Megan Wolfe

Preserving Time in the Studio with Routine

In "Letters to a Young Artist", artist Gregory Amenoff advises a fictional 'young artist' to "let the studio be your sanctuary". That statement particularly resonated with me this month. Between pulling together the two shows, "Missing Time" and "Follow Through", and working two part time day jobs, I've really missed my sanctuary.

But my sanctuary is something I need. On a regular day, it's difficult fitting it in, and I have to give up a lot of other things in order to do it. I rely heavily on routine. Every morning I wake up, grab a latte from one of the local coffee shops, and sketch. Off to work. During lunch breaks, I buy supplies, take photos, or listen to podcasts about blogging. Sometimes, I make notes.

When I get home, I answer e-mails, surf the web, and then around eight pm I start working on my art. I might break for dinner, but usually I work until one in the morning. I might do some minor tasks after that (ex: making more postcards), but then I punch out for the night. The cycle repeats the next morning.

My rule of thumb for my routine: it has to be comfortable. Something that isn't too big for me to accomplish in the time I have. It's also like body-building, or jogging. You start with easy weights, and then build up from there. I used to fit in a half-hour of morning sketching, but now I can manage an hour.

My routine helps me preserve my studio time, my sanctuary. I don't have to think about what needs to be done, because it's there, it's a habit. It feels weird NOT to do it. It's also the one time of the day that no one but me, the artist, controls. That's why Amenoff referred to time in the studio as the artist's "sanctuary".

Great Art

In this week's "Deep Thought Thursday" article, Alyson B. Stanfield raised the question "Is all risky art great?". At first I was inclined to just answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no", but then it made me think. On one hand, to the artist who took the risk, any "risky" art they create is great, because it took some degree of guts and creativity to produce. Hence why it was a risk. On the other hand, a lot of contemporary art is touted as being risky, a word tossed in to proclaim its immediate brilliance. Plenty of "shocking" or "risky" art gets attention, but does this make it great or memorable?

But going back to the individual artist taking a risk, not knowing if the experiment will work, or if the gallery will accept the piece, or if the piece will sell if it is accepted. Even if the artwork falls short of being "good" and is ultimately rejected, the artist at least learned something new from creating it.. There was some bit of information that could be carried over into the next piece, or maybe not at all.

So, I suppose I'm split down the middle on this one. If "risky" is being used as a trendy word to tell me that smearing poo on glass is great art, then perhaps I disagree. However, if risky describes the artist's struggle to grow and develop themselves, then yes, all risky art is great (despite a good or bad outcome). Either way, I think Alyson's question is a fun one to consider. :)

Labels: Alyson B. Stanfield, Art Biz Blog, great art, ink, megan wolfe., sumi paintings

Contemporary art?

Sometimes (or maybe it's most of the time?) I don't understand the current trends in art. And I feel like other people would think I'm dumb for finding a lot of contemporary art gimmicky. :P Don't get me wrong, mixed media and variety is wonderful, I love how you can make any kind of art you want with whatever you want. However, after the initial "wow" that the work was made out of pencil shavings, I start to wonder if there's anything else behind that work.

Truly, I believe that good art is art that transcends both the gimmick and the punch-line concept. Good art is art that, as a viewer, I'm impressed by it visually, and then I spend additional time to think about its meaning. After reading the statement, I should continue to find layers of things happening. Good art isn't "Paris Hilton", good art is "Cate Blanchett". There's a real solid piece of work under there, it's not all just rag-sheets and glitter.

Of course, I'm saying these things partially as a frustrated viewer and a frustrated artist. I find meaning in my work, but there's a part of the art establishment that doesn't. I'm trying to find a balance there somewhere, and it's something I've been really struggling with for the past year. I'm never sure if I'm going in the right direction, and I'm scared to death of creating something and then becoming pigeon-holed by a piece of work that isn't "me". Hopefully, I'll soon run across the answer to (at least) part of this problem.. but then again, maybe it's just something all artists struggle with?
Anyway, that's my rant for this week. :)

Labels: art, contemporary art, oil paintings, paintings, rant, still life.