I have been thinking about whether or not to be deliberate in developing a style. People I deeply respect, Alyson Stanfield and Juliette Aristides, represent two opinions. Artist marketing coach, Stanfield, suggests in her book I'd Rather Be In The Studio!, that an artist should consciously develop a style that is distinctive. This differentiates an artist's work from others resulting in a signature style.
Artist, teacher and atelier advocate, Aristides, suggests in her book Classical Painting Atelier, that an artist, being a unique individual, will with time and hard work, naturally develop a style that is as unique as that artist.
I am torn between the two. My gut reaction is that Stanfield’s approach is artificial. It just feels wrong to so deliberately make an effort to be different simply to stand out from the crowd. However, she might be describing exactly what many artists do naturally. And this approach could push an artist to try new approaches, chose new subjects, try new materials and possibly discover new things about themselves.
Aristide’s concept sounds appealing to the artiste in me. It is natural, almost organic, and appeals to a democratic belief in the individual. But it might also take an artist down an easy but ultimately less satisfying road. It could take a less self-assured artist down the road to imitation of masters and other artists of influence. That can happen when an artist needs the assurance that what they create is “acceptable” and "good" rather than unique.
I think the truth lies by weaving the two concepts around a central core of honest and systematic self examination. A brutally honest search for what the artist's most basic beliefs and desires to express are. This forces a daily self-examination of what and why the artist creates which in turn guides the exploration for what is unique to stay on track with those core beliefs. The result should be honestly and uniquely the artist's born from diligent practice of the craft.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
On creating a style: Two paths
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you - Alyson's approach sounds a bit artificial to me. I think every artist develops their own style naturally, by covering a lot of miles of canvas!
However, I do think we need to be aware of how our style is developing, and step back and evaluate things every once in a while. I see a lot of artists who end up emulating others to the point that they lose their own style and look like they're copying another. I admire Jeremy Lipking and Scott Christensen as much as the next painter, but why do they have so many students who imitate them? I think that's where the catch is - making sure that we develop our own style without outright copying our influences. After I took my first few workshops, I took a few years to paint on my own precisely so I could develop my own voice, but in the end I realized that it was a natural progression, and that it developed on it's own!
Stacy, you are absolutely right about the unfortunate practice of teachers cranking out clones of themselves. The best artist/teacher I have found (and I have had several) is Richard Schmid. He gives students an approach to seeing and options for working with the tool but he encourages students to see their subject and paint it with their own vision and not his.
That is teaching at its best.
I would say that developing a style is a natural progression – work long enough and follow your bliss and the style takes care of itself. And isn't style really something that is primarily recognized and considered by the viewer, or imposed, even, by others on our work? Personally, I never think of style when creating.
What I took away from Alyson's book is that for marketing purposes it is best to focus on that which sets you apart from other artists, what makes you unique. We do that by placing emphasis on a specific approach to the use of materials or a particular artistic vision, etc.
the fact that you are torn says to me that this is pertinent to your work ...& if you were not torn , you would already have asserted to yourself that you had already developed a style organically & then the issue would not have presented itself ...every case is particular to the artist, philosophy can only take you so far...I am just reading what you have written , which , suggests that you don't feel you have a distinct style yet, & that a conscious push is necessary ...(though , you seem to have embraced a chiaroscuro photo-realism in still life , from my impression...)but it helps to know it & feel it within ...
I don't think you can or should force anything. It's the desire to express yourself from your own vision and truth that will bring forth your unique style. Mine has been changing in the past little while, as I am changing. At first I wasn't certain I liked it, but now I do, and know it's in transition, like me.
One thing I find stifling is to keep trying to paint what has been done by me already when I am obviously done with that phase and it's time to move on.
Also, comparing myself with another's style, method of working, etc, stops me cold.
Post a Comment