50 Questions for the Artist

[Kimber Scott]

I received these questions from one of my professors last semester. I thought they might offer an opportunity for self-reflection and some good discussions here on SOG. This list is one of the most valuable lessons I've received in the university setting. The pearl of the semester! So, if one, or more, of these moves you to opine, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it! I would, anyway!

1. What are your goals as an artist?
2. Why are you "making" art?
3. What are you expectations for your work?
4. Are your expectations too high - too low?
5. What is the role of the spiritual in your work?
6. Do you have any moral or ethical responsibility as an artist?
7. What is your intent?
8. Is it important for your work to be both personal and universal?
9. How important is talent?
10. How important is self-motivation?
11. How important is innovation and originality?
12. How do you take risks with your work?
13. How necessary is good craftsmanship?
14. How do you keep from being redundant, or from recreating the past?
15. What do you do if your are "blocked" or "stuck?"
16. How important is content?
17. How do you find meaning in what everyone else finds meaningless?
18. When does art give back value?
19. When do you talk too much about the work, or talk too little?
20. How necessary is it to be able to articulate your ideas?
21. Should you defend your work?
22. What are the benefits to learning in an academic setting?
23. What is your relationship to tradition?
24. What are your influences?
25. To what extent should you align yourself with other artists' work, or styles?
26. Where does your inspiration come from?
27. What is your relationship to technology?
28. What is crucial to your long-term survival as an artist?
29. What is success?
30. Is "making art" separate from the rest of your life?
31. Do you have to make your living from your art?
32. Is everyone an artist?
33. Who determines who is an artist and who is not?
34. What is your relationship to the "audience" or "public?"
35. What is your relationship to galleries, museums and collectors?
36. Other than galleries, what options are open for getting your work seen and known?
37. What is the role of politics?
38. How important is networking and a "public persona?"
39. What is good work?
40. Who are your critics?
41. How has criticism shaped your work?
42. How important are process and materials?
43. Do you need a signature style?
44. What have you learned from your work?
45. Is all work autobiographical?
46. When does ego get in the way?
47. What does it take to remain focused?
48. Do you have to understand what you make?
49. Is thinking about the work as important as doing the work?
50. What other questions do you need to ask yourself?

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Very interesting Kimber,

thanks for that!

[John Reidy]

Don't you think number 23 should be - What are the drawbacks to learning in an academic setting?

[Kimber Scott]

Originally Posted by John Reidy

Don't you think number 23 should be - What are the drawbacks to learning in an academic setting?

Well, the question is what it is. I will say it's very easy to list the drawbacks to learning to create "art" in an academic setting, the most obvious is the fact they don't teach you HOW to make "art." But, you do learn other things and some of them are quite useful. I find my art history classes are having a profound impact not just on the "why" of making art, but actually on the "how," as well.

Right now, I'm in a 19th Century French Art and Culture class. I never knew many of the figures in French academic paintings are done after sculptures. This is why so many of them have similar poses. More importantly though, I never knew one could study the human body so intensively as to be able to paint it from memory, or to turn stone into flesh. There are so many possibilities being opened for me just from the introduction of this information into my knowledge bank. (Not that I ever expect to be able to create a realistic, naturalistic body from memory. I have a hard enough time when there's a body sitting right in front of me! But, you never know.)

Many people might have discovered this information through their own studies, and I might have too, one day, but just learning HOW the old guys did it is really helping me to know it can be done. (Not that I've learned any of the nitty gritty get in there and do it stuff. I'm talking big picture.) Does that make sense?

Here's something to make note of... in this class we are studying David, Gericault, Ingres, Delacroix, Bouguereau, etc., along with the Impressionists. Does that shock anyone? There was a time when Bouguereau's name would not have been uttered in modern academia. So, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe in another 50 years they'll really teach artists how to make art in public school? Nah. I doubt it.

Anyway, I rant all the time about not being taught HOW to do anything in my studio classes, but my art history classes make up for, at least, some of that.

Another advantage of the academic setting, it has opened my mind a bit. Even if I don't like a lot of what I see, it does loosen up the thinking joints!

Now, would I recommend anyone who wants to be an artist attend university? Heck no.

[John Reidy]

Kimber, I agree. From my time at a university I found 2 courses regarding art or my choice for further studies, worthwhile, Art History and Composition. Naturally there were other courses that benefited me overall but I did not mean to include those.

My intention for my question was geared more towards all of the other art courses that I considered to be a teaching of copying styles and submitting assignments that only pleased the teacher's personal taste. They contributed nothing towards my goals except maybe how to work toward someone else's ideas (not that that was ever one of my goals).

[Kimber Scott]

I noticed a lot of other people are having the same one! John, you might enjoy this...

Student Going Crazy

[John Reidy]

Kimber, good link. It reminded me a bit of my introduction to drawing in a private art class that I started when I was around 13. It was summer and class was held for 3 hours every Wednesday. Since I had been drawing ever since I could remember, I felt like I new it all. For the first several weeks all we learned was how to hold the charcoal or pencil and draw circles, lines as fast as we could. Boy, was I confused.

Luckily for me I stuck to it. This turned out to become my foundation to this day. The circles and lines are a great excersize for eye - hand control.

The part of the link that is familiar is tthe part about wasting paper. That was the same way my father felt (who paid for over 4 years of private study).

At the day's end, we are all students struggling to improve. The four stages of life are infancy, childhood, adolescence, and obsolescence.

[Michele Rushworth]

That link to the post over on ARC is from a student going to my old school in Toronto (OCAD). It sounds like it's a much worse place than it was when I went there.

It's a sorry state of affairs in accredited art colleges, and has been for thirty years. Imagine a college level music student being told that they are never to study the violin, the piano or music history and oh, by the way, if they learned scales when they were younger, they are to immediately forget them, they're evil and "limiting to a musician's creativity."

[Kimber Scott]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

It's a sorry state of affairs in accredited art colleges, and has been for thirty years. Imagine a college level music student being told that they are never to study the violin, the piano or music history and oh, by the way, if they learned scales when they were younger, they are to immediately forget them, they're evil and "limiting to a musician's creativity."

Oh, this is one of my biggest peeves ever. I won't even call it a "pet" peeve because the thing's a monster. Architects are creative beings aren't they? What then if one decided learning how to structure a building so it wouldn't fall down was too limiting to his creative potential? Some architect he'd be, huh? And, what would his professors say?

Engineers and scientists are creative beings. So what, must they reinvent the wheel every-time they want to discover a new fuel, or build a new type of car? When they walk into class are they told to forget the laws of nature as they are too limiting to their potential?

I see a class full of freshmen cavemen trying to make fire...

"Ug! Did the teacher explain how to make fire?"

"No, Og. She said if she did, it would be her just telling us how to make fire. She said it would be best to figure it out for ourselves. Then it will be our fire."

"Really?" Og says. "Oh, Ug! I have a spark!"

"Yes, yes. I see! I heard you're supposed to blow on it"

Og blows on his spark and it disappears. Ug says, "Yes, mine disappeared when I blew on it, too."

"How much are we paying for this class?" Og says. "And when do we get to look into a microscope?"

"Oh, no microscopes, Og. The professor says they'll hamper our creativity."