It was my pleasure to receive and respond this very thoughtful letter. It's taken me some time to reply, but I thought I'd share in here in case it prompts some further comments. Thanks, Ben!
Hi Ms. Harold,
I am a young person who is interested in visual art, and if you could spare the time I would love to ask you one lengthy question. I recently had the chance to see your exhibit in Frankfort and I found a lot of meaning in it. Being a person who was born with the privilege of being a U.S. citizen from a family of U.S. citizens, and being born into a white body that has allowed me to interact with the world with the assumption that those around me view me as "American" and treat me as such, I have only ever interacted with immigration academically. Viewing your exhibit was one of the first times that I have ever truly put myself in the position of an immigrant (documented or undocumented) and contemplated the emotional implications of that situation. Your exhibit created an empathy towards the immigrant experience that has fundamentally changed the way that I view the topic. It was a great example of the power that art has, and furthered my already existing desire to make art of my own.
It is from that desire to make art that the impetus to reach out to you emerged. In viewing your social media and website, I gathered that you are not only a working artist, but an art educator, so with that in mind I would love to hear your response to this question. In viewing your work I primarily saw abstraction, but also the ability to paint with incredible realism. This is where I have always believed the value in abstract art comes from, and why the argument of "a child could paint this" falls apart; abstract artists have the ability to create realism, but have chosen abstraction because it better conveys their message. This ability to convey a message is what draws me to abstraction, as messages are my favorite part of art.
This brings me to my question: I'm wondering if you see value in abstraction created by someone who doesn't have the ability to create realism. Unlike my favorite artists, I have no skill in realism. I feel that since the value of abstraction comes from the choice to make it, and I would not be making a choice as I had no other real alternative, any abstract art I made would have little value. Do you believe this to be true, and what is your personal thought process behind the creation of abstract art?
Best wishes,
Ben
Dear Ben,
Here are some thoughts to consider:
I don't think your issue is really about whether you are qualified to make abstract art if you've made a choice between that and realism. It sounds to me that you're trying to talk yourself out of doing something you have a desire to do. Art is a calling, not a rational decision.
I am very familiar with the argument that if you haven't proven yourself capable of realistic representation you can't be a Real Artist. (I used that argument myself for about 40 years!) I hear versions of this all the time from people . People looking at my work often say, "Oh, I wish I could paint." When I ask if they've ever tried, they'll usually response with something like, "Oh no, I can't even draw a straight line." Or, "I can't even make a stick figure." I often counter this by pointing to my rather unruly style and asking to be shown the straight line, the stick figure ....
People think being an artist requires talent but I believe courage, perseverance and other qualities are a lot more important. But, I've long given up hope of trying to convince people that they could at least see what happens if they try to make art, because most have already decided they don't have what it takes. They give up before they even try. Because of this they avoid finding out what creative powers may lie within.
A few, however, may tentatively step forward—they'll sign up for lessons, or join a group or take a workshop to "learn" how to paint. Usually, when people take art classes they do so to learn how to render objects in the outer world in a realistic manner. Of course, it's thrilling when someone else recognizes the object you've painted—Yes! that is a pear!--but that's not the point of the lesson. More important than that you've painted a recognizable object (after all, it's really not a pear, only your interpretation of it), you learn to observe your subject. You learn to mix colors and apply paint. You learn to make the next painting ....
Technique is not irrelevant to art, but mastery of the craft of realistic representation does not guarantee artistry. Artistry comes of doing the inner work of facing the next growing edge in one's art-making. And this means risking disapproval when what you observe is no longer what's visible to your physical senses, but rather is what you intuitively feel with your inner senses. It's quite common for someone adept at realism to become more interested in abstraction,and this shift often baffles an audience.
I can understand why someone might dismiss abstract marks as childish scribbles. And why an abstract artist might react to that dismissal with contempt: A child might have done it, but a child didn't, did they? The artist consciously chose to take risks of which a child has no awareness, revealing in paint (or whatever medium) his or her inner world. Not everyone can appreciate this.
Is it more meaningful and valid if an artist who has a background in realism shifts to abstraction, than if one just plunges into abstraction because that's what he or she wants to do? In my own experience, just following my nose led me first to realism, then to abstracted realism, then to full-on abstraction. But I know of others who leapt into abstraction rather quickly and never thought about painting a pear. And still others, like Richard Diebenkorn, who went back and forth between the two.
I suppose my complete answer to your question, Ben, is I don't know if I can name a best practice in this regard. But I don't believe you should let yourself off the art-making hook simply because you don't believe you have a certain skill. I encourage anyone like you who is curious about art-making to simply take the plunge and see what happens. Make abstract art if that's what you want to do and do that until/if you want to do something else. Face down your belief that if you're not talented in realism, you're not qualified to do abstraction and just make your art!
Find out what's inside you and create from that knowledge and not from what anyone else (including me) says. I can almost guarantee you'll have to face your fears and deal with the tendency common to most artists to diminish the value of what you create. I hope you'll persist until you master loving what is created through you and keep making art. (One artist I know instructs herself to "Make ugly paintings!" Her ugly paintings are beautifully authentic, uniquely hers, filled with soul and style. I don't know if she can draw a stick figure and I don't care.)
If you long to be an artist, there's art in you that wants to get out—that's your job and, if you don't do it, who will?
I hope this helps! Show me your work (after you've made a hundred or so paintings). Begin now!
With encouragement,
Ellie
P.S. I'm not actually a trained art educator (or trained artist, either) but I do have a fair grasp of what blocks people from at least exploring the longing to make art that many people have and dismiss. My book 7 Habits of Deeply Fulfilled Artists: Your Aesthetic Needs & How to Meet Them speaks to a number of the strategies we use to avoid making art. If you haven't read it, maybe you should!
Read More
