. The researchers then manipulated facts about the original painting: that the artist had painted it himself and thought it was among his very best works, or that he thought of it as “sell-out piece,” got the idea for the design from another painter, and had an assistant execute the painting.

The level of “contagion” — the artist’s personal involvement with the original painting — influenced opinions about the duplicate. In the cases where the artist did not paint the work with his own hand or think highly of it, the participants thought there wasn’t much difference between the copy and the original. In the cases where the artist was personally invested in the original work, the copy was seen as lesser than the other. “It is a copy,” one participant said. “It has no soul.

“It’s interesting that people have pretty detailed and sophisticated theories about the things that are contributing to art’s value,” Mr. Newman said. “And moreover that those ideas have not that much to do with what the artwork actually looks like.”

The Value ($) of Art

I am continually thinking about the nature and definition of art. One aspect that intrigues me is the role fashion plays in art. Why great artists of past eras fall out of favor at times. And why all of a sudden we wake up and realize how great they really were. Take the art work of Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema for example. He was once the most successful painters of the Victorian era. He painted amazingly detailed reconstructions of life in the ancient world. His paintings were in high demand and he became the most highly-paid artist of his day. His A reading from Homer sold for $30,000 in 1903 (that's like $600,000 today). By 1960, he fell completely out of favor – his paintings selling for insultingly low prices of only few hundred dollars.

Here's the part that tickles me. Remember Allen Funt? Yes, the guy that created the TV show Candid Camera. Turns out that his house was designed in a Roman style. In the process of decorating it to fit the motif, he builds up the world's largest collection of Alma-Tadema paintings. Seems no one wanted them and they were cheap. Now the story gets better. In 1972, Funt's accountant, embezzled all of his funds and commits suicide! Leaving a once rich Mr. Funt cash poor. So what does he do? He starts selling the Alma-Tadema paintings. A painting rejected at $160 thirteen years earlier, now fetches $43,500. Sale prices reach record territory and great art saves the day.

Visit the Rochester Memorial Art Gallery and experience a Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema in the flesh. Its fabulous! Here's a few examples of his work.

Dorothy Caldwell

A while ago I opened a few boards on Pinterest. I was motivated to get my new work on line since my out of date website required a programmer to update images. I have to design a new website (by the way, I have been saying this for 3 years).  Well, I found Pinterest really fascinating – I am on it everyday. What's great is I could review different kinds of art without any effort at all. No searching for galleries online hoping to discover kindred spirits in their artist lists. In fact, all I needed to do was to follow people that shared my aesthetic. They would pin many wonderful artists that I might have never encountered searching on my own.

One such discovery is Dorothy Caldwell. Her medium is textile and she lives and works in Hastings, Ontario, Canada. Her works are abstract and if you didn't look closely you might mistake them as paintings. They are not, her works are composed with dyed fabric and stitching that resembles painterly mark making. I find her work inspiring, so I thought I'll share some examples here. Let me know what you think.

Big Eyes, True Confession

The media is all a buzz about the new Tim Burton film "Big Eyes." You probably know what it is all about so I won't go into it here. Margaret Keane's emotional paintings were the "kitsch" art of my youth. The year was 1965, I was a senior in high school. My art teacher gave an assignment to bring in an example of your favorite artist. She probably wanted us to write something about it as well (can't remember that part). Somehow I got my hands on a Walter and Margaret Keane brochure. If I recall correctly, it was rather small with an accordion fold that featured about a half a dozen big eyed waifs. Well, I brought it to class to satisfy the homework assignment. I cannot tell you why I did, but I do remember that I had a difficult time drawing eyes when I was young. Maybe I envied those who could, especially big ones?

I got the impression that they were co-creators of the paintings since both their names were used. An oddity that I never thought to question at the time. However, from the movie trailer, I got the idea that Walter claimed that he was the sole originator of the paintings.

If I was asked to name my favorite artist today and I answered Margaret Keane, they would think I was pulling their leg. I must confess, when I was 17 that was my answer. And, if you are not an elitist, one has to admit even today that there is some kind of mysterious emotion connection created by those big eyed kitschy paintings. Now that Margaret Keane has achieved greater fame from the movie, I bet you wouldn't mind owning one. Especially, if you came upon it in a dusty pile of old paintings at an estate sale. Isn't it interesting how fame and value affect our thinking about owning art.

I find it curious that these 1960's photographs shows them painting together. Walter was always faking it for the camera, he couldn't paint a thing if his fortune depended upon it.  And that test eventually occurred. In 1970, at the court hearing to determine who really was the true painter, the judge ordered them both to paint a picture. Margaret completed one in just 53 minutes, Walter refused complaining of a sore shoulder. After 3 weeks of trial, the jury awarded Margaret $4 million in damages. Margaret still has the painting from the trial, it is titled: Exhibit 233.

These paintings were completed in the early 60's. 

Now here's a head scratcher: Did those who knew Walter Keane personally ever wonder, "how is it possible for that bragging, hard-drinking, self-promoting egotist to be inspired to paint so many tender weepy eyed children?" 

I have been a subscriber of ArtNews for decades. I remember one issue had a large ad placed by Odd Nerdrum, a wonderful Norwegian painter, defending "Kitsch" as something that should be celebrated. Here are two of his paintings:

Rothko On My Mind

This morning my power went out. No cable, no internet, however my books still worked. I felt the urge to review Rothko and Gottlieb's manifesto. This impulse springs from my continual wrestling with art's paradoxes. Today's match was between technique and content. How this got me to Rothko I don't know – maybe because his book was in reach or because of his ability to express his ideas. In the beginning of his career not everyone responded positively to his work, especially one critic from the New York Times. The year was 1942, Edward Alden Jewell of the Times wrote a rather sarcastic review of a recent show featuring Rothko and Gottlieb's paintings. The review expressed his complete befuddlement of their work. And he couldn't leave it alone, a week later he follows up with another article mentioning that an artist had offered to help him with his "cluelessness." This provoked Rothko and Gottlieb to respond with a polemic letter to the Times in defense of modern art. Luckily, Jewell publishes it. But, not without twisting the knife by writing that their response was "as obscure as the paintings themselves." I believe their response (manifesto) brilliantly and concisely expresses many important insights into the nature of painting, however I am not on board with all their views. Here's an excerpt of their response, what do you think?

"The point at issue, it seems to us, is not an 'explanation' of the paintings, but whether the intrinsic ideas carried within the frames of these pictures have significance. We feel that our pictures demonstrate our aesthetic belief, some of which we therefore list:

1. To us art is an adventure into an unknown world, which can be explored only by those willing to take the risk.

2. This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to common sense.

3. It is our function as artists to make the specter see the world our way – not his way.

4. We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth.

5. It is widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is crucial and only that subject-matter is valid which is tragic and timeless. That is why we profess spiritual kinship with primitive and archaic art..."

The Space between Art and God

A few weeks ago I gave a talk at the Baha'i Center in Rochester, NY entitled "The Space between Art and God." It was a shorten version of the talk I gave at the Chautauqua Institute in 2013 that focused on both meaning, metaphor and spiritual perception. I thought you might be interested in a portion of the talk that explored the question "What is Art?" taken from a painter's perspective. I presented a series of quotations from famous artists as well as from the Baha'i Writings. Each statement adds to a pattern of relationship between the inner and the outer worlds, the painting and the emotions that it evokes. I began with Aristotle – do you think he was on to something?

“The aim of art

is to represent not the outward appearance of things,

but their inner significance.” 

– Aristotle

Antoni Tapies

“Art should startle the viewer into

  thinking about the meaning of life.” 

Wassily Kandinsky

“The artist must have something to say,

for mastery over form is not his goal

 but rather the adapting of form 

to its inner meaning.”

Pablo Picasso

“The purpose of art is washing

     the dust of daily life off our souls.” 

Andy Warhol

 “Art is anything you can get away with”

Mark Rothko

“Art is an adventure into an unknown world,

which can be explored only

by those willing to take the risk.” 

 Vincent van Gogh

“My dear Theo, Feeling, even a fine feeling, for the beauties of nature isn’t the same as religious feeling, although I believe that the two are closely connected. 

The same is true of a feeling for art.” 

“…in this wonderful new age, art is worship.” 

“All art is a gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

– ‘Abdu’l-Baha

Ark of Fire

I recently completed the second painting that draws inspiration from the spiritual symbol of an Ark. There are many times when I am asked to relate the source of inspiration for paintings. So I thought I'll share a few thoughts that surrounds this series of Ark paintings.

The symbol of the Ark, usually a vessel or chest, engenders for me concepts such as protection, salvation, and firmness in the Covenant. Additionally, an Ark has a relationship with its contents. It seems that an Ark always contains something of high value – virtuous people or divine knowledge. The traditional concept of the Ark can be found in both the Hebrew Bible and in the Qu'ran. The story of Noah is recorded in both Holy Books. However, it is in the Baha'i Scriptures that the term Ark finds a wide and diverse application. There the symbol of the Ark is given mysterious color designation (Crimson) or it is associated with qualities of purification (Fire) or of bounty (Knowledge). In most cases, an Ark sails on something which may symbolize a condition or place.

The painting "Ark of Fire" is composed of shapes and colors that may be perceived as allegorical, however the intent leans towards the abstract. My aim is to transport the viewer to a world that is mysterious, where the viewer responds to both form and color, story and symbol.

Ark of Fire

Encaustic/Mixed Media on Cradled Panel

24"x24"

The surface plays an important role in my work but is difficult to experience online. I photographed the above painting at an angle and close up to convey a better sense of the surface. The encaustic paint, proper measure of heat and style of brushwork combine to produce a surface that transforms points of color into organic formations that rise above the substrate. The unique quality of this highly textured surface allows the paint to radiate color multi-dimensionally. A characteristic that gives the impression that the paint is emanating light.

Surface Detail of Ark of Fire

My First Blog

Today, I rewrote my artist statement so that it more closely aligns with my recent paintings. I remember reading somewhere that it is a good idea to periodically revisit your artist statement. Having written a few over the years, I can see the wisdom of that suggestion. It helps you keep pace with your evolution as an artist. In my case, visual advancement is always ahead of the verbal. The process of refining and sharpening your thoughts in writing also helps develop your skill of expression. A skill that comes in handy if you are ever asked to speak about your work. Which I volunteered to do for 10 minutes last Saturday at the RoCo Member's Exhibition.

Here's my latest artist statement:

My work revolves around the mystery of the invisible reality – inspired by ancient history and the truths embodied in the world’s great spiritual traditions. My interest is in how the heart responds to symbol and surface, to color and composition. I’ve come to view my paintings as meditations or conversations centered on the interplay between substance and spirit. I refer to this paradoxical interplay as “Allegorical Abstraction.”

The media that dominates in my work is encaustic paint. Its origin dates back to 500 B.C. and is a mixture of bee’s wax, tree sap, and pigment. It is applied in a molten state and heat fused after each layer of color hardens. My painting technique has evolved to create complex organic surfaces of vibrant color and detailed form.

I just completed these two painting and they were sold immediately, which was great!

Crimson-Colored Ruby Ark

Encaustic/Mixed Media 30"x30"

SOLD

The Beauty of Joseph

Encaustic/Mixed Media 30"x30"

SOLD