Is it a scary thing?
Gloria Heim
same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
Any psycologists out there to help me?????
Gloria
Vi...@ordinaire.com
Gloria,
Matisse said, *Whenever I face a new canvas, I am a little afraid." I know
what he means. I think this is good: what it means to me is that I don't
paint to a formula; every work is an adventure (or disaster) in itself.
It is possible to fail, and fail again. But this is the price we pay
for taking chances and painting real work, instead of just working
the same old predictable stuff over and over again.
Best,
Vinny
John Haber
cheered me up.
You said one of those things that is so common it could almost be a
cliche, like Existentialists talking about facing nothing as part of
the everyday. There's also the way black or white painters use that
reaction to involve the viewer in the work and the work in its space,
rather than leave it only as an object of delectation.
But you said it really well, and it helps me to have it said aloud.
FWIW, I only write, but then there's the blank screen every time you
hit the new-document button.
John
Al Wesolowsky
:I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
:same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
:guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
:that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
:actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
If you haven't already done so, take a look at "Art and Fear," by David
Bayles and Ted Orland. The authors address this very thing, "...the mute
insolence of the blank canvas, challenging 'You cannot.'" (I paraphrase).
I'm able to contain the fear enough to be able to start a new piece,
but for the longest time I keep thinking "Oh, jeeze, this isn't gonna
work... whom am I kidding?... Ghod, this is a stupid composition..."
but I've learned that if I keep at it long enough, I'll learn
*something,* even from the failures.
I discussed this patterned self-doubt with a friend, who wondered if
perhaps I was only being cognizant of the risks involved in trying to make
art. It can be scary, all right. But rewarding, too.
Not unlike dating, come to think of it.
--
Al B. Wesolowsky o Unlike J. W. Hardin, my foolish moves
a...@crsa.bu.edu o have been many.
Boston University o ---Michael Murphey
Charles Eicher
>
>I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
>same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
>guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
>that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
>actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
>
I happen to have a copy of "The Artist in Society: Problems and Treatment of the
Creative Personality" by Lawrence Hatterer M.D. which was published in 1965. It
is primarily concerned with psychoanalytical treatment of artists with real
mental illness, however, since artists are so damn neurotic about their work and
their lives, he decided to spend a considerable part of the book describing the
"normal" anxieties that most artists have in common. However, I warn you, before
I post this, Jung warned against psychoanayzing oneself, and psychoanalytic
theory has moved a long way since 1965, and most of those older theories are
discredited in part or in whole.
In the book, there is a huge section in the book on "Creative Work Block" which,
in this context, deals more with artists who are unable to produce ANY works at
all, due to overwhelming psychological disorders. But there are some interesting
insights anyway.
"An abnormal amount of anxiety, either constant in nature or in the form of
periodic panic, is debilitating and frightening. The artist is robbed of that
boldness which produces the strength needed for concentrated creativity. His
level of awareness recedes; he is unable to organize his feelings and tap his
sensor or imaginary experience. Anxiety also causes other interfering physical
reactions in addition to fatigue.. [long section on neurotic behaviors artists
use to distract themselves from creative block is omitted here]
Creative block does not always have its roots in psychiatric illness. It arises
sometimes from the eccentricities of the artist's feeling of unhappiness over
lack of productivity during a fallow period, and his withdrawing to rest after
an exhausting creative spell. There are psychiatrists who have acted on the
principle that the depressed state in the artist is a necessary forerunner to
the resumption of creative action. This principle carries with it the belief
that the artist, in pursuing his creativity, necessarily resolves his
depression. These principles do not have universal validity, nor do they
contribute to an understanding of the artist's work block. The artist is not
invariably depressed, nor is "depression" an appropriate description of all
manifestations of discontent or interruptions in the flow of artistic effort.
When the artist lives through or is threatened by an inhibition against the
pursuance of his creativity for any sustained time, depressed feelings can arise
which simulate the clinical depression that occurs in psychiatric disorders...
[are you feeling a bit depressed after reading this? Don't take it personally, I
already warned you that this guy is psychoanalyzing extreme cases. Just take it
as general guidelines of how the artistic psyche works under the most extreme
stress.]
"An artist's own attitude toward his work affects productivity. Some artists
with a strongly materialistic orientation are vulnerable to doubts about the
usefulness and meaning of their creativity. Others with an unusual degree of
dependency need constant encouragement about the worth of their work. When such
an artist becomes aware of adverse or conflicting opinions, he feels confused;
and if he lacks enough assertion in his personality to shake off adverse
comment, his daring evaporates; he suffers work depression and is blocked. A
similar type of artist will diminish or suspend his own creative efforts on
seeing the accomplishments of colleagues. Envy, though unacknowledged, defeats
the artist and prolongs the work block."
Well, none of that seems specifically on topic for facing any one single blank
canvas. But it is as close as I could find to the specific topic at hand, from a
psychologist. It should shed some insight into creative work blocks in general.
Of course, this being the voice of a psychoanalyst, he offers no solutions to
the problem, merely the suggestion to delve into one's own psyche and try to
expose the underlying anxieties that cause work block. Sort of a vicious circle,
if you ask me. No wonder Jung warned about psychoanalyzing oneself!
Blue Moon
>
>I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
>same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
>guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
>that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
>actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
>
>Any psycologists out there to help me?????
I'm no psychologist, rather an artist. But fear of failure is
a powerful deterrent to MANY MANY people when it comes to all
sorts of things in life, including starting from scratch in
all sorts of endeavors -- not just art ones.
One of the best books I've seen on the subject for painters
is a small paperback titled THE BLANK CANVAS. There is an
endless list of motivational books too, at the top of which
is probably Norman Vincent Peale's POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING.
peter nelson
Gloria Heim wrote in message <36F12970...@us.ibm.com>...
>I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
>same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
>guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
>that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
>actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
>
>Any psycologists out there to help me?????
I keep a big trash bin handy and I use it. I also work a lot
in acrylics because I can just gesso over anything that's
not working out and start over.
One of my instructors at the Decordova Museum
school used to actually have us do exercises which involved
destroying our favorite works, or, at the end of a long
drawing session, destroying whatever part of the
drawing we liked the best.
I had another instructor tell us that we all had a thousand
bad drawings in us and the sooner we got them out the
better.
They only way you're going to get any better at your art
is by practice, and practice necessarily involves mistakes
and risks. Even if you "ruin" something you'll still learn
from the experience. I just started working in oils for the
first time and I'm learning all kinds of ways to make
my paintings turn to mud. Once I've learned them all I'll
know what to avoid.
Besides, if you REALLY screw something up there's
probably some museum ready to buy it as "abstract
expressionism".
---peter
Kay Kane
peter nelson wrote in message <7d1bpp$psd$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
>
>Gloria Heim wrote in message <36F12970...@us.ibm.com>...
>>I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
>>same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
>>guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
>>that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
>>actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
>>
>>Any psycologists out there to help me?????
>>Gloria
>
>I keep a big trash bin handy and I use it.
(snipping, snipping, snipping)
>
>Besides, if you REALLY screw something up there's
>probably some museum ready to buy it as "abstract
>expressionism".
>
>---peter
Peter, meet Gloria. She does realistic wildlife paintings. Gloria, meet
Peter. He doesn't like AbEx either. I'm sure you two will be soulmates.
Kay
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>One of my instructors at the Decordova Museum
>school used to actually have us do exercises which involved
>destroying our favorite works, or, at the end of a long
>drawing session, destroying whatever part of the
>drawing we liked the best.
Lucky Michelangelo didn't have an idiot like this for a teacher.
>
>I had another instructor tell us that we all had a thousand
>bad drawings in us and the sooner we got them out the
>better.
It should be reassuring that by the time you do your thousandth bad
drawing the matter is hopeless. A better instructor might have told
you this somewhat earlier.
>
>They only way you're going to get any better at your art
>is by practice, and practice necessarily involves mistakes
>and risks.
The only way is to practice with knowledge otherwise you can practice
till you drop.
> Even if you "ruin" something you'll still learn
>from the experience. I just started working in oils for the
>first time and I'm learning all kinds of ways to make
>my paintings turn to mud. Once I've learned them all I'll
>know what to avoid.
good luck
>Besides, if you REALLY screw something up there's
>probably some museum ready to buy it as "abstract
>expressionism".
Right. If you can't make it on skill try bullshit.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
peter nelson
>
>peter nelson wrote in message <7d1bpp$psd$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
>>
>>Gloria Heim wrote in message <36F12970...@us.ibm.com>...
>>>I am always **so** intimidated by a blank canvas. Does anyone feel the
>>>same? I think it's self-doubt. The canvas has so much potential and I
>>>guess I don't want to ruin it for fear of telling myself I'm not really
>>>that good. I know I have many years of drawing and painting but I
>>>actually have to work up the courage to start a new one.
>>>
>>>Any psycologists out there to help me?????
>>>Gloria
>>
>>I keep a big trash bin handy and I use it.
>
>
>(snipping, snipping, snipping)
>>
>>probably some museum ready to buy it as "abstract
>>expressionism".
>>
>
>
>Peter, meet Gloria. She does realistic wildlife paintings. Gloria, meet
>Peter. He doesn't like AbEx either. I'm sure you two will be soulmates.
>Kay
Actually I like abstract expressionism and own several works
including one which hangs in my studio, even though my own
preferred subject is portraits and figures. My only beef with
AbEx is that it admits many poseurs.
The advantage of realistic wildlife paintings, for instance, is that you
can tell at a glance if the artist has any actual talent, and it takes
years of disciplined study to acquire the skill to do it well. Any fool
can toss some paint under a skidding truck wheel while an assistant
in a raincoat holds a canvas behind the truck, and call it "abstract
expressionism". If he lives in a trailer park in Arkansas some
museum in New York will happliy buy it as "Outsider Art" and no
one will ever know or care if it's hung right-side up.
But worse than the artists are the art critics and writers. I recently
read a book on Mark Rothko to try to get some insight into his
works from the 50's and 60's, since when I see them I want to say,
"so what?" And they say things like "Rothko heightened the perceptual
subtlety of his paintings, making distinctions between shape and
ground more difficult to discern." This is an insight? This explains
anything? This says anything which is not obvious from looking
at the art itself? But they manage to fill an entire book with this stuff
and someone PAYS them to write it!
---peter
Vi...@ordinaire.com
<big snip>
> Actually I like abstract expressionism and own several works
> including one which hangs in my studio, even though my own
> preferred subject is portraits and figures. My only beef with
> AbEx is that it admits many poseurs.
Yes, it does. Realism and other figurative forms also admit poseurs in the
form of no-talent hacks who think that a nominal amount of skill is
sufficient to create art. What they do create is anonymous genre painting
at best, suitable to go over Muffy's couch. (this is not to disparage
high-quality figurative painting, which can hold its own with any other
type of art.)
>
> The advantage of realistic wildlife paintings, for instance, is that you
> can tell at a glance if the artist has any actual talent, and it takes
> years of disciplined study to acquire the skill to do it well.
Not an advantage at all - what you're saying here is true of all types of
art.
>Any fool
> can toss some paint under a skidding truck wheel while an assistant
> in a raincoat holds a canvas behind the truck, and call it "abstract
> expressionism".
He or she can, indeed. But, to a trained eye, the work of the AbEx hack is
as obviously junk as figurative hackwork. This kind of work is rejected in
the art world routinely. (And sometimes accepted, sadly, just like some
figurative hackwork.)
If he lives in a trailer park in Arkansas some
> museum in New York will happliy buy it as "Outsider Art" and no
> one will ever know or care if it's hung right-side up.
Possible. This crap sometimes enjoys a brief fad, but it
never endures.
> But worse than the artists are the art critics and writers. I recently
> read a book on Mark Rothko to try to get some insight into his
> works from the 50's and 60's, since when I see them I want to say,
> "so what?" And they say things like "Rothko heightened the perceptual
> subtlety of his paintings, making distinctions between shape and
> ground more difficult to discern." This is an insight? This explains
> anything? This says anything which is not obvious from looking
> at the art itself? But they manage to fill an entire book with this
> stuff and someone PAYS them to write it!
Yeah - good crit is really hard to find. I recently wasted thirty bucks on
a book called The Picasso Papers. Neither I nor anyone I loaned it to can
make any sense out of it whatsoever. I can't give it away. But this says
nothing about the quality of the art, one way or the other.
I think my point here is that there is good art and bad art of all types,
and always has been. Where I disagree with the common wisdom is that I
know very well that crap is little tolerated by those with training and
experience -- regardless of whether it is AbEx or a flower painting.
(I personally know a flower painter who knocks my socks off - because she's
damned good.)
A good eye is not that hard to develop. I sometimes think that a
willingness to see without prejudice is all that's needed. A couple of
years ago, I took a bunch of undergraduate art students to a grouping of
galleries in SoHo. They showed work that ranged from conventional realism
to AbEx to installations and videos.
One of the galleries was a vanity gallery. I didn't tell the students which
one it was - but when I asked them afterward, every one of them identified
it correctly. The other galleries showed a wide range of work, but it all
met a certain standard. And it was obvious to the students that the vanity
work was inferior.
Later,
Vinny