On Wednesday I am meeting with Yu-Chen Wang. Yu-Chen is doing the Breathe residency at the Chinese Arts Centre (http://www.chinese-arts-centre.org) and is looking into the possibility of collaboration. I’ve been looking at her website (http://www.yuchenwang.com) and enjoying her exquisite drawings. Although we don’t work in the same media at all, I’m hoping that a shared interest in the idea of “transformation” will spark off some ideas…we’ll see…
Busy, busy, busy…
The “Open West” private view last weekend was great – the show was thoughtfully curated and the work was really varied. The award winners were Shan Hur, Helen Murgatroyd, Ellen Nolan and David Theobald – and they all thoroughly deserved their prizes. I got some great feedback about “Down”, meeting some interesting characters in the process (always plenty to spare at any art event) and sharing some rejuvenating giggles…. I love this time of year, everyone seems to get sparky as we come out of hibernation.
Apart from making a start on the big new work that needs to be ready to show in December, I’ve been writing up and sending out a press release for Darren Nixon, a painter whose new pieces I’m presenting at Rogue (http://www.rogueartistsstudios.co.uk/projectspace.asp) in March.
Darren’s work appeals to me because it acknowledges the blues caused by familiar artistic battles and aims to find a way through them. These issues are seemingly binary – for example, he questions whether to paint in an abstract or figurative style – but his solutions echo something that collaboration has taught me many times over: namely, that there is always “another way”.
Thinking about choice only as an “either/or” is incredibly limiting – if you can identify 2 differing creative paths down which you might travel, there are likely to be 4 or 16 or 256 others… they don’t necessarily make immediate sense or provide instant satisfaction; but they tend to acknowledge life’s complexities in a way that only art can.
Over the weekend, I went to Cheltenham to set up “Down”, ready for the Open West preview on Friday. The curators have kindly given “Down” its own dramatically dark room in which to be displayed and as I worked away on arranging the 12,000 hand made feathers, I thought about assistants…
As my solo work gets more ambitious in scale, I am often asked whether or not I use a) cutting technology and/or b) assistants. So far, the answer to this has always been “No”. I want to make the work myself and feel the burn – my solo work is just that: a deliberately solitary activity and I need it that way because it provides a counterbalance to collaborative practice. I’m not against artists having things made for them – if I got the chance to do a really big project, there’s just no way I could do it on my own. I would hope that the skills I’ve learned through collaborating would see me through.
Some work cries out to be made by anyone but the artist, as it suits its concept (Andy Warhol being the obvious example). It’s hard to tell where an artist’s art actually lies – in the idea? in the execution? in the promotion? Use of assistants is not a modern phenomenon – Rubens only painted works himself for the right price; Bernini left the really fiddly bits to someone else…
…BUT maybe there is a problem with the way that the use of assistants is presented (or hidden, as the case may be). “Where does assistance end and collaboration begin?” is not going to be a commonly asked question amongst certain big name artists because they don’t have names like yours and mine – they have a Brand Name and all other names must be subsumed to the brand: it’s not fair, but that’s the way big business works.
P.S.
In reply to Jane Boyer’s post and the topic of “Can a work of art really be connected to the artist when the artist hasn’t made it or perhaps even touched it?”…
Firstly, about Jeff Koons – this is an odd one for me, as his is normally the kind of work I detest. When it comes to factory-type art, there is very little of it that I find aesthetically pleasing. I really do think Jeff Koons has a genuinely good eye for form and colour though – even if all he’s done is spot it elsewhere. It seems to me his intent is both to annoy and to delight and he seems to be very good at both. About him taking the piss… surely anyone wanting only to make money from art would become a dealer rather than an artist? Having said all that, I can totally understand why people dislike him/his output, but I have to just shrug and say “I like it”.
Secondly, and weirdly, Richard Serra is an artist who makes the kind of work I would normally say I like (abstract, sculptural, conceptual), but – and I promise you Jane I am not being deliberately provocative– I really don’t like his work at all! Funnily enough, I think there is a cockiness that Koons and Serra share, but it comes out in their work very differently. The monumentality of Serra’s sculpture doesn’t work for me for me because it always strikes me as invasive, rather than taking account of its surroundings. When it comes to monumental work, I prefer Maya Lin or Nancy Holt. Yet again, I can totally understand why people like Serra, but I just have to shrug and say “I don’t like it”.
For me, the idea of the artist’s connection to a work of art is so broad as to be impossible to define… ultimately I can only ever say what “works” for me and what doesn’t, regardless of how it was made or who made it. This is why I find myself able to like trashy works whilst simultaneously enjoying more serious art – what I find hardest of all is blandness. I also have very, very, very little faith in the idea of originality, but that’s a whole other load of posts for the future…
nicoladale.com
