From what I understand (which isn't a lot), Art Noveue style and mass printing techniques both heavily influenced each other. It's amazing how artists are able to understand the strong and weak points of such a medium and really capitalize on it (the evolution of printing and comic books is another good example). For a guy who's similar (similar style, same time period, similar geographic location) but also different, you should check out Ivan Bilibin. I stumbled on Bilibin one night after clicking one Wikipedia link after another. Someone recommended I check out Mucha after I told them how much I liked Bilibin.
I went to art school and I doubt anyone can understand the complexities and subtleties of the act of being paid to make art. Those first five words I hesitate to even use in that sequence. I'm kinda not sure where to go here because I fear seeming pretentious. The idea that art is special or that being an artist is any different than being a bricklayer or a plumber. For most of history it's been a trade and people like Mucha or Toulouse la Trec exist in a period of significant flux. So things that we maybe don't realize about art were overlapping and it afforded certain artists the opportunity to truly stand out and it's particularly noticeable to me for commercial artists with a legacy because it's not a highly thought of field now and just understanding the level of work put out consistently since advertising was invented, the fact that a few people working within those constraints can be held up among fine artists without notice by a great deal of viewers today that the basic difference in their goals and even vocation was not much like a painting down the hall by a Monet for example, that things like that exist comfortably at all in a similar space to something closer to a work where the end goal is maybe being in a museum at all, that's just a very long winded attempt to explain the subtlety you can pay a lot of money to appreciate going to art school. I'm now not very confident that what I just wrote is an actual sentence or a very complex fragment of one. As long as I'm spewing about art school, spending 6 figures in school to learn a thing you don't need to go to school for and is not very important can create a hard to explain perspective. Most people in art school know it's a waste of time and waiting tables is a possibility and even a joke because no one thinks it will happen to them. Art's kinda important but not like medicine is and with some time to think about a big decision to make at 18, to try to make a living off of a hobby, comes an acceptance for what was probably a mistake but there's still an appreciation for the entire thing and also the field as a whole. I guess it would be kinda like losing a ton of money gambling and still having had fun at the time but not being very proud of it in the end
I looked up Maxfield Parrish last night after seeing your comment. His work is pretty cool, very textured. I might have to see if any nearby museums have his stuff so I can see better images in person, because Wikimedia is great and all, but it's no substitute for real things. For example, Japanese block prints? Totally more fascinating and impressive in person. Also, a little side story, it looks like he did some ads for General Electric's Mazda Lightbulbs. When Dala and I first met, I was renting a house with a garage. One day, for a reason I forget, we had to get into the rafters of the garage where we found six (I think it was six) worn boxes for Mazda Lightbulbs. That in itself was pretty cool, but opening them up, all the bulbs were intact and probably never used because the filaments weren't broken. I didn't take them, because all of that stuff belonged to the landlord, but that was probably one of the coolest things I ever stumbled upon, if only because you don't expect to find 60+ year old lightbulbs unused. Though looking back now, I kind of regret not asking if I could have bought just one . . .
My argument would be that if you take Mucha - who was graphical but not too fantastic - and subtract Klimt - who was pretty much faces with impressionism - you'd get Parrish, who was actually largely realistic if overly vivid. I think that's most peoples' beef with Parrish; he drew actual scenes as opposed to faces with some other stuff around them. Me? I dig Parrish.
What would be your opinion on this? In all honesty, missing ropes and background audience aside, I like the sketch more than I like the actual painting. There's something about the black and white making the two clashing figures seem that much more dramatic, more desperate.
I mean it's honestly pretty awesome just looking at it as an image and being unaware of things I sometimes take into account such as medium. But weighing that kind of thing at all seems to create opinions that I feel are nuanced but are obnoxious at best when I fail to carefully unload my pretentions to someone who doesn't have time for that bullshit. I'll mention that I've done sketches that were much more satisfying than the final product. It sucks. It's cool that you even notice the distinction. I think every artist would know what it's like to accept a level of failure that occurs frequently. But I've said things like that before to people who get hung up on the word failure. But words mean different things to different people at different times even. Imma just go get drunk and read Wittgenstein. (Not really.)
Since I have you, let me ask your opinion on something else. I was watching a documentary the other month, about a guy making paintings that eventually auctioned off for literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of the things that stuck with me though, was that he wasn't the only one making the paintings. His studio had a couple dozen assistants helping him make the backgrounds, touching up the colors, doing the super fine detail work, etc. Yet he's the only one who gets to sign the pieces. Money aside, cause I don't know how much he paid his assistants, I found it kind of unfair that the other people who worked on the pieces didn't get to put their stamps on it. I know the artist is the one with the overall vision and I know this is actually pretty standard practice, but it still stuck with me. Your thoughts?
Well it was very common when art was a trade for a master to apprentice someone. And the master might not do much of anything in the end. There are paintings that are important because Leonardo probably painted part of them but received no credit because he was under tutelage. So I can keep a thing like that in mind while being pissed off by that kind of thing being done today. Damien Hirst might be the most powerful working artist today. Because reasons. But he does that shit. And he can't even authenticate works of art assigned to him. He can literally not be able to tell if he did something himself or if it was done in his studio or if it was done by a ten year old with a spin art maker. I hate the limey fuck. That's a very extreme example that I refer to a lot because of the different levels of absurdity that should be apparent. In less stupid examples I guess I think of it more like an ethics issue. Art is subjective so if that thing bothers you like it does me then that is a valid opinion even if it just seems weird and you can't diagnose the problem like I can. But people also just want a thing to put on the wall and that's fine too I guess even if I think that makes them morons. But someone could appreciate something I do for reasons I could even be offended by for whatever reason that's probably a personal failure by myself in execution or expectation. I'm pretty well aware at this point exactly how much art school is a joke. The state of Georgia mildly endorses the fact that I'm an artist through giving me a BFA but I didn’t learn anything that was so critical that it separates me from some grandma painting roses on the weekend. I'm just saying that success in art is not very logical in the way it can be granted. It can be a humbling reality and the number of obnoxious art people I've met would do well to take it down a few pegs and realize how unimportant they are and the same thing for what they do. I feel like I obscured the line between cynicism and pragmatism there but I'm not bitter about a whole lot of art things
Honestly? I don't like it myself. Movies, for example, have five to ten minutes of rolling credits for everyone from the directors and actors to the caterers and chauffeurs. I think if someone is part of a project, credit should be given where credit is due. Plus, it'd add another layer to keeping track of the whole trajectory of someone's creative career. I also think you're not giving yourself enough credit here. Seriously. I bet there's actually an ass-ton of stuff that you've learned in art school that a laymen wouldn't learn on their own unless they're on some kind of autodidactic spree. Shoot, just the other day I was watching a few YouTube videos on cinema and color theory and each five to ten minute video was like a mini-revelation. The foundation of knowledge you have is important as shit and by knowing it and exercising it, you're an active participant in keeping it alive.
It took a while for my girlfriend to understand that if I am not happy with something I've made it's not a self esteem issue or I don't think I'm talented and that kind of reaction seems common. I've taught myself a ton of stuff that I didn't learn in school. And I learned a lot there and had experience people will never have the opportunity to be part of. Do you know what a cupola is? In the foundry world? Because the meaning of the word foundry is lost on a lot of people, let alone that it was once an important industry in this country. I can talk shop about melting metal and it's amazing that this suburban white boy can have a valid opinion about the field or that I've been close enough to molten iron to cinge my eyelashes. That's a lot to unpack and it's a consideration I give to a lot of what I do. Even in things like being paid to pick up dog shit like I am right now. I don't know. I think I'm very grounded in a lot of ways. More so than many people in my opinion
I just quit smoking (weed and cigarettes) last week, but I've always been brand loyal to JOB rolling papers for no good reason other than the graphic design.
Why weed? Cigarettes, on the other hand, no explanation required.
The theme of this month has been about what motivates me to work, and weed is kind of a confounding variable because sometimes I'll get stoned just to trick myself into finding work enjoyable. This works maybe half the time, at least for getting started, but there are problems that I'll avoid working on whether I'm high or not. When my relationship with work is better, I'll get back to it.