Hello. I guess that this is the first, of hopefully many, posts for discussion. I thought that I would start off with a wide topic and with the help of you guys, whittle it down as much as possible. So, with trepidation but a song in my heart, here we go.
How does an artist know when a work of art is finished? Is it possible to tell? Is it even a desirable thing to totally complete a piece? Is it true that a work can "speak" to the artist and tell her that it is at a point when further fiddling and "improving" will destroy what has been so painstakingly created? In my experience, I have found that there is a point at which I sense that I should not go any further. If I am quiet and listen to it, things sometimes work out nicely. When I ignore that gut feeling, I inevitably screw something up. Not all accidents are happy ones for an artist and when the crash is brought on by his desire to "fix" something or add something to "round out" a piece the results are most often a trainwreck. Beautiful highlights and shading become muddy. Colours become blurred. Hard lines soft and vice versa. Actually, the entire feeling created by the work in its initial "finished" state can be lost forever to meddling. You may say that it's entirely up to the artist to take a piece as far as she possibly can. We are often taught this, and encouraged to never be satisfied until absolutely every nook and cranny of an artwork is filled to capacity. I was lucky enough to have an instructor who believed in the less-is-more approach and that negative space was just as important as the positive additions. So, how does one decide? What is too much? What is too little? What criteria can or should be used to discern the completeness of a work? I think that the more simple and straightforward approach is often the best from the viewer's standpoint. This does not mean that there can be no depth to a work or deeper meanings, thoughts, approaches, what-have-you. But to be clear and concise engages the viewer and invites him in to the deeper world. What is clear and concise? How do we know? Can we? Do we work until we are tired of a piece and then call it finished? Do we ask someone else, "Does this look finished to you?" Well, that's the topic. So let's go at it. I know that I could use some help with this question. I'm guilty of both destroying a piece, and backing off before there is anything of substance there at all. Where's the balance? --- rbs
How does an artist know when a work of art is finished? Is it possible to tell? Is it even a desirable thing to totally complete a piece? Is it true that a work can "speak" to the artist and tell her that it is at a point when further fiddling and "improving" will destroy what has been so painstakingly created? In my experience, I have found that there is a point at which I sense that I should not go any further. If I am quiet and listen to it, things sometimes work out nicely. When I ignore that gut feeling, I inevitably screw something up. Not all accidents are happy ones for an artist and when the crash is brought on by his desire to "fix" something or add something to "round out" a piece the results are most often a trainwreck. Beautiful highlights and shading become muddy. Colours become blurred. Hard lines soft and vice versa. Actually, the entire feeling created by the work in its initial "finished" state can be lost forever to meddling. You may say that it's entirely up to the artist to take a piece as far as she possibly can. We are often taught this, and encouraged to never be satisfied until absolutely every nook and cranny of an artwork is filled to capacity. I was lucky enough to have an instructor who believed in the less-is-more approach and that negative space was just as important as the positive additions. So, how does one decide? What is too much? What is too little? What criteria can or should be used to discern the completeness of a work? I think that the more simple and straightforward approach is often the best from the viewer's standpoint. This does not mean that there can be no depth to a work or deeper meanings, thoughts, approaches, what-have-you. But to be clear and concise engages the viewer and invites him in to the deeper world. What is clear and concise? How do we know? Can we? Do we work until we are tired of a piece and then call it finished? Do we ask someone else, "Does this look finished to you?" Well, that's the topic. So let's go at it. I know that I could use some help with this question. I'm guilty of both destroying a piece, and backing off before there is anything of substance there at all. Where's the balance? --- rbs
RSS Feed
