I don’t know if I’d call your work neutral. Not in the way that my friend Micheal was applying the term. Your work has a defined view and a specific style. It’s not forgettable in the way he was looking at things. I think his point was if you took 100 artworks you found on Instagram and put them in a room without naming the artists, would you be able to tell who made what? I think yours would stand out from the crowd.
For me there are two separate things going on here, most of the time hopelessly conflated. There's making art to sell, and making art as a deepening mystery. Some people get a bit of skill and then start to think, 'oh, is this good enough to sell?', and feel validated when it does. Some people get drawn to the mystery and decide that they want to be part of what they see as a funky bohemian world, and decide they want this as a job. Some people are seriously living exploration of the mystery and hope to be 'recognised' so that they can focus on it all the time. All of these people need the galleries, or something like them (online etc).
Then there are the galleries. They can't afford to care about the mystery unless it sells. They're a commercial enterprise. Many of the people that come to them are looking for something to match a wall colour, compliment a sofa, ot fill in a blank space. Or, investors, which is a whole other thing, still nothing to do with the mystery, at least most of the time.
And then there's following the mystery, which may never, or only occasionally pay...
What was really interesting from the whole conversation yesterday was, Michael the guy that was making the comment works almost exclusively on commission doing large scale portraits of celebrities for the most part. Musicians and actors. If you look at his work and use his term, his work is probably “neutral” based on the way he applied the word to the art world.
Like I said I have nothing against it, and the reality is most people buying art work are coming from two very different but focused places. They want something they enjoy and and fits within their environment, or they are looking at it as a possible investment. The third would be institutional value if the artist is established and has a certain level of provenance. (museum collections).
I don’t know if I fall into the funky bohemian space, but I definitely fall into the “I’m making something that appeals to myself and if you like it to, that’s great space”.
Fair questions. I think you make what you’re drawn to, just like the swallows inexplicably fly back to Capistrano. But it also depends on how deeply the viewer is looking. You can’t “push the envelope” if a viewer is not ready to look or feel deeply. My portrayals of abandoned homes are neutral enough, for example. And the house is a symbol of the family, the self, society… Most people don’t go down that rabbit hole. I wish they would.
I think your paintings of abandoned homes and buildings actually have a deeper meaning that pushes them away from where Micheal was going with his “neutral” statement. I think he was leaning more into the idea that there is so much work being posted online and shown in galleries that look like it was all created by the same person or, by any number of people whose work all looks the same. I don’t get that from your paintings. Your work has a distinct voice and style to it.
I think the decision of whether to make work neutral or not really depends on the artist's goals. If being gallery recognized and more "sellable," then yeah, they're going to want to move to the middle.
However, make the work you want to make is good for the soul. It's a much harder path, of course, but at least at the end of it all, we can say we never compromised.
I'm a Neutralist, but only because the only audience I care to paint for is me; working on a pleasant little landscape both calms and pleases me. 🙂
I don’t know if I’d call your work neutral. Not in the way that my friend Micheal was applying the term. Your work has a defined view and a specific style. It’s not forgettable in the way he was looking at things. I think his point was if you took 100 artworks you found on Instagram and put them in a room without naming the artists, would you be able to tell who made what? I think yours would stand out from the crowd.
Thanks, Wade.
For me there are two separate things going on here, most of the time hopelessly conflated. There's making art to sell, and making art as a deepening mystery. Some people get a bit of skill and then start to think, 'oh, is this good enough to sell?', and feel validated when it does. Some people get drawn to the mystery and decide that they want to be part of what they see as a funky bohemian world, and decide they want this as a job. Some people are seriously living exploration of the mystery and hope to be 'recognised' so that they can focus on it all the time. All of these people need the galleries, or something like them (online etc).
Then there are the galleries. They can't afford to care about the mystery unless it sells. They're a commercial enterprise. Many of the people that come to them are looking for something to match a wall colour, compliment a sofa, ot fill in a blank space. Or, investors, which is a whole other thing, still nothing to do with the mystery, at least most of the time.
And then there's following the mystery, which may never, or only occasionally pay...
What was really interesting from the whole conversation yesterday was, Michael the guy that was making the comment works almost exclusively on commission doing large scale portraits of celebrities for the most part. Musicians and actors. If you look at his work and use his term, his work is probably “neutral” based on the way he applied the word to the art world.
Like I said I have nothing against it, and the reality is most people buying art work are coming from two very different but focused places. They want something they enjoy and and fits within their environment, or they are looking at it as a possible investment. The third would be institutional value if the artist is established and has a certain level of provenance. (museum collections).
I don’t know if I fall into the funky bohemian space, but I definitely fall into the “I’m making something that appeals to myself and if you like it to, that’s great space”.
My categories were just off the top of my head... revealing my own limited experience and prejudices. I had no category for Michael! Or you!
Fair questions. I think you make what you’re drawn to, just like the swallows inexplicably fly back to Capistrano. But it also depends on how deeply the viewer is looking. You can’t “push the envelope” if a viewer is not ready to look or feel deeply. My portrayals of abandoned homes are neutral enough, for example. And the house is a symbol of the family, the self, society… Most people don’t go down that rabbit hole. I wish they would.
I think your paintings of abandoned homes and buildings actually have a deeper meaning that pushes them away from where Micheal was going with his “neutral” statement. I think he was leaning more into the idea that there is so much work being posted online and shown in galleries that look like it was all created by the same person or, by any number of people whose work all looks the same. I don’t get that from your paintings. Your work has a distinct voice and style to it.
I think the decision of whether to make work neutral or not really depends on the artist's goals. If being gallery recognized and more "sellable," then yeah, they're going to want to move to the middle.
However, make the work you want to make is good for the soul. It's a much harder path, of course, but at least at the end of it all, we can say we never compromised.