http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Working in Isolation: a dialog with history Wed, 22 May 2013 20:35:59 +0000 a-n rss generator a-n The Artists Information Company and contributors edit@a-n.co.uk technical@a-n.co.uk http://www.a-n.co.uk/img/logo.gif http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 This is the first time I have kept a blog and I feel a little apprehensive about making my thoughts public.  But no matter, it's all about deeper understanding and this is a great way to experience both sides of it.  I read a lot of art history.  In fact, a few years ago I made the decision to stop reading literature, which I love, and focus my efforts on art history, which I love even more.  And I have never regretted a minute's time reading.  Currently I'm reading two books, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, edited by Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz and The Death and Return of the Author, by Seán Burke.  I've had Theories and Documents for years and have picked my way through, reading bits I was interested in, but I determined I would read the whole thing from beginning to end this time.  It of course has led me off on tangents, which is how I found my way to The Death and Return of the Author.  I took a turn looking into Roland Barthes and his 'Death of the Author'.  I was searching for the original essay of this title but came upon Burke's book and bought it because it was exactly what I was looking for. The detour paid off because I found the very nugget of truth I was trying to find in my own theorizing and statement writing.  I had been walking all around it but hadn't stumbled on it until I read this: 'Even if the author-creator had created the most perfect autobiography, or confession, he would , nonetheless have remained, in so far as he had produced it, outside of the universe represented within it.  If I tell (orally or in writing) an event that I have just lived, in so far as 'I am telling'(orally or in writing) this event, I find myself already outside of the time-space in which the event occurred.  To identify oneself absolutely with oneself, to identify one's 'I' with the 'I' that I tell is as impossible as to lift oneself up by one's hair...' Mikhail Bakhtin This quote allowed me to revise my artist statement and nail the concept I was trying to formulate but couldn't.  My artist statement now reads, with the introduction of the quote above: I'm exploring this impossibility of self identity, not only in terms of time-space but also in terms of forces outside of myself which influence my actions.  An artist never creates alone and the intent of the artist is never fully realized as conceived.  There are always things outside the artist which impact the moment of creation. This reinterpreted gesture is not a search for identity; it's not a search at all.  It simply is realization.  It realizes the paradox that the 'I' exists only within context and the 'I' faces obliteration from that same context. And I hope this is a good introduction into this blog and my head. www.jlbfineart.com      ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I have always been kind of awed reading about artists who read philosophy.  It seemed so very intellectual, so 'New York', so removed from my own experiences.  Now I'm an artist reading philosophy and it's not so impressive.  It strikes me as a lot of circular thinking trying to state the obvious, kind of like art.   That is the interesting thing about The Death and Return of the Author by Seán Burke; he is straightening out the circular logic of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida.  Burke is looking logically at the theory of 'death of the author' and basically showing it to be 'philosophically untenable'.  The question of identity, I believe, has never been more important than it is now and basing ideology on theories which are perhaps not all they should be in terms of 'truth and logic' can be misguided, to say the least.   My own work has passed through several theoretical phases in an attempt to find meaning and understanding of what I produce.  A question of identity always seems to be at the bottom of it all.  It's not necessarily a search for my own identity; I feel it is more general than that.  Reading art history makes me feel more secure in following that question of identity because it seems that most artists are questioning identity in terms of a society that shapes and impacts living, indeed our very selves.   Medium and the debate of structuralism vs. post-structuralism is a big part of this identity question I think.  So much of art is non-structured in the sense that it is conceptual in nature and doesn't adhere to traditional media.  But an interesting thing I see from reading art history is so many of the artists working in a post-structuralistic way find their way back to painting or other traditional, structured media.   I find this compelling and it makes me consider seriously not only theory/concept but also media for my own work.  The debate over 'the object' and commercialism is a valid one, but perhaps one that is moot, because let's face it, all new ideologies will be subsumed by the market eventually.   I'm looking for what is true to the work rather than what is fashionable at the moment.       www.jlbfineart.com           ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Here are some lessons I’ve learned from reading art history:   -         Don’t feel you have to destroy your work if you didn’t succeed, hold onto it and when they find you it will all be there for them to see (lesson from Louise Bourgeois).     -         Sometimes it takes 25 years for someone to buy for a song and resell for a small fortune, that dusty work in your studio corner, turning it into a masterpiece and you a genius (lesson from Picasso).     -         Keep working and follow your own path (from Phillip Guston).     -         Art historians are trying to figure this stuff out too.     -         Make friends in the art world, it’s a cold indifferent place and having someone to talk to is nice (learned from Robert Rauschenberg).     -         Keep working, it takes a long time for people to find you and listen.     -         Only if you are young & British, have a degree show and have Charles Saatchi actively collecting at the same time will you have instant success.     -         Hook up with a gallery when it’s emerging too, chances are you will make your mark together (learned from Leo Castelli).     -         Think for yourself, nobody wants a copycat, unless you're Sturtevant     -         Anything goes in art – up to a point.  Art that looks at old issues in a new way or new issues that haven’t been realized yet get noticed (learned from Gillian wearing).     -         Make time to read, you’ll see more clearly how you stand.     -         Write plain English and don’t use art-speak, it’s a piss-off and it only looks like it covers the fact you have nothing to say and know it (learned from E.H. Gombrich - meaning his explanations are perfect).     -         Learn the vocabulary so you know when someone is trying to cover the fact they have nothing to say and know it (learned from Rosalind Krauss – meaning she is never fooled).     -         The art-speak vocabulary comes from philosophy and we all know how straight forward those guys are!     -         Think for yourself, you’ll find other artists around the world have already had the same thoughts, proving two things: 1. there is no original thought  2. you’re connected     -         Be patient and let a concept develop.  What you’re working on now may not be relevant but it may lead you to something that is (learned from Jackson Pollock)   -          Artists are made not taught (learned from Rob Turner)   -          Keep your personal and artistic integrity.  You may become an influence first and a success second (learned from Richard Diebenkorn)   www.jlbfineart.com  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   There has been some debate recently in the blogs (see David Minton - Dead and Dying Flowers post #50) in regards to resolving the desire to work intuitively and the desire to enter artistic/stylistic debate which has lead to discussion of post-modernist failings (if I can sum it up that way).  Jon Bowen makes a point that modernism reflected the 'tenuous and fragile creatures we truly are' and that post-modernism is 'a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise this'.   While I can't disagree with Jon's summation, I think it is a little more involved than that.  Certainly, I see a lot of sarcastic, contemptuous, angry work but I've recently come to realize that this work is as expressive as modernist work.  What I see behind the irony and contempt is a real almost panicked desire to understand this global reality we now live in and perhaps frustration at the complexities of living which make us feel impotent.    The world has changed and living has become more difficult in many ways.  We are losing touch with the things that keep us feeling.  Simply stated, I think we feel overwhelmed.  Who wants to feel the emotions of seeing our planet destroyed in front of our very eyes, or watch helplessly as other cultures are destroyed, or feel fear at the threat of catastrophic illness, or realize the our lives can be irrevocably changed by someone risking monies somewhere else on the planet.  Dire vision perhaps, but all things we have witnessed recently.   Art has always reflected our view of the world and how we see ourselves in it, post-modernism is no exception.   It may seem crass; the business of doing art, but it is just that, it is business.  And while some artists feel it is 'defending one's corner' (to quote Jon Bowen again) in order to justify one's work, I think of it as explaining my intentions.  Let's face it, communicating is at best ambiguous and if our spoken words can easily be misunderstood, what chances do our visual efforts have.  And as such, in business people want to know where they stand and what they're dealing with.      I'm not trying to defend post-modernism, in fact there is no defense for it, a feeling many had once about modernism, but I do think it is important to remember that it expresses our time; it reflects the issues were thinking about, even if some artists would refute that publicly.   In regard to intuition, I think it is important not to confuse impulse with intuition.  David Minton says, 'Intuition can be simply a polite term for blindness. Gut reaction: all sorts of crimes are committed on the basis of it. Trusting one's intuition might be the negation of judgment. Intuition is taste, which in turn is internalized learned value appearing as natural.'  I would apply those terms to impulse rather than intuition.  But then I freely admit that I have perhaps had a different experience of intuition.   However you look at it, it's all good debate and good material for pondering.  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   We are having a very interesting discussion about intuition (see David Minton's Dead and Dying Flowers post #50, my post #4 and the comments attached) in addition to the discussion of post-modernism in the two posts mentioned above, which has been commented on by Jon Bowen (see his blog Before Hindsight post #28 and the attached comments).  David Minton says this about intuition: as I see it, intuition as in the 'intuitive leap' intuitive response, judgement and so on is what connects past experience with current events (like making an artwork). It is not a process which reveals its workings in advance, but can be seen to have been appropriate in retrospect. Something like an 'impulsive leap' would be more akin to a guess. Impulse does not connect with experience in the same way as intuition. An impulsive act carries with it the implication that it lacks insight; success is a product of good fortune, whereas an intuitive leap is grounded in insight; success follows from an intuitive sense of direction.?? And Jon Bowen adds this: What David is saying about Intuition and Impulse reminds me of some psychological work done with trance: When trance is induced lightly, the subject sees abstract patterns and motions, the nature of which are common across the whole of humanity. However, as trance deepens, the subject has dream-like visions, which involve a combination of real-life things, and the abstract material. The visions are based on experience: A Masai tribesperson will see wildebeest, impala, woodlands, etc., whereas a Londoner will see neon signs, motor vehicles, buildings, computer screens, etc. Is Impulse as direct human reaction akin to the processes of light trance, while intuition as an insightful product of experience is akin to the processes of deep trance? Both very good comments ending in very good questions I think. What is intuition, how does it work and why do we need it?   And perhaps more importantly, are we still paying attention to it in art?  I'm not sure there is a great deal of intuition in post-modernism, it seems to be out of fashion.  And perhaps rightly so after the extreme emotion of Abstract Expressionism, the cooler head-space of logic and intellectualism (I'm thinking of minimalism and conceptualism) prevailed.  But are we missing the interaction with the unknown, the unpredictable? I absolutely believe artists still make art on those terms, intuitively, relating and reacting to chance, but I question how visible it is in the work produced.  Is this perhaps what we dislike or feel discontented with in post-modernism?  Are we missing a bit of mystery? Intuition is a very mysterious thing.  I've never know why I have it or how it works, but I know most definitely that I need it.  And, I know that I can trust it, whereas my impulses always get me into trouble.  I can explain it in no other way than when I act on impulse, it feels wrong and I feel uncertain.  When I act on intuition, it feels right as if some information I've needed is being given in time with my actions. As for Jon's description of trance above, it makes me chuckle, not at Jon's words but at myself.  His description describes the workings inside my head in my waking state.  If asked, my husband would probably agree that I walk around in a trance most of the time!  But I'm just looking at the pictures in my head!!    ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I often see mentioned the failure of Post-Modernism to connect with history.  I pay attention to that.  To be outside of history is to be lost, ungrounded.   In my own work I have striven to relate to history; place myself in dialog with it.  And while, it can be exciting for me as I create, I won't deny feeling unnerved when I compare my work to the contemporary market.  I can see that my work looks different.  I tell myself this is a good thing but it doesn't relieve my fear.   My work clearly is dialoging with Abstract Expressionism, the gestural abstraction is unmistakable.  The concept behind the work is where the debate changes.  I use gesture to recall the body in time.  This places the body in relation to outside forces such as chance and imperfection.  This relationship explores the impossibility of the self to relate absolutely to itself.  Therefore it realizes the paradox that the self resides in context but is also obliterated by that same context.   In my work the flattened plane and the 'all-over' composition is replaced by spatiality and isolated elements.  Bold defiance is replaced with temporal insolidity.  There is a feeling that at any moment if we look again, the whole scene will have shifted and changed.  The forceful elements will have lost ground, be under threat, be consumed.   The self has a confident presence in my work but it is a presence which is tenuous, momentary.  It is a presence which knows it only has a moment.  The self in my reinterpretation holds its inner continuity, but sees the articulation of its presence as fleeting and so absolute relation to itself an impossibility.   I, for one, am ready to move on from Post-Modernism.  How about a shift into 'Temporalism'?  It has a nice ring to it.      ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   The discussion we were having about resolving the desire to work intuitively and the desire to enter into artistic/stylistic debate (David Minton - Dead and Dying Flowers post #50, and my posts #4 & #5, in addition to comments on those posts) has taken a turn to question objectivity and subjectivity, which is perfectly natural and opens a mammoth tin of worms.  But being the inquisitive minds we are we're going to tackle it. David comments:  Jane, If, whilst nailing a message to a post in the company of another, I hit my thumb with the hammer, we can both see the hammer but only I can feel my pain. An objective hammer and subjective pain? David, I think the hammer is in a state of objecthood, your feeling of the pain is phenomenological, the person with you is a witness to the event and the message on the post is a subjective communication by you to the world. Grammatically speaking, you (the subject) feel the pain (object) caused by the hammer (indirect object), that is, in a sentence construction of this sort.  All three of those elements can change position and their grammatical value changes as does the emphasis of the meaning of the sentence.  I mention grammar here only because it seems philosophy has taken a turn into literature with the work of Jacques Derrida, which has a bearing on art. If I look at the hammer and you look at the hammer and we agree it is a hammer that is an objective conclusion.  However, it could easily be argued that we recognize the symbol of hammer and so understand the object in front of us as a hammer, in which case it is a subjective conclusion. If you depict a hammer, a red thumb, a bent nail and a fallen message, it could be a subjective depiction of the inability to strike true thus causing undue harm and a failed attempt at communication. If you see a hammer depicted with a caption reading 'hammer' and you have no reason to doubt the source where you see the depiction, it can be said to be an objective depiction.  The trouble with that however, are there any sources which are beyond doubt?  And is the giving of information (i.e. education) the beginning of conditioning? I don't actually believe in objectivity except as chance.  And absolutely all of this is up for refutation and debate.  This is my understanding of objectivity and subjectivity off the top of my head without delving into the study of any of these issues further - something which I think my reading is about to lead me into.  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I am making two postings in response to David Minton's comment on my post #6.  The first, post #7, addresses objectivity and subjectivity.    This is the second posting to address David's question about my statement, 'Therefore, it [the relationship of the body with outside forces] realizes the paradox that the self resides in context but is also obliterated by that same context.' I will start my explanation by reiterating a paragraph further down in post 6: The self has a confident presence in my work but it is a presence which is tenuous, momentary.  It is a presence which knows it only has a moment.  The self in my reinterpretation holds its inner continuity, but sees the articulation of its presence as fleeting and so absolute relation to itself an impossibility.  When I say 'the self resides in context', I mean the self is defined by the context in which it finds itself.  But this definition is limited if it is taken to be the end of the story, which I feel strongly that modernist views of the self have done.  If the perspective of this definition of self is opened up and set in relation to other things, which most likely are unrelated, happening at the same time, the definition of self becomes diluted, diminished, obscured, unimportant.    Some examples: I am human.  There are six billion humans on the planet.  Which one am I and where is my place in terms of importance with the rest of those six billion?   A man has a career as a computer analyst and has been successful in his position for 35 years.  His company makes changes in response to market conditions and the man is made redundant.  Who is he now and what does he claim he does?   I am an American living in France.  I know where I come from.  I cannot convey the weight of my personal history to another who has no experience of the United States, the Mid-west, the state of Kentucky, of any other Americans, and what information they may have puts me in relation to things seen in the context of current events in which my country partakes, having nothing whatsoever to do with me.  My only chance to present myself in this situation is during the moments I stand in front of my French neighbor and communicate in limited French.   My view of the self could perhaps be seen as defeatist, depressive, timorous even, but I don't see it that way.  I see the self as part of a larger whole and to look only at the self is narcissistic and self important.  We all are in relation to other things, other people, time, and I feel, only in looking at this relationship will understanding be found.  This relationship diminishes us yes, but it also is a more realistic view of who we are in the world.  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In response to a discussion with David Minton on my post #7.   Let's look at some definitions of self, identity and obliteration; we seem to be going in circles around the meaning of these words.   From Webster's New World Dictionary:               self: 1. the identity, character, etc. of any person or thing  2. one's own person as distinct from all others  3. one's own welfare or interest               identity:  1. the state or fact of being the same  2.(a) the state or fact of being some specific person or thing; individuality  (b) the state of being as described               obliterate:  1. to blot out; efface  2. to destroy               efface:  1. to rub out; erase  2. to make (oneself) inconspicuous   I understand there to be no distinction between identity and self, they are one and the same.   If you try to place self and identity in a hierarchy of intentionality, you could perhaps say self exerts intention and identity displays motivation, with the distinction being self and intention are less defined than identity and motivation.  Identity and motivation are often specifically named.  But I believe it is erroneous to make this distinction because what I intend is the genesis of my motivation.  I think self and identity have come to appear different and distinct only because identity is often defined in concrete terms such as I am a parent, I am a teacher; whereas, the self often remains nebulous and undefined as some part of ourselves which guide and direct our being.  Our self is our identity and our identity is our self.   This argument of the non-existence of self and that we are made top to bottom by social influence is not something I have studied in depth yet but I have encountered many references to it recently.  I agree (as far as I understand the argument) that we are entirely made by social influence and the self has very little, if no self determination, we can make choices yes, but the way we come to make a choice is determined by all the social influences we have ever experienced in our lives.  And I believe this supports my argument that the self is defined and obliterated by its context.  The self is defined by the context in which it finds itself, and this context obliterates the self, not always as a complete annihilation, but often just as a diminishment.    The concept of the self as some directing, autonomous, pure part of our being has been challenged, and I think rightfully so.  We, none of us, exist without reference to what is outside ourselves, so a view of the self as somehow untouched by the exterior we experience, yet in control of our being is illogical.  I refer to the self because whatever is being debated about the existence of the self at the moment, we each of us exist in time and perceive of our existence in the world.  So an exploration of self is still valid.        I am one of six billion, no one has exactly my DNA, but I share the same 99.9% of everyone else's DNA.  No one has had exactly my life experiences, but our individual experiences are similar enough that we are all able to understand one another's experience, that is, as in contrast to understanding what it is like to be a cuttlefish.  No one has experienced the exact things that I experience in moments of time, but we all experience the same synchronous moments of time.  I am unique, but I have to admit, I find it hard to say what is unique about me.   www.jlbfineart.com  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I work in the studio on Mondays.  It is my day for art and I am available to no one.  This is what I was thinking about on Monday as I worked on new work.     I returned to my childhood today.  I wasn't reminiscing or having sentimental memories of my past, it's a past I'm not always happy to revisit.  But my work in the studio today took me there unexpectedly.   I have several things going at once here, and strangely, they all are funneling my thoughts in one direction.   I worked on six small works on paper, a writing sample for a competition, an exhibition entry and another work - it may be sculptural, it may be painting, it may be conceptual, in fact, I'm not quite sure what it is and whether I face legal action if I exhibit it.  It's this work which has hit me forcefully today.   The six works on paper, as a group, are called '6 obliterations'.  I found things I did not expect to find in these works.  They actually are completely different than what I intended to make.  They connect to my history, too, and have set my thoughts on this path back to my childhood.   The writing sample has a curious theme of crime and punishment (in relation to art).  I chose as my subject a statement of contemplating my actions, my crime, against this last work which I cannot yet define.  It involves a book written by someone else and actions perpetrated by me.  It is these actions to this book which has struck me with such force.   As a child and I think for my whole childhood, I scribbled on anything and everything which came within my reach.  Nothing was safe.  I marked, broke or left trace on everything I knew.  I once even used scotch tape to lift the gold leaf from my grandmother's harp.  That de-gilded patch remained in my view until the day I sold the harp to fund my move to Europe.  Every time I saw it, my subconscious reminded me it was mine, I did it, I made that mark.   The actions and marks I make today on someone else's book make me feel the force of those memories and I remember the strange feelings I had as a child creating my own world within someone else's world.  They were strange feelings of absolute abandon in acting on my thoughts, making my inner space visible; building a world that only I knew and understood.  It was a sort of isolation, but it was me isolating and removing myself from the world I looked out on.  I left that world to create my world.   Clearly, as an adult, one must move away from those kinds of fantasies in order to function.  But the unexpected return of those feelings today as I work has left me with a profound sense of my history, my existence, my self.  The weight of which I can probably never express.     www.jlbfineart.com... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Reading Benjamin Buchloh is like taking a hit to the solar plexus.  He doesn't pull any punches, nor should he.   I recently read 'Figures of authority, Ciphers of Regression: Notes on the Return of Representation in European Painting' published in October Vol. 16, Art World Follies (Spring 1981), published by MIT Press (kindly sent to me by Becky Hunter).  Buchloh states, "Paradoxically, however, both traditional Marxism and standard liberalism exempts artists from their responsibilities as sociopolitical individuals: Marxism through its reflection model, with its historical determinism; liberalism thorough its notion of the artist's unlimited and uninhibited freedom to produce and express.  Thus both political views extend to artists the privilege of assuming their determinate necessity to produce unconscious representations of the ideological world."  Man!   I admit, I don't fully understand the Marxist side of his comparison, but I understand completely what he is talking about from the liberal side.  When I was in school, that is exactly what we were being taught, 'express yourself,' to such an extent that it became facilitated self indulgence.  It was all about expression, we never discussed any responsibility we were going to have as future artists.  Is this being discussed now in art school?  I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it.   With an art world increasingly run by market dictations, perhaps this is a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves as artists; what is our responsibility to society as an artist?  If we expect society to support us and our work, we must certainly, then, owe a debt of responsibility to society through the art we make and present.   What do you think?   www.jlbfineart.com... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In response (part 1) to Rob, Justine and David's comments on my posting #11, thank you all for your comments, I'm delighted to have sparked such a discussion.  Forgive me for being a bit tardy to reply, I am preparing for a solo exhibition and the opening is coming up on the 25th, so I'm a bit distracted.....   Rob, what sounds so interesting about the experience you describe with your Soviet sculpture is the location of this massive work.  The first thing that comes to my mind is to ask whether this is an example of appropriated art (something David mentions in his comment), particularly given the political history of Northern Ireland.   Another point you make which I find interesting is the question of outdated political works.  I must admit, I have always felt uneasy with political artwork, partially for this reason.  Times change, society changes, values change, if we make art to last is it responsible to make work that is potentially confrontational or explosive?  What does it mean for us as a society when work outlives it's time and becomes something possibly ridiculous?  Do we retire it with reverence or do we forget about it only to see it appropriated (perhaps) and used for purposes which are possibly inappropriate?  There are lots of questions surrounding 'responsibility'.   Justine, I've read your blog and that is one of the things I took away from it, was this concern from the workers that your work be more than just self expression.  I find this compelling because this is a slice of society, what I mean is, there are as many people who are not interested in art as there are those in society who are.  Do we only talk to those who are interested?  Rather like preaching to the converted, isn't it?  And if we only talk to those who are interested, are we fulfilling our responsibility to society as David outlines in his comment?  I share his idea "that making art is in its self socially responsible", I feel a keen sense of responsibility to look at issues of existence, experience, of living life itself because I feel continued reflection on what it means to be human is something we and society needs to do, especially in times of increased technological advances and military conflict.  I also feel a responsibility to discuss art issues with people who have no connection with art.  I feel their grievances against art and artists are important because they are our real critics.   You ask "how can you justify your work as primarily self expression to people who don't have a way into art; it is seen as self indulgent and useless".  That is a very good question and an important one.  Why is self expression important?  For me, it's important because my expression of something interior may touch someone's own experience.  I think this is the essence of connection, it is how we stay connected as a society and one way we keep our humanity.  But when people feel excluded from finding "a way into art" the importance of self expression breaks down.   I would be very interested to know what kind of art the quarry workers want from you because what I read behind their concern that you make art that is not just for yourself, is a desire to connect with you and what you are doing and what you produce.  It sounds as if they are asking for a way in.  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   And David (part 2), last but certainly not least, as I said above, I do agree with your comment that making art is socially responsible but not all artists see it that way and not all art is responsible.  The instruction of social responsibility is tricky because so often instruction is based in fashion, what’s current, and that dilutes the importance of taking responsibility with one’s work.  But to never discuss the reasons for taking responsibility with one’s work is perhaps worse.  To be allowed to make work in “unlimited and uninhibited freedom to produce and express”, as Benjamin Buchloh describes in his essay is irresponsible on the part of educational institutions.  It just sends the message that “you are all that is important” which we as mature adults understand (hopefully) not to be the case.   As you say yourself, “contractually however the supplier is bound to supply what is required” which to my mind reinforces my point that if we expect society to support us and our work we owe a debt of responsibility in what we produce and present to society.  Perhaps it is because I am American (remembering the “Contract with America” years of Papa Bush), but I feel we are bound to supply what is required – and I don’t mean just making work that people want like the pretty seascapes you’ve mentioned before.  I mean making work that fulfills both our personal needs and that of society.  That is not always easy; it requires boundaries and limitations, something a liberal society doesn’t always like.   www.jlbfineart.com  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I've learned something.  And in re-reading the comments on my last few postings, I realize our discussion has impacted my actions directly.  Thank you everyone for your wishes of good luck! I had an opening on Wednesday, the 25th of August, for my solo exhibition Vif!  I have come away from the experience a little more able to articulate what I feel to be the responsibilities of the artist, which we were discussing recently.  I faced an audience of conservative, rural but wealthy individuals who basically had very little, if no interest in abstract art.  I had to find a way to present my work to them so that they could begin to engage.  I felt responsible to do justice to my work and to find a way to reach out to the audience to help them understand.  I also felt responsible to the gallery owners to do my best to educate this audience because it was the first show of abstract art they had presented.   I feel very strongly that an artist is responsible for more than just 'being responsible to the work and all else follows' as David Minton has suggested.  I want to say clearly, that I do agree with this statement and I believe it to be very important, but I feel there is more....   Responsibilities of the Artist:   To do homework - Whether this is the development of technical skills, ideas and concepts, knowledge base, business skills, verbalization of ideas etc. we must be responsible to all aspects in the continued development of ourselves.   To understand the importance of key relationships - dealers, collectors, press, supporters, curators, colleagues These relationships (in no particular order) and perhaps others, should be developed and maintained with respect, openness and integrity.  They are important to us and we are important to them.   To consider your audience - As artists we should be thoughtful of those who view our work.  We must respect the audience at whatever level they are at in terms of understanding art and do all we can to help them engage with our work.  It is always important education when we spark new ways of seeing the world.   To always strive to broaden horizons - We all can so easily become set in our ways and views.  It is essential to have intellectual stimulation and challenge.  Artists are particularly good at providing that stimulation and challenge (one of the reasons why art is important).   To realize our relationship to society - We are in context.  We must understand that relationship, how we fit in to it, and why we are an important part of it, even if we feel sometimes that we are not connected and are in no way important, and also, to realize how important the relationship to society is to our survival.   To give as much or more than we take - The effort we take to address and fulfill each of these responsibilities will return more than we can imagine at the end of it all.  Believe in that.   To the work - Work with integrity - always. Viewers sense when work is flippant, false or not integral.  I truly believe an audience can accept if we can't answer why we did something or what it may mean to us, but they will not accept being lied to.     To yourself - Believe in what you are doing, who you are and that your experience is important in the larger scheme of things.  We've chosen to be artists because we want to communicate something.  Finding out what that is and finding a way to say it may be the most important thing we do.     Tell me what you think we are responsible for as artists, I'd love to hear what you think.   www.jlbfineart.com         ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Here is a video from the opening of Vif!... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In response to David Minton's post #56.   Everything is a class-based tribal totem, not just tasteful objects, our thoughts, ethics, language, everything is a symbol.  The choices we make, the judgments we follow; we accept or reject them because we want to project a certain something about our identity (sorry, David we're back on that merry-go-round!).  The trouble is it is very hard to separate out social influence on the construction of our identity - if it is possible at all.    So do any of us really know who we are, what we like or don't, what we think?  I mean, yes certainly, we know who we are in relation to society and how we fit into it, but can any of us find our core selves which stand apart from social influence?  I can't say that I can.  What I'm trying to say is, these questions of taste, intellectualism, and totems/symbols all revolve around current debate and what is current is also trend.  Current debate is also social influence.   This doesn't resolve any questions about whether something has value if it is tasteful but I think it has bearing on the ability to recognize the 'markers' of value.  To my mind the first step in all this is learning to identify those markers because from there we really can debate issues of value, trend, intellect etc. because through that knowledge we see context.  Context is everything.   I find it important, for example, to know that Victor Burgin, who you mention, was a fundamental player in the development of conceptualism.  His work and writing are compelling but in the back of my mind I know he was a trend-setter and as such, his theories will be tested against time just as the Bloomsbury group set the trend and are now being tested.  Pollock was a trend-setter but he was also a product of his time.  The symbolic, emotional, psychological content in art of that era became suspect and turned to intellectualism.  Intellectualism will also face the same test, if it hasn't already.   We must always question what we do and what we think because that process becomes visible in our work and I think true value is found in the process of thinking, even if our thinking is socially influenced - which it necessarily is.  The process of thinking is also the signature you mention earlier, that is visible in our work.  Our thoughts may be socially influenced but the temporal way in which we think them, the thoughts we lay next to each other, perhaps is our own.     www.jlbfineart.com... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   David, I'll grant we may run into trouble in our discussions because I'm American and you're British - but vive la difference!   Re Burgin's work, view his work as a strand of what?  How is a strand different than a trend?  His work has caused a shift in art production and art theory, is that not a trend?  The word 'trend' is, I admit, a bit vulgar, but can you say it is out of step with what art has become (if I can phrase it that way, uncomfortably doing so), and I'm talking about the art that people like Burgin and any other big name artist produce.  At that level of production the stakes are higher and more is involved than the search for truth - which I do believe we are all searching for, even the big guys.  But for Burgin to reach the level he has and to be the influence he is has involved many other people working with him than just he alone.  When you get people behind you working you in a direction it can be called a trend, or style, or mode, or direction, or theory, or movement or any other name, but it means the same thing.   As for respect, I certainly have no disrespect in mind when I use the word 'trend'.  To be a trend-setter is to be an innovator, a force, unique, visionary, determined, confident, inspired and inspiring.  Art is not so lofty that it is above common vernacular, and like it or not, art is commodity so why is the word trend distasteful?  Yes, Pollock was a 'driver of change and a contributor to a movement', as you say.  He was also much more.  His vision caused inspiration, other artists worldwide were inspired to take his ideas and interpret them for themselves (the Gutai group in Japan, for example).  Nearly 60 years down the road from Pollock's drip paintings, the drip in art still harkens back to him.  Pollock is beyond trend-setting he is a monumental force, but his techniques (which actually were inspired by Siqueiros, the Mexican muralist) fueled the look of art production for years to follow.  I feel about Pollock as he felt about Picasso - he is (was, speaking of Picasso) the major force in painting to contend with.   Re choice and judgment, tell me one choice or judgment you make which is made outside of your identity (we're talking in the normal realm of living, not conditions of duress).  We choose and judge because we want to project something about which we see ourselves to be.  I choose the clothes I do because I see myself a certain way and perhaps I want to convey my personal tastes.  I judge my actions to be right or wrong because I believe myself to be a certain kind of person and I want others to see me that way too.  If 'it might be true that our choices and judgments are synonymous with our identity', as you say, then it must also be true that our choices and judgments project our identity.  To live in the world is to project an identity.  Projection is not necessarily something we do on purpose, which I perceive you are stating as your objection, it happens naturally.   Re thinking and thinking about, I don't believe there is a distinction, unless it is to define the chemical and electrical activity of the brain as thinking.  To think is to think about something.  Why should there be a distinction?   Re markers of value, when we talk about markers of value we probably need to define the term 'value'.  If we're talking about money, then yes, a tasteful object is a marker.  If we are talking about social value then laws would be markers and are neither tasteful (perhaps) nor objects.  If we are talking about the value of our lives, perhaps education is a marker of that value and is neither tasteful (again, perhaps) nor an object.   If we are talking only in the terms of objects and value, I would say quality is a marker of value, reputation, rarity and innovation perhaps are other markers of value.  Often 'tasteful' accompanies these other qualities, but not always.   So off you go to sit in the dark, but two things, keep a window open so you can see the stars! And come back and let's talk more. By the way, it's nice to hear a twinkle in your voice. www.jlbfineart.com   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In response to Rob Turner's comments below:   Rob thank you so much for your comment.  It's funny, I read your post the other day on technology and I wondered if you had read something I had written, and then I found your comment on my post.  I'll elaborate, if I may....   I read something once, written by Arnold Toynbee, which chilled me to the bone.  He said, (and I'm paraphrasing), the breakdown of civilization happens when it becomes focused on militarism and new technologies, to the detriment of the arts and other cultural activity.  It had an immediate effect on how I saw art-making.  It is the reason I work with gesture, I want never to forget there is a person behind the art.   Clearly, the breakdown of civilization is a complicated thing and involves more than the cessation of a society to create (again paraphrasing Toynbee), but the effort to keep the arts alive and valued is vital.  Art balances society.  Culture keeps us civilized.  New technology is not a bad thing and art made from new technologies is not a bad thing either.  But loosing sight of why art is important in the scheme of things is bad.   I remember an image from the Bosnian War of the man playing his cello amidst the total destruction of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedran_Smailovi%C4%87).  His bravery wasn't because he placed himself in the midst of war, unprotected; his bravery was to remind the world of its humanity, to defy savagery and atrocity.   I just find these social aspects compelling and it is why I do what I do.   Indeed, you may be so bold, thank you for the comment on my work.  I value that and I invite comment.  I agree with your view.  The digital work lacks the hand, doesn't it?  Perhaps there is something of significance; the work which comes from the body as well as the mind is more compelling that that which comes from the mind and technology which nullifies the body (in this case, perhaps).  Even though the digital work comes from my paintings and is self-referential, there is a distance, a removal.  It is the reason I switched my medium from photography to painting, I simply missed the hand.  I find though, that now I miss photography and the digital is an effort to work again with it.  I think there may be an issue of scale with these works.  I can imagine them very large and perhaps they would benefit from being experienced in a larger scale.       ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I have read several references lately to artists who surround their work with complicated language to puff-up simple ideas attempting to make their work and themselves look more clever than they are, (to paraphrase Dan Thompson describing the clarity of Nicola Dale's writing style in her blog, The Collaborator) or as Jo Moore elegantly said, 'there are many people whose work is less than the myth they've built around it'.  And just in case my slender Cinderella foot fits that shoe, I am going to put myself to the test.   I have no way of knowing if either Dan or Jo have read my blog or seen my work.  Actually, Jo did say once there were some interesting ideas in my blog and she was going to sit down with a cup of tea and read more, but I don't know if she ever did or what she may have thought.  So I have no idea whether I am included in this puffed-up group of artists in their minds.  As my thoughts and images are visible in the general milieu I think I had better do some soul searching and test myself.   I thought of Gerhard Richter's comment on his figurative paintings, 'I wanted to make a photograph'.  That is about as simple a statement as one can make.  So following his example, my intentions are never fully realized.  However, there are lots of questions surrounding his desire to 'make a photograph' out of paint and I believe there may be questions as to why my intensions are never fully realized.   I work with gesture because it represents a moving body and a thinking self.  A moving body is a body in context.  The context creates a paradox.  Context defines the identity of the self, but diminishes the power of identity to fully realize itself.  My interest is in this paradox and the effect of context on identity rather than identity for its own sake.   It is impossible for me to see my work with the unbiased eye of another, so it is impossible for me to know if I'm spouting a bunch of flowery (or floury!) rubbish that is not apparent in my work.  I think about these things and they are circling in my head as I work so I think they must be apparent.  The following questions perhaps will test it.   - Is gesture visible in my work?            yes   - Is the concept of context and therefore conflict visible in my work?   yes   - Is the self or an identity visible?          yes, perhaps in a latent or symbolic way.   - Is duality or an identity which is separated visible?     yes   - Is it evident that the self is never fully realized?           I think this must be yes if the answer to the question above is yes.   - Is it evident the self is fleeting and tenuous?    yes   But then perhaps it was predictable that my answers would be 'yes' because, as I said, this stuff is circling in my head as I work, so I think it must be visible.  It is one of the pitfalls of working in isolation, thinking becomes a bit circular and I can become dizzy very easily.  I would be very interested to know what you think and how you may answer these questions, or if you have any questions to pose to me instead of these.   www.jlbfineart.com   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I think I've discovered something in my use of the word 'duality' to Nicola Dale - I think in two's.   It reminds me of a program I saw years ago about Buckminster Fuller, the designer/inventor of the geodesic dome and all around inventive genius entrepreneur -  http://designmuseum.org/design/r-buckminster-fuller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller   He saw the world in triangles.  He told a story of when he was a child his class was given some toothpicks and green peas and told to build a structure that would stand.  Most of the children built cubes, if they managed anything at all, but Fuller built a three dimensional triangle.  It had a triangular base and he used three more toothpicks, one attached at each corner of the triangle base meeting in an apex to finish his shape.  According to his story, his teachers were astonished.   The first lesson I had in art was from my grandmother.  I remember drawing a picture and putting two checks in the sky for birds.  My grandmother told me I should put three, 'two over here and one there', to balance the picture with three things, 'the Japanese do it that way,' she told me.  I didn't know what a Japanese was or why they balanced their pictures with three things instead of two, but I took her word for it and from then on I put three checks in my skies.   I still think in two's though, and I find myself frequently working with two elements, or space that is divided into two.  I find it really stimulating.  Now that I understand more about balance and symmetry, the challenge is to un-balance those two elements, not by adding a third element as my grandmother suggested, but by sticking to the two elements like grim death and working through symmetry to find what is not balanced, what is unpredictable.   Don't know that is has any significance whatsoever, I just found it interesting to discover as I was thinking about why I chose the word 'duality' in my last post.  By the way, I had to chuckle at Nicola's piece titled 'Hell' on her website, check it out http://nicoladale.wordpress.com/category/artworks/f-h/   www.jlbfineart.com   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In response to David Minton's question on my post #19   A great question David, and straight to the heart of the matter!  He asks, 'How does the work that you make engage the description that you give to it?'   That is precisely what I am trying to find out if I do successfully.  Let me try and answer on two levels, first in regards to title, because the title is a sort of description for me and second in terms of theory.   I like short, concise, preferably one word titles.  I like them because I want to hint at my meaning for the work without confounding a viewer with a long title that may interfere with their own reading of the work.  I often find a title as I work and it is often a very intuitive thing; simply, something will occur to me.  If that doesn't happen, I consider the work until something comes.  In either case, I question then if the title relates to the work, to the concept/theory and does it help to bring the work and theory together.  I have to feel that it does all those things before I keep the title.   I've been told, 'the theory comes from the work; don't try to make your work fit theory!'  Sorry, but I don't work that way.  I do agree that trying to make work according to a rigid set of theory rules could be very confining (although, I don't think Mondrian found it so), and work made from theory risks becoming contrived.  But for me having theory circling in my head as I enter the studio arms me for battle, so to speak.  When I enter the studio and confront the white, all of the things I've been studying and reading go with me.  I never confront the white unarmed.   But have I been successful?  Does the work I make engage the description I give to it?   Well, one of the ways it engages the description is perhaps through what I could call 'the mirror element' or 'duality' as I said originally in post #19.  Two similar elements suggest a split or confrontation and as I'm working with the concept of the impossibility of the self to fully identify with itself, this seems fitting.  There are also disembodied fragments or features in my work which could suggest this limitation of identity.   I also explore the paradoxical idea that context defines and obliterates the self (or the identity of the self, if you like).  I think this may be visible by the imperfect and chance occurrences which happen in my work, areas of collision and by the use of gesture itself.  The gestures in my work are not heroic; they are gestures of transience - fleeting, momentary, and tentative.  There is an identity behind the gestures, making the gestures, but this self isn't given full allowance to state or stake its presence.  It is an interrupted identity.   Sean Burke's 'The Death and Return of the Author' has influenced my concepts of the self a lot.  It boils down to the fact that even if an author or artist removes their voice or themselves from a work, very much as Burgin does in his conceptual pieces, the audience still takes their direction from the 'voice' in the piece, reading it as the voice of the artist.  So the author/artist can never fully remove himself from the perception of his presence by the viewer.  My use of gesture is the 'return of the artist' in the notion of the self and the post-structural effort to kill off the self (as in death of the author).  Likewise, I don't use gesture in the way the Abstract Expressionists used it; a sort of 'I am man hear me roar!'  My gesture knows it hasn't got long to state its case.  I think that feeling of movement, transience and perhaps even agitation is visible.   I hope that has answered your question, David, because, man was that hard!   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   What are the boundaries of isolation?   I feel myself in a funny place; mentally, I'm engaged and could be even more so, physically, I'm still in rural France working and learning alone.   Straddling engagement and isolation brings up questions of self determination because it seems, now, more than ever I must bring to bear all my experience, knowledge and talent to propel myself forward.  I must find the right measure and order of each of these things.  The emphasis here is I must do this; the I which has been determined by social influences but yet acts alone.  Not only must I use what I have gained and all that I am, but I must also add to and perhaps redefine the gain and myself.  I must continue to fund my experience and knowledge and perhaps find undiscovered talents.   When I started this blog my goal was to engage with other artists and all my thanks to the Artists Talking community for helping me to do this.  I have found new artist friends and colleagues and new opportunities are opening up to me, it is wonderful.  I'm moving from a position of total self containment to one where I bump into others.   In that contained environment I thought as I liked, explored as I liked and did what I liked all in relation to a very nebulous 'out there' idea of art world conditions.  Bumping into others is in many ways far more stimulating but more unnerving.  The comfort of knowing what I mean and how I mean within the confines of my thoughts is not translatable to others.  I am left with knowing my mind and all the world is outside of that.  Perhaps it isn't possible to move from the straddling position of engagement and isolation - we all straddle the same gap.  Maybe the trick is to keep both in view and in balance neither fearing the isolation nor the engagement.    www.jlbfineart.com  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Thanks so much to Rosalind Davis for the warm welcome in her recent blog postings.  I am delighted to be a new member of Cor Blimey Arts.  We're already busy at work and it is such a pleasure working with an energetic group of like-minded people.  I'm especially excited right now because I'm going to be in London at the end of November for the PV of Relay at Core Gallery, November 26, which means I get the chance to meet some of my blog friends!  Relay is going to be a really great show.  Cor Blimey Artists are exploring their curatorial skills by inviting one guest artist each to exhibit.  There will be over forty artists exhibiting in pairs exploring a vast array of topics.  Go to the Core Gallery site for more info: www.coregallery.co.uk I invited Annabel Tilley to be my guest artist.  Our collaborative wall installation is entitled Extreme Narrative.  We explore interrupted identity through a pairing of her '64 almost-identical drawings of Josef Fritzl blindfolded' and my '6 obliterations'.  A chill runs down my spine when I contemplate the meaning of my work when placed next to hers.  Context, context, context. For a preview of our Extreme Narrative go to my news page at http://www.jlbfineart.com/News.html The frontiers of isolation have just shifted - hooray!!          ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Hot Chestnut Man LIVES!... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   WOW! is all I can manage to get my fingers to type at the moment.  Many thanks to Sarah Rowles for choosing my blog, along with Jo Moore's blog, as choice blogs; I am delighted to be chosen with Jo because her blog is one of my favorites too.  It is also with many thanks to a-n Artists Talking.  Without this platform to connect, I would never have been able to reach so many other artists to discuss issues about work.   I have been thinking about my blog recently, because things have suddenly shifted for me.  As a new member of Cor Blimey Arts I am no longer isolated in many respects, even though I do still work and study alone, as I mentioned in a recent post.  In effect, I have bridged the gap of isolation with the help and generosity of the blogging community.  And so, I've been wondering if my blog and its title are still relevant.  Happily, I can say I believe they are.  Even without this much appreciated affirmation from Sarah, I had come to the conclusion that the isolation I still face is one we all face as artists.  We all think alone and we all face the audience alone.    There is also no denying the fact that our position, wherever that may be for each of us, places us in context with history, in all its manifestations.  As artists we must face that as well.  History is becoming a non-linear thing for me and I'm discovering through reading, it is for other thinkers as well.  To move one's thoughts from a linear progression to a globular (my favorite image of history at the moment) entity of occurrence seems full of intrigue.  If you stop for a moment and think of all the things happening at this very moment, it can't be rendered as linear, or if it can the lines will create a mass because there are just so many things happening in so many places in the same synchronous moment; boggles my mind!   So I will continue to talk about isolation and history because I still live with mine everyday as I suspect you do too.         www.jlbfineart.com  ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588     I was asked recently, by Chantelle Purcell of Core Gallery, about transience in my work (see link below for the full interview with Chantelle).  She saw a Deleuzian sense of becoming and an unresolved quality to the work, something I thought was very interesting.  I admit I'm not too familiar with Deleuze, but I knew his name from reading art history.   That was as far as my knowledge went, so I looked him up and I found this:   "Underneath all reason lies delirium and drift." Gilles Deleuze   Now that's as tasty as chocolate to me!    The division between reason and irrationality is so thin it shimmers.  What reason can we hold onto when everything around us shifts so constantly?  And what irrationality must we embrace in order to flow with that shift?   I've had a lot of experience with transience and I've had to come to terms with those two questions.  As I told Chantelle, transience is what is real for me.   Transience and isolation go hand-in-hand.  I've had to deal with isolation in so many other ways that the isolation of working alone as an artist really isn't that bad.  For me, the difficulty of isolation as an artist is questioning whether the work is any good.  We all make work we like and I'm just as certain we all wonder if anyone else will like it.   And I don't believe for a second it is as simple as that statement appears.   I feel a deep satisfaction with my work, I'm pleased with what I've produced and I'm not really too bothered by the idea that others may not like it or respond to it.  When I show my work, I'm not offended if people don't like it; I sort of mentally shrug and move on.  But when people do respond to it, I give a mental sigh of relief.  It's not the approbation of being liked it's more the discovery of common ground.  It's like discovering a crazy passion for something in common with a friend.   In that moment isolation and transience dissipate and there is connection.  Is this why we feel compelled to make art?  Is that feeling so profound for us that we are propelled to move forward, becoming artists in order to find it again?  Do we know delirium and drift fills the space between the connections?   (All said facing into my own crit with Graham Crowley next week! eek!)     www.jlbfineart.com http://www.coregallery.co.uk/relay/ http://coregalleryinterviews.blogspot.com/     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I've been doing some homework (reading, as always) and in the course of telling my patient husband about what I had read, we had a bit of a verbal tussle.  But I'm very grateful for the tussle because it sorted some things out in my thinking.   The topic of homework and ensuing discussion was 'liking'.  That is, does 'liking' have any place in addressing art?  That is kind of a touchy subject based on what I was reading and some of the discussions in the blogs because it invariably leads to a discussion of taste (sorry David M.).  I've been sort of leaning to the side which says art is not to be liked because I can see the importance of other issues involved when considering art.  But my husband being the ever rational, logical and fiercely independent individual that he is, said tosh!  His point being that if 'liking' goes, art is then elitist - and he's right.  This is what I came to upon reflection...   Liking has no place in determining worth, but it is very important in viewing.  If we remove liking entirely from the equation, art becomes definitively elitist because only the art educated will understand the nuanced issues behind the work such as movements, history etc. and how the work may relate or not depending on its response to those things (we see it already, in abundance).  Not everyone who looks at art and enjoys art has the deep understanding of art history that we who are engaged professionally with art do.  I feel strongly that is the reason art shouldn't be 'just anything', notwithstanding the fact that often 'just anything' is not engaged with art history.  Art should engage with the audience on many levels; one of those levels being 'liking'.    As the poster by William Morris, Jeremy Deller & Scott King protesting funding cuts says, "I do not want art for a few any more than I want education for a few, or freedom for a few".  This statement has implications beyond just funding cuts to the arts.   If we make art professionally, meaning we hope to earn money from it, it must also consider the market and audience in its equation.  Otherwise, it's a private activity done for one's own pleasure, period.  That is not to suggest that we should make art for a market either.  Art is complicated, and it should be.  But we do ourselves a disservice and we keep the public at bay when we refuse to discuss our work in terms of explanation to a viewing audience.  It isn't wrong to explain the work.  That old argument, "the work should speak for itself!" is also elitist and serves little purpose, to my mind.   Why is it hateful to hear that someone likes what we've made?  Isn't that as sincere a compliment as hearing our work creates an important link to some period in art history?  I think it is and it should be given the respect it deserves.     www.jlbfineart.com... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   The sparks, both delightful and alarming, that fly when we come into contact with others is fascinating.  My week in London with my pals at Core Gallery produced both kinds - mostly the delightful kind.  I think it would be impossible to trace the threads of thought surrounding the conversations which came out of that week, but they were many and complex is design.  I come away fuller, richer, more intelligent and bound by deeper connections.  Man! Was it good!!   I think I have found a tag for my work.  First question is why should I need a tag?  Well, in a way it grounds what I do and if I am to speak intelligently about my work I think it helps.  I call it a 'tag' because I think of it in exactly that way.  It does hold a certain connotation to marketability which is not entirely comfortable and it also pins the work to a certain context.  That, for me at any rate, is a bit more acceptable, but I can see for many, that too would be uncomfortable.  I use the word 'tag' because of these slightly negative connotations; to ignore them would be to ignore the reality of the efforts I make to sell my work.   The tag I've found is postconceptual painting.  Perhaps nothing new in that term, but it does seem to be coming into its own in terms of use.  I understand this term in two ways: first, as Graham Crowley wrote in his curatorial statement for the 2008 exhibit Precious Things at Highlanes Gallery, Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland, http://grahamcrowley.blogspot.com/2010/11/precious-things-2008.html http://www.highlanes.ie/Activity.aspx?ActivityID=44   Referred to as post-conceptual painting, the work presented here acknowledges the legacy of conceptual art in a similar way that painting embraced cubism a century ago. This is an important issue. Too often the relationship between painting and conceptual art is wrongly presented as polarised or irreconcilable, but the approach here doesn't dictate stylistic orthodoxy; on the contrary, it is characterised by diversity and pluralism.                                                                                                                                                                                                      Graham Crowley   And secondly, as an umbrella term for painting since 1980:   The "death of painting" and its subsequent resurrection in transformed conditions is a leitmotif of the modern era. Painting's postconceptual resurgence at the start of the 1980s began a dramatic expansion of its field. If painting remains important today, it is because its contradictions have been acknowledged as artists have radically diversified the components of its production and presentation.                                                                                                           From the publisher's synopsis of 'Painting' by Terry R. Meyers http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12475   For my purposes, postconceptual fits my work because I am attempting to merge the abstraction of Late Modernism and the context of Conceptualism.   (It's okay, you can tell me I'm being ambitious - I am.)  As I said recently to my friend Annable Tilley, Late Modernism, specifically Abstract Expressionism, was incomplete because the self had no context, or rather its only context was itself, and Conceptualism was all about context but effaced the self.  What will painting look like that attempts to merge the two?  And why should it be important to merge the two?  Perhaps my painting is what painting would look like if the two were merged, someone else I believe, will have to answer that question.  It is important, I think, to merge the two because the 'bigger picture' of the reality of society today demands a fuller truth of our experience.  Humanity confronts the dehumanizing effects of classification in all areas of existence.  The social safety net we have become accustomed to in society is eroding.  When we realize it fully, where is that going to place us?      I use gesture to symbolize the self, the individual.  Up to this point I have explored the idea of the self in relation to the influence of the outside forces of a generalized time-based context.  Perhaps now I need to look at how the 'thought as media', and the context and classification of Conceptualism may affect self as I have defined it in relation to time and situation.  And perhaps also define the relationship of self, classified.  (Gulp)   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Now Jane, I'm looking at these blogs searching for stuff to help me start painting. I'm looking to justify its manfacture in this time we live. I was forced to leave it, like a left handed person might be forced to use their right hand by social conditioning.....Paintings only remaining context is itself and I am looking so hard to disprove that. It seems the creation of images is just about healthy enough to continue making them in other media. So why dont the two quite join up anymore? Or do they and I'm in some kind of denial............. Is your dual fusion the same elixior that I'm looking for. your thoughts? posted on 2010-12-08 by Rob Turner Rob very kindly posted this comment on my last posting #28 and I have been considering my response very carefully.  So here it is: Rob, I think painting is as relevant today as other media, more so in a way, because it is one of the few remaining media that merge the body and mind in a tangible extension of the self.  To my mind that makes its context the whole of the human experience.  Certainly, other media are compelling, but too often I come away from work feeling untouched, meaning I haven't connected to what is human about the piece.  The human aspect either wasn't important to the artist or 'conditioning' has convinced the artist of its unimportance.  I believe that tangible extension will become more and more important as time goes on. I think people talk about the 'death of painting' because they can't imagine anything new to do with it.  I've struggled with the same issue, but you know what, I don't really care if painting has been pronounced 'dead'.  I still go into the studio and am surprised by what happens, so I feel painting is anything but 'dead'.  I also see other artists working with paint in a vivacious way and I'm convinced it is still very alive.  Just as 'death of the author' has been proven to be untenable, so has the 'death of painting'. Perhaps that is the question to explore in your return to painting; why don't image-making and painting join comfortably anymore?  I think it is a valid and important question.  It's kind of like asking, why don't the body and expression join comfortably anymore?  Both are good questions, pertinent to our time.  I find it interesting that the body within art seems to have changed places with expression and is being used as a symbol to express, rather than some symbol being used to express the body. When I was in London, I saw two exhibitions which were focused on body as symbol, one sculpture and one painting, both media espoused to be 'dead': 1. Rachel Kneebone at White Cube: http://www.whitecube.com/exhibitions/rk%202010/ These figures depart from literal depictions of the body, expressing feelings directly and viscerally.  And I would add to that, Kneebone used the body and body parts to symbolize expression.  Using the body not as a vehicle of expression but as a readable symbol for what it is to express. 2. G.L. Brierley at Madder 139: http://www.madder139.com/exhibitions/past.html Looking at painting always involves perception and interpretation, but Brierley's convoluted pictures seem defined by their capacity to trigger pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon whereby a viewer recognizes shapes in abstract patterns. These paintings were exquisitely crafted.  And I think perhaps Brierley was poking fun at our propensity to see all bodies as overtly sexed and freakish. Her bodies were not the usual pleasure objects or objects of desire, but rather like stuffed toys for sex.  Distorted body used to symbolize its own obsessions. So now it's back to you, Rob.  What are your thoughts?   www.jlbfineart.com   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Part 1: Rob made this comment on my last posting #29.  I am reposting it here because it got cut by word limits and is a bit chopped up.  Also the links aren't live, and they really should be viewed.  I will make a second posting along with this one in order to respond to Rob. My Thoughts about painting! I will start my response with two examples of painting (or use of paint) which have shaped my whole approach to making art. A) The Ngurrara Canvas 10x8m 1997. http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/ngurrara_the_great_sandy_desert_canvas_/about_the_canvas/ The painting depicts land and its history owned by aboriginals and was carried by them all the way to Canberra, while politicians amended the Native Title Acts. Then traditional dances were performed on it, this provided vivid evidence and ownership of the aboriginal lands in question, and this cultural expression bridged language breakdowns. B) The Hundertwasser House http://www.wien-vienna.com/hundertwasser.php This is a radical look at council housing architecture and communal spaces. But relies on paint for major impact and a visualisation of some kind of personal ethos! I find both totally awesome. But this is where it all goes wrong, as I made myself unemployed for about a year by submitting public art proposals and applications inspired by these. As soon as I gave up this nonsense and played the public art thing with a straight bat again. The word paint was omitted completely and work started coming in again. I want to show you another example of paintism. I started an MA thinking that this would be an ideal way to immerse myself into painting again. No that particular academic establishment did not want to be associated with paintings....sculptural installations and video were encouraged and I was thwarted and failed to complete the course. Commissioned painted murals are itchy shirts that no one wears anymore, even though I can construct the same content and imagery in mosaic and build some kind of sculpture or groundwork to display these images, without opposition. My conclusion is: If you are Anslem Keifer or an artist who makes painting their medium of expression, then I agree thats only just acceptable. And you may have to paint for five years or more before anyone believes you actually mean it. Use it in public, inside or outside as a tool to comment about society there is an attitude barrier. And I believe the only way to enjoy painting now is on an inner exploration out of ones own curiosity. If artists can find a way to make money doing that, then power to their elbow. When artists can be taken seriously if they want to use paint sometimes, is the day the phoenix rises.  Bit of a rant, sorry. rob.     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Part 2, my response to Rob's comments:   Rob, thank you for your thoughts on painting and for sending those two links, they are fantastic!  I hear and sympathize with your frustration.  I'm going to talk straight and give you some tough-love.  I think you can handle it...   All the reasons you give are reasons why someone else thinks painting is irrelevant.  What I hear you saying is that you have been coerced into believing painting is irrelevant and it can no longer be merged with social commentary, that nobody wants it and a living can't be had from it, at least until some serious time has passed, in which time an artist has to prove their seriousness.  Also that you believe this to be untrue but you can't fine your way out of the indoctrination.   First, as your friend and fellow artist, I'd say look at the media-biased nonsense for what it is and drop it.   Regarding public art, I think there is no other choice than to work in the preferred media of your employers.  I don't see anyway around that one, I confess.  However, any MA program that discourages students from painting is short-sighted, being led by fashion and not worth the price of tuition (that's my rant).  It also sounds like you were in the wrong program, unfortunately.   I have nothing against new media - whatever it takes to make the communication, it's the communication that is important and the media should enhance that.  However, sometimes I think the glitz of new media makes it easy.  It's easy to be wowed by something new.  That's not to say an artist had an easier time of making the work because it's in a new media.  I just mean the novelty of new media can add to the wow factor.  With an old media like paint, it is harder to wow because we've seen so much of it.  But therein lies the challenge and precisely why painting is still relevant and no institution should discount it.  There is still challenge to be met in breaking through the restrictions of painting and bias against it.  It's like you said in your blog, you're looking at the restrictions of your new project as part of your inspiration.  It can be a good thing to have boundaries to push against; it can have a focusing effect. Painting is the same; the challenge is in finding a way to move it forward, especially as society and technology change.  The painting that is relevant is painting that faces that challenge and makes that social comment.   I hope you find your way to painting again, not because I want to win any arguments - and just for clarity none of these comments are made in frustration at you in any way, nor am I really arguing with you.  But my frustration is with trendy ideas being spouted as justification against the choices one feels one wants or needs to make.    I hope you find your way to painting because you want to and because you feel there is something important you want to explore - also something I hear you saying.   Oh and that five year commitment in order to prove you're serious about painting is the same for any pursuit/small business.  It's not unreasonable to be subject to due diligence, people will be investing in you after all.   www.jlbfineart.com     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Part 3, my response to Rob.  I'm reposting in full because I think it is important.   Hi Jane. Of course your right about other peoples reasons for painting being dead and that its not dead if you dont want it to be, that is very well put. Pushing the boundaries so that painting is relevant and with patience and searching for the right opportunity with the right brief I am sure that is achievable. And that is undoubtedly one of my 'sometime in the future targets'. All your conclusions are exactly the same as mine. I wanted to describe the corner I found myself. Part of this this 'self pity painting rant' is really a cathartic stratergy to actually start painting and I am planning 'painting' to be part of the journey which lies along the 'Turn Left' option on my Blean project. In fact the point of my Blean blog was to place myself in a situation so that it did not matter if my work there was paid or unpaid it was to provide a stimulating arena to make work. As it turns out now there is a paid element to it. The best of both worlds. A very public way to show my thought process, but that is the point of a blog. I am proud not to have completed my MA, but I had hoped it would enable me to re-learn how to explore ideas which stimulate me in a personel development way, not a client stakeholder agenda way. I failed to achieve that. So turn left in the blean and blind searching will be on show? I have 5 paid projects all going on now(including the Blean) so unpaid personel art time will be small, but most importantly ongoing. And I know you're not arguing, as this is an essential exchange of views and perspectives that never could happen in my shambolic attempt at academic study. My learning is done in a situations like this (in public? I am a public artist remember), just that this is a blog one! as we used to say at junior school 'Power to your elbow' Jane.   Dear Rob, thank you for your comment and good nature.  One thing further I would say in response to your comment: I am proud not to have completed my MA, but I had hoped it would enable me to re-learn how to explore ideas which stimulate me in a personel development way, I failed to achieve that.   I would say it is not you that failed; it is the MA programme you entered which failed you.    You are enabling yourself to re-learn how to explore ideas which stimulate your personal development as an artist by undertaking this process of finding your own way back to painting.  Re-learning ways to explore ideas is not something that someone can teach.  It is a path we must forge on our own, but most certainly it is a path to forge in the company of others because as you said, there is stimulation in discourse.   I hope I can accompany you sometimes on the journey.   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Inspired by Emily Speed and Annabel Tilley, here is my list of highs and lows to finish out the year - and thanks Annabel!  You're on my list too!   High Points:   My solo show Vif!  It was a great experience and I learned many valuable lessons, one of the most important being, to meet the audience where they are and help them engage.  I also learned to really value my ability to organize.  It takes time, but the pay-off is worth every moment of attention to detail - with the added pay-off of reducing stress immensely.  This link shows images from Vif!  Scroll down to the September 1 entry: http://www.jlbfineart.com/News.html   Joining Cor Blimey Arts and becoming an associate member of Core Gallery!  That really gets and exclamation point.  So many opportunities are opening up for me and I'm learning so much.  I think I learn most by sharing my knowledge and skills and seeing them come back enlivened and vibrant by passing through the intelligence and sensitivity of others.   Writing my blog on a-n!  All things are possible because the Artists Talking platform exists.  It is an awesome experience to write one's thoughts and have someone come in and comment in kind.  My eternal gratitude and thanks go to a-n for creating the space in which to do this.  Thanks to everyone who has read my blog this year, and a special thanks to everyone who has engaged in discussion with me.   Having a rather fulsome letter on taking responsibility for one's own intetlligence printed in full in LETTERS in the October issue of a-n magazine. Meeting many of my blog pals at the PV for Relay at Core Gallery!  It was exhilarating and through that meeting many friendships have been cemented.  This link is for more images of Relay on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54820085@N02/5249347717/in/photostream/#/photos/54820085@N02/5249347717/in/set-72157625445437959/   Being chosen 'Choice Blog' with Jo Moore in November!  What an honour it was to be chosen by Sarah Rowles, a young woman who is succeeding greatly at forging her own path, and to be chosen in the company of Jo Moore, a young woman who sees her world with a keen sensitive eye.  These links are for Q-Art, Sarah's project, and Jo's blog, What does it mean to be an artist:  http://www.q-artlondon.com/ http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/addP...   Producing lots of work this year!  When I look back, I made:             10 paintings             26 works on paper             10 digital images             5 sculptures             1 work still in progress and under wraps...   Recognizing a shift was happening in my work and finding the inspiration to define it through a critique with Graham Crowley!   Annabel Tilley's enthusiastic acceptance of my invitation to partner for Relay at Core Gallery!  I think we both grew from that experience.   Having a really great interview with Chantelle Purcell!  Her insightful questions brought up some interesting points for me to consider.  http://coregalleryinterviews.blogspot.com/     Low Points:   Not being able to afford a plexi cover for a sterling silver sculpture for Vif!  The work tarnished as a result.   Losing valuable gallery visiting time in London because I couldn't navigate myself out of the neighborhood!  (What an eegit!!)   Losing confidence in myself and my work for about a week because I went back to a past I cannot change and which is really no longer relevant.     To look forward to:   Curating!  I'm really excited about the opportunity to curate a show with Rosalind Davis at Core Gallery this spring.   Giving a DIY workshop with Becky Hunter at Core Gallery in April!  It's going to be really great to work with Becky and it's going to be great to develop another skill.   Developing new work!  I want never to stand still repeating the same old things.   The unknown coming my way!  Is it frightening?  Yes.  Will I flinch?  No (at least I hope not!).  Whatever comes I will grow and that is always good.     Wishing you all happiness in 2011!   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588         All that should concern us is the acute and increasing anxiety of the relation itself [of art to artist], as though shadowed more and more darkly by a sense of invalidity, of inadequacy, of existence at the expense of all that it excludes, all that it blinds to.  Art itself is an activity of change, of disorientation and shift, of violent discontinuity and mutability, of the willingness for confusion.  It is the declared intention of doing away with coherence (coherence is in fact a characteristic of concatenation of the system), the loss of identity with oneself, for an abandonment of reassuring recognition that is continually imposed by others and by the social system; an act to live by means of continual isolation.  It is the object-subject as physical presence continually changing.  It is an ensemble of units to be reactivated by the beholder-manipulator, but when is such 'reactivation' too great a burden to place on the viewer?  Previous attempts to involve the audience directly, as in some conceptual art, risks illegibility, which might return the artist as the principle figure and the primary interpreter of the work.  It must be admitted, 'the death of the author' has meant not 'the birth of the reader', so much as the befuddlement of the viewer.   Jane Boyer © 2011 Blog Post     This is an act of postconceptual thinking.       This paragraph was assembled using various texts by different authors spanning a time frame of 55 years, 1949 to 2004.  The use of footnotes has purposefully been omitted to retain a readable continuity.  This is not plagiarism.  It is a melding together of dispirit thoughts giving rise to meaning.  There have been slight alterations to the texts in some instances for the purposes of readability.     The references are as follows:   Opening sentence - Samuel Beckett taken from Art in Theory 1900-2000, editors: Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, pg. 619, mid-page.  Full interview, pp. 616-619.  This was originally an interview between Beckett and Georges Duthuit called Three Dialogues, published in Transition, no. 5, Paris, 1949, Duthuit (ed.).  Translated by Beckett and Duthuit as Proust: Three Dialogues, London, 1965, pp. 97-126.   Sentence two - Robert Morris taken from Art in Theory 1900-2000, editors: Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, pg. 885, first paragraph.  Full text, pp. 881-885.  This was originally from Morris' Notes on Sculpture 4: Beyond Objects, published in Artforum, New York, April 1969, pp. 50-4.   Sentences three & four - Germano Celant taken from Art in Theory 1900-2000, editors: Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, pp. 897-900.  This text was originally taken from Celant (ed.), Arte Povera, Milan, 1969, translated as Art Povera. Conceptual, Actual or Impossible Art?, London, 1969, pp. 225-30.   Final three sentences - Hal Foster taken from art since 1900, Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin Buchloh, pg. 667, column 2, second paragraph.  Full essay, pp. 664-669.  art since 1900, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2004.     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Bless Nicola Dale.  She hit the nail on the head with her question: do you see your paintings as actual amalgams of other painters' mark making down the ages onto the canvas in your here-and-now? Having read your cut and paste paragraph, I am wondering if this is the path you are trying to steer your viewer down…?   I have been working with these texts from my last post for the past several weeks trying to formulate and clarify my thoughts in regards to my latest work.  I was going to use them to sort of help describe where I was going in my paintings, but I found as I continued to look at them, read them, consider them, they started to take on a life of their own.  They, in effect, became a work of their own and it does parallel what I am attempting with my painting.   I think I must clarify something too.  I responded partly in the negative to Nicola saying, “I'm not sure I would go as far as to say I'm trying to make an amalgam of other painter's mark making just because I'm not trying to copy or imitate anyone's mark making.”  I can see that would perhaps produce some raised eyebrows because there is no denying that some of my marks look like other artist’s marks.  What I mean is that I am not making a study of how an artist made a mark in order to mimic it.  My drips are my drips, they are not copies of Jackson Pollock’s drips or Cy Twombly’s drips or any other artist who allows or allowed drips in their work.  There is no denying that a drip is reminiscent of Abstract Expressionism or other Late Modern work and that is how I’m using a drip.  I use a drip as a symbol of itself and of Late Modernism.  My marks are my own and they are the things in this new work which reassert my identity as the artist.  I focus my attention on how I make marks rather than how other artists made marks.   I am trying to amalgamate concepts, not just because it is what I’m seeing in regards to postconceptualism but also because amalgamation seems to be something that is true for me.  Life has been a curious set of disparate realities all glued together by the very fact I have lived through them.  I mean, life has not been a straight line of events for me.  It has been more a series of events which have started & stopped, switched & changed, moved & shifted and the only continuity is my perception of the passage of time.   So once again the path I take artistically relates to what I know as a truth, personally.   Becky Hunter was kind enough to interview me recently and we talked about this point.  She based her interview on a posting I did a while ago, #14, about what I feel are the responsibilities of an artist.  She asked me “…when did I find out what I wanted to communicate?”  Finding what I wanted to communicate wasn’t hard; the effort has been finding a way to express my personal experience in a way that is neither pedantic nor self-indulgent.    So where does the personal end and the art start?  That is always a question, and it’s a question, I think, without an easy answer.  We’re in a period where art is, or has dematerialized and those distinctions between art and life are perhaps blurrier than ever.  Maybe it’s time to glue a few pieces back together and move forward.      Read Becky Hunter’s interview: http://www.beckyhunter.co.uk/2011/01/interview-artist-jane-lenore-boyer/#ixzz1ANQ7Mr7F Under Creative Commons License: Attribution... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I've been doing too many left-brain things and far too few right-brain things - I fall into that easily, understanding myself to be an analytical personality at the best of times.  But in a way, it is good to have a bit of a break and a step back from creating work.  It gets a chance to settle, right?   Being preoccupied of late, I have almost missed out on the discussion of why we bother to make art raised by Annabel Tilley; a poignant and disquieting post.  This statement, 'Yet, galleries would cease to exist without artists. However, it seems doubtful many artists feel this sense of power,' brings me back to a post I never posted and would like to now.    The whole art world thing would not exist without artists.  We are at the heart of it, why then do we not have more power over our art and our careers?  How confident do you feel as an artist to make pronouncements about your work?  Can you say what it is about, why you made it?  We are encouraged to talk intelligently about our work, to relate it to historical or current trends.  I wonder if we do that and get it wrong, where that lands us.   I feel there is a point when an artist must stake a claim and say with confidence and conviction what he or she is doing.  But what is behind that confidence?  How much reading is enough reading, how many exhibits viewed?  Do we actually only begin to get a handle on where we may be situated by listening to other, perhaps more powerful people, talk about our work?  What if we disagree with what they say?  What if no one is talking?  And perhaps worst of all, what if we start believing our own press? Annabel asks further, 'So remind me, why do we do it? What is it all for? And, what real alternatives are there?'  These questions are the very ones we ask of living, not just art.  And they are the very questions we humans have never been able to answer satisfactorily.  I can offer no answers to any of the questions Annabel, I or others raise, but I can speak for myself and say I do it (make art) because I cannot live without doing it - and I've tried.  It is for the hope that I can find freedom even if it is only in my mind; the only real alternative is death, either literal or metaphorical.  And on that cheery note I'll add this: I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have. - Abraham Lincoln     I can live for two months on a good compliment. - Mark Twain     I've put my genius into my life; I've only put my talent into my works. - Oscar Wilde   www.jlbfineart.com And Thanks to Becky Hunter for the opportunity to contribute to her blog: http://www.beckyhunter.co.uk/2011/01/art-history-w...       ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Can a work of art really be connected to the artist when the artist hasn't made it or perhaps even touched it? Breaking through the restrictions of medium, what Rosalind Krauss calls the post-medium condition, shattered the boundaries but has it lead us over the cliff? Heightening perception, honing thought, sharpening the act of looking are all extremely important but is it really art until they are mixed with the attempt to communicate? That's where art becomes poignant. The frailty of our grasp on what lies beyond us means certain failure in our attempts to communicate and that is what is absolutely magnificent about creation. It is not possible to communicate perception but we try and in the attempt we expose all it means to be alive. We can't do this without a medium, without a tool, something we can shape - and I'm not talking literally here in the conventional understanding of medium, tools and form. Many critics believe the days of media specificity (to use artspeak) are gone. Artists like Kosuth, Bergin, Broodthaers, Duchamp smashed those barriers and the mundane workings of paint, metal, plaster, wood no longer hold the mysteries they once did for many artists. But that's not to say they're dead (refer back to my posts 29-32 for a discussion of painting with Rob Turner). In fact, I believe we are about to see the phoenix rise from the flames. Medium is being redefined and Krauss is spearheading this redefinition. She calls medium the technical support of a work, not the physical support like canvas or armatures. One example she uses is the work of Ed Ruscha. In his works, twenty-six gas stations, Krauss claims Ruscha is using the automobile as a medium. His use of the car-culture in America enabled his exploration of the American psyche. I might add, not unlike the way Edward Hopper explored isolation and the American psyche in paint a generation before, but Ruscha is doing it via the car. These works by Ruscha are photographic in nature but they have nothing to do with the process of photography. These works explore the process of driving, which is a state of isolation. I'm inspired by this redefinition of medium by Krauss; it is one of the main motivations behind the work I create. I'm called a painter but I use very little paint in my paintings. My work is not about the application of paint, nor is it about how the paint (or other material) looks on the canvas. It's not about the relationship of paint/material to canvas. It's not about the limitations of paint or canvas or of the two dimensional plane. It is about how my movement is registered in the materials I put between myself and the canvas. It is about how no matter what I do my context has a direct impact on what I attempt. It is about how classification (socialization?) orders me and my thoughts. In short the technical support of my work - my medium is movement and it is a movement, which combined with thought, equals the presence of an individual.         ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Part 2 In response to your comments:  Rob - Hi Jane, Interesting that you point out that thought is not art until something transforms it or manifests itself in another form. If this form is produced by industrially, or folk with other skills that's OK isn't it? I have had things manufactured and installed without my hands ever touching them. I thought about the ideas for them, drew them out with specifications so other people could make them. I made decisions and modifications to them and worried about them along the way. No less art for that process.    Absolutely.  Not only are your intentions to make art for the right reasons, but the process of producing community based art means you are being commissioned for your artistic talents and abilities in creative planning.  The fact that you have had works produced by others simply underscores the cooperative nature of what you are engaged in.  Nowhere near to Jeff Koons - sorry Nicola. The question of thought not being art until something transforms it or it manifests itself is a bigger issue - and I'm thinking here of the conceptual artists like Kosuth, Bergin etc.  The idea that thinking, experiencing, perceiving can be an end result is a compelling idea.  I have been fascinated by my own interaction with my senses and thoughts my whole life but I am the only one who can know what I've experienced.  So is that art if I alone am moved by what I've experienced?  In no way am I saying it isn't valid, but I question where the boundaries are placed between communication and unique perception, art and experience, the very experience of being alive; is it receptive or is it emanation or is it per force, both? The point I'm trying to illustrate is not the particular questions arising around any given concept, but rather, the importance of asking questions and not just following along because an idea may be popular. David Riley - Is recording an 'attempt to communicate'? I explore. I record a highly individual impression of what I find. I review the recording and use what I find to select what to do next. Quite often I am surprised by what I have recorded. Surprising myself keeps the research fresh and encourages further exploration. I record what I find for me, less I forget. Am I attempting to communicate with myself? Probably...... And this: 'Can a work of art really be connected to the artist when the artist hasn't made it or perhaps even touched it?'..... Absolutely..... As a simple example, no maker can a ever touch a movie (not in the sense meant in this statement) and yet no one would ever consider saying a movie is unconnected with its makers (technicians, actors, director, producer, etc.)........ I declare a vested interest. More and more I become a virtual artist. My work is physically untouched by any hand, let alone my own. But, it is very much of my mind and made manifest through the virtual-world..... Occasionally a piece will be transposed from the virtual-world for presentation in the physical-world, where it becomes a different work with a life of its own. I agree completely.  When I work with digital photography I deal with the same issues.  An artist that creates a film has made that film.  A process which is by nature a non-hands process is not really in question.  Again, I trust your intention as an artist because your engagement/progress/exploration is evident. David Minton - Art is a product of mind, There is no duality of mind and body, There is no disconnect between maker and object, There are different kinds of object? True, but then art must be a product of mind and body if there is no duality of mind and body.  The very question of that 'disconnect', perhaps 'ownership' or 'authorship' is more to the point, was explored through appropriated works.  It is a poignant question and one whose boundaries are not clear.  Can copies/appropriations have two makers?  Is one maker as valid as the other?  Is originality necessary anymore for the creation of art?  The questions are endless...     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Part 1 Can a work of art really be connected to the artist when the artist hasn't made it or perhaps even touched it?  The answer to that is of course, yes as Rob Turner, Nicola Dale and David Riley and David Minton have generously pointed out in their comments to my last post.  The obtuse nature of that question was intentional because it has become common for artists to not be involved in the making process and I think we must question it at times.  What I'm getting at here really is intent. I'm questioning the validity of an artist's intent when work is produced, whether that artist made the work or not.  I'll use two examples, Jeff Koons and Richard Serra, both superstar artists who have work produced by others.  (This relates to the discourse with Nicola in the comments of my last post, #37.)   Personally, I will never trust Jeff Koons as an artist because his original intent in making art was to take the piss and make lots of money - sorry Nicola.  To be fair, Jeff Koons has done an important thing (even though I think it was in spite of himself and through no real intent of his own) in art.  He has shown the shallowness and crassness of it all.  That anyone would take his work seriously - sorry Nicola - shows the absurdity of the whole art world.  His position is like the court jester or the clown in Native American cultures - they were there to point out the absurdities in their societies, not that I think Jeff Koons had the intelligence to know that or the seriousness to position himself that way - sorry, Nicola, mea culpa, mea culpa.  However, now Jeff Koons is accepted as an artist and nobody will be changing that opinion.  The question of whether he made his work I think is important because his intentions were not to make art which explored any issues or raised any questions - even though the art machine has explored issues and raised questions for him.  He had no art education and as far as I can tell no particular interest in art, there was no and continues to be no artistic progression.  He's got nothing behind him except all the collectors who collect his work and a bundle of dough in the bank.  I saw the puppy at the Guggenheim in Bilbao several years ago and it was cute - well perhaps cute isn't the word because it was too massive to be cute.  Honestly, I was impressed by the topiary of it and I thought of the skilled topiary artists who created and maintained it, not of Jeff Koons. That brings up another point of consideration, what is happening when an artist's work makes us think of those involved in producing the work rather than the artists themselves?  Ai Wei Wei's sunflower seeds made me think of the craftspeople that made those seeds, not only the ocean of humanity symbolized by those seeds.  It's a curious thing and I wonder if an artist like Ai Wei Wei makes a conscious effort to highlight the work/presence of others through a work with his name on it?  That would be a novel approach, making art to spotlight someone who is anonymous as maker/artist rather than yourself.  Of course, artists like Sherry Levine and others who appropriated art did that, but they were using works of already famous artists so it wasn't quite the same thing. My second example is Richard Serra, one of my favorite artists. I respect his work immensely.  He couldn't possibly make his massive steel sculptures, but it doesn't matter because I trust his intentions.  I know he has worked with many media and I know he is serious in his intent.  His artistic exploration is evident and shows mature progression.  There is no question in my mind that Richard Serra is behind and involved with every aspect of the production, directing, planning of the work.  The question of whether Serra's hands ever touched the work is moot because the intent and artistic vision is evident.   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I'm doing some research into the avant-garde after viewing an exhibition called BigMinis here in Bordeaux at the contemporary art museum, CAPC, and my head is spinning with questions.   One of the really interesting things about BigMinis was the juxtaposition of work from the early twentieth century with contemporary works from the twenty first century.  All of them arguably works of the avant-garde.  I make that qualification because as my research is showing me the definition of the avant-garde has changed and with it, art production.   One of the defining factors for art to have been considered avant-garde was its relationship to the art market - basically art produced for no financial gain (it is a bit more involved than that, but for simplicity's sake...) was considered avant-garde.  It also had an element of critique; social, political, moral etc.  This took art production out of the service of the state or the church and placed it squarely within the artistic intentions of the artist - art became art for art's sake.   And that's where we were with modernism; artists had to be philosophers, designers, critics, inventors, commentators, political activist, social observers etc.  No longer were artists specialized craftspeople who were given the subject of their work by their patrons.  It meant that the emphasis on technical skill in medium was no longer the main area of interest for artists because they suddenly had so many other areas they could explore.   However, soon the market subsumed the avant-garde and social critique became the norm for art production.  So where are we now with the avant-garde?  I think it is a question a lot of people are trying to answer.  We have de-skilled, dissolved and disappeared medium, removed aesthetics - obliterated the visual all together.  Where do we go from here?   I'm baffled by bottles of brand named mineral water filled with opaque flesh-colored silicone, Pamela Rosenkranz, Firm Bodies (2009), one of the pieces in BigMinis.  What is Des Hughes asking us to consider with his group of Pea Cubes (1999-2001), rolled latex balls stacked into irregular and sometimes squashed cube forms.  These works might have been called avant-garde once but can they be called that now because they came to BigMinis via the galleries who represent these artists.  If I dig deep and try really hard to make associations I might be able to come up with some sort of social commentary by the artist, but even trying my best to do this (and I did) I don't see any particular or poignant comment on anything.  So what are these works and others like them?  Where are we when we no longer have a haven of classification in which to set our mind at ease?  Are these works of art?  Do we still need an avant-garde?  Have we reached the point that anything an artist 'touches' becomes art by the very fact of coming from an 'artist'?  This reaches beyond Duchamp's statement that an artist's idea for something is as important as an object created by an artist, because if we readily accept something from an artist as art, it makes little difference what the artist's idea is, we've already accepted it as art.  If we are at that point aren't we strutting behind the emperor in his new clothes?      Frankly, I can see no other way of calling the spade anything but a spade.       ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   It's a curious thing to look at the contradictions in your own thinking.  The last few conversations here with David Riley, Annabel Tilley, David Minton and others as well as the research I'm doing at the moment into the avant-garde has put my contradictory ideas into relief.  It's a good thing.  Here are some of the things in opposition in my thinking:   Anything can be art but not everything should be accepted as art. This is perhaps at the heart of my dilemma.  I do believe art can be made from anything or rather; anything can be transformed into a work of art.  It is one of the fascinating things about art.  It is also one of the fascinating things about human nature, the fact that we want to transform mud into something (speaking prehistorically) which we then imbue with meaning.  It's fascinating that we find meaning in things beyond ourselves; surroundings, events and objects, for example.  The whole of creating and understanding is a fascination to me.   I don't believe however that everything made or presented as art is art.  How can I say that when I just said 'the whole of creation and understanding is a fascination'?  Why does this statement not allow acceptance of everything as art?  I don't know, but perhaps it has something to do with a change of perspective.  As an artist I stand over there with the joy and wonderment of creating, as a spectator I stand here struggling to comprehend what I'm looking at.  Why can I find meaning in some things but not in others?  Does it really come down to taste after all?    Within the scope of an industry called 'Art' I feel strongly that critical thinking is important.  It seems to bring balance.  What I mean is an artist presents something as art and critical thinking of the viewer (whoever that is, as you say David R.) says 'yeah' or 'nay', nothing complicated in that.  But it seems to me to be a real problem when critical thinking doesn't do its job.  But that then begs the question how far does the reach of critical thinking extend?   I guess it comes down to this; I like to have boundaries, not because I want to know my limits but because I want something to push against.  With wide acceptance of everything presented as art I feel those boundaries disappear and I just fall over.  And sometimes I do want to know other people's opinion because I don't have enough information or just can't decide for myself.   I want to make art but I'm not content to make art and leave it at that. This is a real head buster for me.  All I want, all I have ever wanted is to make art, but I'm not content to carry on my little life doing that in my own way, in my own time.  I don't feel I'm making anything worth anything if I just do it in seclusion.  I feel what I produce must be put to the litmus test with other art.  Am I nuts?  I've often thought so.   I strive to live a life of integrity but I aspire to a position in an industry which often is grossly lacking in integrity. This one makes me squirm.  I detest the greedy, arrogant, manipulative and unethical attitudes involved in this business but it is my chosen profession.  I've got no answer for this one except to work with integrity, strive for integrity within the relationships I form and support efforts of ethical conduct within the industry.   Plurality is excellent but where is the main goal. Why does there need to be a main goal?  I don't know but I don't function well in chaos and that's where plurality often leads me, I don't mean destructive chaos, I just mean scattered activity.  I can't think in a cacophony of voices.   I'm sure I could come up with a raft of more contradictions but I had better leave it there before the crisis of confidence, followed on the heels of an identity crisis finds me...   Check out my new website: www.jlbfineart.com     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Part 2 I'm relieved to feel I'm on a similar track in my own work with regards to self and context.  Reading Sean Burke's Death and Return of the Author, which I have mentioned before in my blog, was a good basis for this concept.  And it is born out in Krauss' essay.  I also feel quite relieved to realize that I do in fact find limitations in both views of the self as conceived by abstract expressionists and postmodernists.  There is an answer to be sought to the question 'what does it mean to intend?' because an intention is never fully realized as conceived.  Both the self and context affect each other.  The self is neither private nor public, but both.  What is the significance of that?  Which part is private and which part is public?  These questions seem very relevant in our age of social media communication, where we in effect, are made 'formless' by the nature of this media and our thoughts float around the ether. Aside from the question of intention, a growing issue in my work is that of space - figure and ground.  Perhaps, everyone feels this issue has been resolved and put to bed a thousand times over.  But in Krauss' essay she goes on to discuss boundary conditions in regards to figure and ground; the bounding edges of a figure and the space around the figure.  The issue is one of space being formed by the figure or space forming the figure.  (Just like the question of self and context.)  She goes on to suggest that in questioning what constitutes a background, 'by making the background generative rather than passive, one passes through the limits of painting considered as a formal system closed under investigation.'  Granted, she's discussing this in 1974 when this was a new discovery in painting.  But I wonder if it was fully investigated.  I can't really think of that many painters outside Frank Stella and Mel Bochner, who Krauss is discussing at this point in her essay, who did this.  I need to research this and it is why I question if I will ever be able to learn enough.  I think maybe I should start cataloguing the questions I have: What functions now to propel art production forward in place of the defunct avant-garde? (from previous posts) Where do we go after dematerializing medium? Can medium truly be redefined? What does it mean to intend? Has a generative background been fully explored? Can chance be directed into intention? (Gosh, and I haven't even finished my morning tea yet.) www.jlbfineart.com   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Part 1 I wonder sometimes if I will ever be able to learn enough (I already know the answer to that is, no).  I just finished reading an essay by Rosalind Krauss called Line as Language.  It was first published as catalogue text for the exhibition 'Line as Language: Six Artists Draw' at Princeton University Art Museum, February 23 - March 31, 1974.  This essay is part of Krauss' anthology, Perpetual Inventory.  It is an important essay for me because it discusses many of the issues I grapple with in my own work, the self, context, space and the interaction of these things on each other.   Being 1974, Krauss is discussing post painterly abstraction - Jasper Johns and Frank Stella, minimalism - Donald Judd, Robert Morris, conceptualism - Sol Lewitt, Mel Bochner and other artists involved in these movements.  Her discussion revolves around the changing view of the self.  In the forties and fifties abstract expressionism worked from the view of the self as interior; a private space known only to the individual and therefore any communication from this space must move outward as an act of expression.  The artists who came after the abstract expressionists (we call them postmodern now) conceived of the self in direct opposition to this former view.  The self was not a private interior space but a public space where stimulus and information remained visible.  These artists saw meaning not as originating from the private self but passing into the self, annulling any idea of autonomy.  Philosophically, according to Krauss, this concept of the self, as not being formed before receiving outside stimulus, started with Wittgenstein in his Blue Book when he asks what it means to know a tune.  In literature of the late 50's, Samuel Beckett and others, in the nouveau roman, were already working with this concept of the self.  This of course, led to the 'death of the author' concept by Barthes.  It seems to me, even though the 'death of the author' has been invalidated, this question of 'what comes first, the self or the stimulus' has moved to materiality, in terms of concept, ownership and communication, and we've seen the de-materialization of medium.  Krauss speaking of LeWitt's wall drawings says, '...the wall drawings testify to the possibility of executing any system of combination the artist can think of.  One might say that they stand for the predicates of any proposition, which once made (or imagined) must be able to achieve itself physically.  This attacks the notion of privacy by eating away at an idea of imagination as a special mental precinct that is truly unavailable to other minds...The significance of the wall as a medium for line or drawing is, then, that it becomes the ground of a refusal to separate idea form existence.'   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Possibility holds potential hope and joy, a sweet quench for thirst.   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I leave for London on Friday.  I am so excited, but at the same time I feel in trepidation, I think I'm about to leave my comfort zone - not that my comfort zone is very big, mind.  I am making my curatorial debut with Extra-Ordinary at Core Gallery (the PV is 22nd April), an exhibition I am co-curating with Ros Davis.  I am giving my first workshop, How to Talk and Write about Your Work, with Becky Hunter as part of DIY Educate also at Core Gallery.  And I am having my first critical review published in WhiteHot Magazine soon.  Now I can call myself an artist!  I say that jokingly but it really is no joking matter.   As many other bloggers have expressed recently in their blogs, an artist must be multi-talented, not only in the work they produce but in the activity they pursue.  There aren't many professions which require this kind of diversification, but then ask any small business-person and they will tell you there's no surprise in that.  It is true; to be independent requires diversity, flexibility, intelligence and ability - perhaps agility is an even better word. I read this today in e-flux:  'But art is not a religion, and, though it often seems structurally similar, it is not a charity either. This idea of a "higher value" that presides over-and indeed fuels-an idea of art labor as free labor must be contested. All are to blame for it: though classical exploitation is rampant, it may actually pale in comparison to the amount of self-exploitation-the willingly inconclusive, highly generative work that is either too useless or too stubborn to ever align itself with the mundane, but remunerated, field of average labor: that of bakers, garbage men, police officers, cobblers, lawyers, engineers, day laborers, and so forth. These are the people you make your work about, and perhaps who your parents are.  Art, you would like to think, is a shining vision of a possibility for something else...'  Read the full article here. I'm encouraged by the rapidly spreading word that artists and cultural producers must be remunerated and the exploitation must stop.  I'm encouraged too to read someone lay a chunk of the responsibility on our own shoulders because....no, I'm going to leave that unanswered, I don't want to stand on the soapbox today - I'm too excited about my trip.  But I can answer that and I'm sure you can too. So back to my trip...   www.jlbfineart.com http://www.coregallery.co.uk/extra-ordinary-press-release/   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I can't believe it is nearly three weeks since I returned from my trip to London and only now am I getting to my neglected blog!  How is it a change in physical location causes such a disruption to work schedules?  Most of my time in London was spent working how could I have gotten so behind?!  Who knows?  Anyway, to report, I had a fantastic time.  The show I co-curated with Rosalind Davis, Extra-Ordinary, was a smashing success and the workshop with Ros and Becky Hunter was a hit too.  And the review I wrote was published, here's the link if you want to read it: http://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/arret-sur-l-image-galerie/2251  Extra-Ordinary was reviewed too and we are waiting for it to be published.  It's thrilling to have a review, no matter the outcome.  All of us are on pins and needles waiting to know what was said. I came away from London with two more shows to curate with two more curating partners and one artist signed up; a commission to write an article on reconciling late modernist abstraction and conceptualism, which is to say reconciling the inner self and the public self - these being the opposing views of the self represented in those two movements; and great times spent with friends.  I go back in June. I'm reading The Fold by Giles Deleuze in researching the first of the two curation projects.  Half of it I can't fathom, the other half is helping me define a parallel self.  One of my friends asked me where I felt the self resided in the body, the mind or the heart.  I had to stop and think about that because I didn't have an answer.   I don't feel the self resides in the body, and I know that sounds strange.  My response was, 'I see the self as parallel,' which surprised me as much as not having an answer to her question.  It goes back to that thing of thinking in twos I've mentioned before.  So far, my reading of philosophy has mostly been about the self and I find that my pulse races a bit when philosophers, like Deleuze, Derrida and others, refer to a fold or an entre-deux .  They are describing something which is one but differentiated.  I'm curious to know how they reconcile this because it is something I feel I understand intuitively but can't really describe verbally.  I think I'm circling around it in my art, but I don't think I've described it fully there either.  Basically, I've still got lots of homework to do...      ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I reviewed DYSTOPIA, the new exhibition at CAPC, http://www.capc-bordeaux.fr/programme/dystopia in Bordeaux last week for Whitehot, (David R., if you are keeping tally - my first paid work).   You should be able to find the review here http://whitehotmagazine.com/new next week.  The exhibition premise was an interesting one.  The curator Alexis Vaillant invited American art theoretician and Sci Fi writer, Mark von Schlegell, to write a screenplay which would govern the exhibition preparation.  Von Schelgell had final say in choosing all the works and Vaillant curated the show. What I perceived from looking at the works and the exhibition as a whole was that the artworks were chosen to fit a theme rather than a theme illuminating the artworks.  In other words, the works of art seemed to come second in importance to the theme.  The primary thing that came across was the telling of the story of DYSTOPIA.  In fact, the exhibition catalogue is von Schlegell's latest novel, New Dystopia.  He actually refers to many of the works in the show within this novel without describing them in a factual or actual way like most catalogues do.  He instead, uses the artwork as a descriptive illustration for a scene or a setting within the story.  Here is an example: "Despite its totalitarian scale, the structure was not what Calve would have expected adorning a New Dystopia under the enlightened guidance of the master artisan.  It had a geometrical quality that tied it to the October revolution, to the Greeks, as well as a baudy spontaneity that was one part decadence.  Its image was so expressive of engineering paradox, its hips so curiously dynamic, that it was not at all suitable for the sort of stragecraft Joralsky would have in mind.  It was simply wrong for the current Dystopia, inexpressive of Type 1 possibility altogether."  The image is from the DYSTOPIA exhibition and is descriptive of this quoted passage from the novel-cum-exhibition catalogue. This in effect takes importance away from artist and artwork as supreme (photograph title, by such and such artist, date, dimensions etc.) and places it within a larger framework (this photographic series, by artist, illustrates the ambient light and degraded environment within the setting of my story).  I found it stimulating and exciting to think of art placed on a level playing field with other forms of cultural production.  But I wondered if other artists would share that view. For well over a century, art production has been closely tied to the artist's ego and the creation of the artistic persona.  I wonder if we are ready to share the stage with other modes of cultural production which would make art a 'prop' within a greater theme.  I'm not questioning a comparison between the popularity of say, art exhibitions, films, concerts or theatre, for example.  Or even the mixture of art and design within the creation of a theatrical or dance production.  All of that is well established.  What I'm questioning is the possibility for art, within the realm of art exhibitions, to let in other modes of cultural production; like with DYSTOPIA, a writer telling a story that is explored and illustrated within the context of an art exhibition.  The context for the story is the art and the context for the art is the story.  It seems an exciting thing to me. But what happens if an artist is misrepresented?  I mean, not just a mistaken understanding of an artist's intent but an actual misuse of an artist's work.  Do we even consider that our work can be misused?  I dare say we all would be so pleased to have our work chosen for an exhibition, we probably wouldn't mind how it was used.  But should we? How would you feel to no longer be 'the artist' but the 'creator of this work'...   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I'm just back from another 'too short' trip to London, but my time was spent well and productively making my limited time worth every minute spent.  It was such a good trip; I'm not sure where to begin.  Perhaps business first... I curated another show at Core Gallery, 'In the Current Climate' which is a group exhibition of our studio artists.  It runs concurrently with the open studios at Core this weekend.  I had a great time working with Carolyn Lefley, Kelda Hole, Nik Cornwell and Gillian Powell, their input and insights were invaluable and made the whole process a great pleasure.  Pop in to see it if you get a chance. The rest of my time was given to meeting people and was perhaps the best part of all.  In particular, I finally had the opportunity to meet Helen Scalway.  She was last year's St George's Artist in Residence and she posted on occasion to the blog they run on Artists Talking.  It was the place where I first saw her work - I was smitten.  We recently made contact again through DIY Educate at Core Gallery where we arranged to meet in person.  It was brilliant.  Luckily, I had some work with me because of the show and open studios and we spent about three hours looking at it. For the first time, I think I questioned whether it is more important to be loved or understood.  I say that because Helen read my work as if she was reading a text, it was unbelievable how deeply she comprehended my work.  I've never had that experience before and it was a profound confirmation, my thanks and gratitude to Helen for her time, enthusiasm and encouragement.  Since I've been back I've been busily socializing myself on network media.  It is still a work in progress...but you can now find me on twitter, facebook and linkedin/behance (that one, behance, may not be visible yet).  It simply is a whirlwind. Oh and by the way, the review I did of DYSTOPIA for Whitehot is still in the pipeline and hasn't been published yet, hopefully it will be soon. I think I really must dig out my ruby slippers and repeat 'there's no place like home, there's no place like home,' because each time I'm in London it's like going to see the wizard...     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 Just a quick note.  My review of DYSTOPIA is published, read it here: http://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/4000-years-sc...... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   In case you haven't been following the conversation happening on Andrew Bryant's article The C-Word, I suggest having a look:  http://www.a-n.co.uk/air/article/1346855/469392  it's a good debate on an important subject. -- I think if this century will be defined by anything it will be communication.  I think we are communicating more than ever by more means than ever and with more response than ever.  This must affect us, how we see ourselves and others.  I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject and the experiences you are having.  My questions are, how do you see yourself (your core being) in relation to the multiplicity of identities you project through social networking and the multiple identities you encounter.  Has it affected how you think of yourself and who you feel you are?  Do you feel more protective of yourself or have you opened up?  Has your relationship to isolation changed? (I'm doing a little research for a curating project.)   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I said recently in a newsletter that I no longer felt isolated, thanks to all the great people I've connected with and who have become friends and colleagues.  I'll say once again, this connection was made possible by an and the Artists Talking platform.  Every connection I've made has been as a result of my blog here.  There is another person I want thank too and that is my husband, David.  I would not be able to do any of the things I do in London without his support and his belief in my talent and ability.  I'm also fortunate to have a very supportive family who encourage me at every turn.  To all of you individually and collectively, my heartfelt thanks and gratitude. Marion Michell, an artist who makes the most arresting crocheted garments and shoes from tissue paper; you may remember her from Extra-Ordinary at Core Gallery; she sent me this message recently, 'It's great to see how well you're doing and how things have changed for you since you started your blog and got involved with Core Gallery. There's hope for us all.'  It was lovely to receive this note and it reminded me again that the issue of isolation is a big one and one many artist face, and perhaps don't quite know how to change. If I could answer the question of isolation for artists, it would be simple - start a blog, commit to it and actively talk to other people on their blogs.  It is delightful to receive a comment on a blog and even more invigorating when a conversation starts. My next piece of advice is get involved with an artist collective and become active and involved in it.  This one career move could be the most important one an artist can make because the professional practice and activities of an artist-led space/collective are the stepping stones to broader professional activity.  It is also a place where you can explore your interests and develop other professional aspects to your career.  It is far easier to make professional connections when you can say 'I'm Jane Boyer and I'm part of the management team for Core Gallery, I'd like to talk to you about...'  As an individual artist, chances are you won't get your mouth to the chink in the door to say who you are. You may think this next bit of advice is obvious, but I don't think it is; make friends with the people you connect with.  All of my friends in London started as comment activity through the blogs.  We have made the effort to meet in person, see art together, have a meal and a beer and just generally get to know each other better.  It has been the most rewarding aspect of my whole trajectory out of isolation.  All of my friends have fascinating lives, unique insight into art and make my time in London some of the happiest time I spend anywhere. Remember that each step may be a small step, but it is a step forward and may bear greater fruit further down the road.  Also, take strength from those who believe in you, they see what you can't see about yourself. Congratulations to Rob Turner for his Culture Awards nomination!  http://wildartintheblean.blogspot.com/ See Marion and Ros Davis, from Core Gallery, in the upcoming exhibition TWISTED TWISTED - exhibition A fresh encounter with contemporary craft    The exhibition focuses on work by seven artists who employ the traditional materials and techniques of textiles and ceramics, but manipulate and twist them into different forms, altered meanings and new directions. Wriggling out of the traditional domain of 'craft', these objects escape the plinth, shelf and glass cabinet, occupying the gallery as unconventional wall pieces and installations that you can walk through. With Kay Aplin, Rosalind Davies, Rosie James, Marion Michell,  Karin Schosser, Isobel Smith, Alice Walton   July 23 - August 21, 2011 Wed - Sun 11am - 5pm PREVIEW: Friday 22 July, 5 - 7 pm For details see under:  http://www.phoenixarts.org/exhibitions/265-twisted.html   Address: North Gallery PHOENIX BRIGHTON 10-14 Waterloo Place Brighton BN2 9NB East Sussex Telephone: +44 (0)1273 603700 Email: info@phoenixbrighton.org       ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Two questions have arisen for me from the reading I've been doing. It seems that the current accepted view that we are entirely constructed by our surroundings is similar to the Judaeo-Christian concept of predetermination, God sets out our path so all things happen as they were meant to happen.  But it seems to me, both completely take away any responsibility we may have to think for ourselves and choose.  It struck me as odd that there would be this same constraint from two different and possibly mutually hostile systems - faith and science. However, the argument that we can choose even though we have been constructed seems to me to be suspect because any choice would be a constructed choice and predictable based on the recognition that we have been totally constructed by society.  The very fact of our construct means our choices are not our own either. So what is our own? The other thing which has crossed my mind is from contemplating this quote by Deleuze: 'I am forever unfolding between two folds and if to perceive means to unfold, then I am forever perceiving with in the folds.' The very nature of the fold means that not everything is immediately knowable and shift happens because the folds move.  So this would point to a shifting context too.  'Perceiving with in the fold' would naturally include a perception of context.  How do we find our center when everything shifts? --------- It is summer holiday season in France and I have been doing a great deal of mindless, almost Zen, activities like ironing sheets, and making beds.  This is the kind of stuff that runs through my head at times like these.  I know, I need to take a pill and lie down, don't I?     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   'Fractured' is the word most in my thoughts lately for lots of reasons.  The other day after a particularly intense session on social media networks, I had my first real experience of feeling fractured.  It wasn't a pleasant feeling.  I've also started the curating process for our Core Gallery Open.  Rosalind Davis kindly invited me to co-curate the show with her.  It is a pleasure to contemplate the works selected for the exhibition.  An interesting thing has surfaced; many of the artists speak of a 'fractured' kind of experience from the barrage of technology and media.  It is visible in the work. Certainly, the recent riot events around the UK have kept the word 'fractured' active in my mind. I'm also feeling fractured in my personal life because we, my husband and I, are making a major move; we're moving into our own house.  It's a particularly poignant event because our move coincides with the selling of the house where we have been care-takers for the past four years.  This house belongs to an elderly lady, soon to be 100 years old.  I'm helping to sort through and move this lady's household as well as our own. It's a strange thing to decide in a second what has value and what does not.  I find it hard enough to do with my own things, but with another's belongings it's frankly eerie; setting aside the sentiments to look at the stern money value. The memories, the meaning, the expressions, the sentiments are all laid to rest, swept away in an instant of placing an object in a pile of categorization - this pile goes to the tip, this to the family, this pile to anyone who will take it. It's interesting the things that go to the family; photographs, pipes, wallets, hats, desks, walking canes, cameras, favourite chairs, binoculars etc.  They are often things that recall an individual; tools of favourite activities, well used accessories, paraphernalia of habits, images frozen in time, places where the person sat or worked.  These things trigger memories; perhaps even resurrect the touch or smell of someone dear. The intensity of memory these things stimulate in us come from touching the objects our loved one touched.  We're reminded of how they carried things or themselves, how they walked, how they sat, how they gazed, how they concentrated.  We're reminded of the life we saw unfolding before us.  This sounds like Rowland Barthes in Camera Lucida; 'I was looking at the eyes who had looked into the eyes of the Dali Lama,' to paraphrase.   I think I need to read that book again. Is it art?  Sure, why not.  But art will never convey the deep intense feeling of holding once again a thing that once belonged.  I wonder if this is the ultimate limitation of art?     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   It really is remarkable when things converge. 'Image-breaking retained the sense that each element retained its own vivid specificity but took a step a back from the final lightning strike of illumination which would hold them all together in understanding.  Image-breaking was the perpetual delay of illumination: intelligibility was held in abeyance through the unresolved relationship of parts to wholes.  It is the lack of transcendence, the permanent uncertainty of any resolution, which propels New Brutalism back into the world as a form of ethical realism.'[1] This has been circulating in my mind for weeks as I carry on with the rest of the madness on my plate at the moment.  I found this definition came to the forefront of my thoughts as I considered the work chosen for The Core Gallery Open which I will be co-curating with Ros Davis in ten days.  Without giving too much away (you'll have to come see the show!), new painting in the UK is right on target with this quote.  Here is a link for more information on the show:  http://www.coregallery.co.uk/current-exhibition/ As I continued to sort through my studio yesterday (each day of sorting propels our move forward and is the reason for my madness at the moment) I uncovered the box pictured here.  It is an 'as found' piece which is another connection to New Brutalism and Paolozzi in particular.  It moves me, (sorry, no pun intended) and as I consider whether I should interact with this box, changing or altering it, my inner voice screams 'NO!'  So I claim it as it is, something unusual for me in my work. Earlier today I read a really great interview with Moby by Kyra Kordoski[2] in Whitehot Magazine, and this quote struck me: "What can you take a picture of that no one else will see?"  This is something Moby's photographer uncle taught him about photography and which resonated with me because of my background in photography.  It was a fresh active memory when I saw this box again today in the studio.  This photographic quote conflates poignantly in my mind with the image-breaking quote to become a notion of 'what do I see that no one else will?'  This is not to suggest others would not have the capacity to see what I see, but rather it highlights the fact that we each are absolutely separated from each other's thoughts, we are isolated with our own interior workings.  We empathize, understand, communicate and sometimes hate but we never cross that threshold of absolute awareness of another's interior thoughts.  At best we guess.  I see this 'guess' as what they were circling around with New Brutalism.  This 'guess' underlies all of our attempts to communicate and is the reason, I believe, we use symbols to convey meaning in language - all language. This is one of those things I've known all my life, one of those things which founds my worldview, but something which only struck like lightning today because of a particular convergence of ideas at a particular time.  It's one of those things that make me feel the electricity of living. ................. I'll also be part of a panel discussion on blogging presented by Andrew Bryant on 22nd September at Core Gallery.  In preparing for this, Andrew has made me aware of how my engagement with reading informs my work.  This awareness is also in the mix.  He said, 'You seem to use the space to work over, rehearse and pull together the various texts you are engaged in as part of your visual practice. In this sense your blog is much closer to the academic/professional model of the contemporary artist, whereby your practice is 'informed' by your reading. Because of this your blog is the way in to a deeper, more complex understanding of your practice.'  Thank you Andrew, I'm really looking forward to the first Artist Talking event.  Here is a link for more information: http://www.coregallery.co.uk/diy-educate/ , there are still spaces available if you would like to hear more.   [1] Ben Highmore, "Image-breaking, God-making': Paolozzi's Brutalism",  October 136, Spring 2011,  MIT Press, p.99 [2] Kyra Kordoski, "DESTROYED: Moby the Whitehot Interview", Whitehot, September 2011, found at: http://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/2011-destroyed-moby-whitehot-interview/2364   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 This is going to be my new studio...... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   The move from hell is finished. It took two months to organize and prepare, 18 full trailer-load trips to the tip, countless carloads back and forth between the two houses moving small stuff, a week of cleaning which in the end wasn't finished and three panel truck loads to move our furniture. My back suffered, our car broke down during the last and most crucial push, which meant two, four hour round trips to Angouleme to the car dealership when we could least afford the time.  And we thought our eighteen year old cat was going to die during the process.  To say we were stressed would be an understatement. Happily, the cat is happy as Larry, the car is running better than ever and we are sitting atop a pile of stuff thinking we should become brocanteurs; all it would take would be a new sign with open for business hours.  Our belongings are stored in 'Bay 1' and 'Bay 2' of our downstairs and it looks just like a depot vente with all the white appliances on one side, furniture piled high and bric-brac down the back.  I think we won't go there. I'm very ready to get back to work. Speaking of work, the trip to London in September was fab!  It was a very rushed trip but the Core Gallery Open which I co-curated with Ros Davis was a big success - I think it was the largest PV crowd we've had.  The Artist Talking blog workshop was a success too with near full capacity.  It really was wonderful to meet everyone.  It gives me such encouragement and validation to discover people are responding positively to the things I do; it really is such a boost and a reminder that isolation is transient. Even though as I write this, I'm still without internet, I have been working on several other projects and the clean-up has started in my new studio, hopefully I'll be painting again soon; it has been a long fallow summer.  In this fallowness and on my husband's suggestion that I draw more, I'm taking part in the Art House Coop Sketchbook Project.  It is a really great idea; this is the second year of the project.  It is in conjunction with the Brooklyn Art Museum Library and all the sketchbooks returned by the deadline go on a world tour then become part of the permanent collection.  It costs $25 to participate and an extra $20 to digitize your sketchbook.  Each artist selects a title topic from a list of topics provided by Art House, such as 'Encyclopedia of', they send you a sketchbook and you're off from there.  The title of my sketchbook is 'The Encyclopedia of Wherewithall'.   To find out more go to: www.thesketchbookproject.com  the deadline for sign up is 31st October 2011.  Now I just have to find the teapot and remember where I put the tea.....     ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   Art critic pair launches Rebecca - a comprehensive writing service for artists, artist-led groups, galleries, and arts organizations - with a free, Twitter advice session on 9 November at 6pm GMT / 1pm EST. Art professionals Becky Hunter and Jane Boyer have upped the ante for independence with the creation of Rebecca, an arts writing service designed to support the independent arts practitioner.  Based on their complementary skills, experience and expertise, Rebecca offers a wide range of specialist services, from press release writing and PDF layout, to essay writing, assistance with artist and curatorial statements, and consultation on business writing.    Becky explains, "As the commercial gallery world becomes ever more exclusive, proactive artists and artist-led initiatives take increasing responsibility for their own self-promotion, critical reception and career development. It makes sense to work with an experienced writer to bring polish and sparkle to your press releases, to encapsulate the creative force and vision in your business documents, and to highlight the years of hard-earned, in-depth knowledge of your practice in your catalogue essays." To this end, the free Twitter Q&A session offers artists, creative entrepreneurs, and arts professionals an opportunity to draw upon the Rebecca team's know-how. Questions on all aspects of art writing, press releases and marketing strategy, artist statements, blogging, and critical essay writing will be answered. The online launch also provides a chance simply to interact with Becky and Jane, and to find out whether their skills and services are a good fit with your needs. Connect with @RebeccaProjects before and during the event using the hashtag #AskRebecca. Becky is a regular contributor to Art Papers and Sculpture, and an independent researcher with an AHRC funded Masters in History of Art. Jane is an artist, critic, curator, and committed peripatetic, who frequently reviews exhibitions for whitehotmagazine.com. Both writers have formal Fine Art training and sustain meaningful art practices. "As working arts professionals, Becky and I understand the importance and often the complexity involved in creating texts for a professional art practice. Because we understand, we want to help," says Jane. Rebecca's writers are great listeners who will collaborate with you to produce the text you envision. Elizabeth Murton, an artist and curator at Core Gallery, London, says, "Jane has an ability to help you focus ideas in the text, structuring information in a clear, readable, and engaging way. Her arts and business background gives her a unique perspective to assess the audience and impact of the writing, which compliments her knowledge and love of art." Rebecca: Key information Launch Information: 9 November, 6-8pm GMT | Twittter @RebeccaProjects #AskRebecca Web: http://rebeccaprojects.net | Email: enquiries@rebeccaprojects.net Phone: Becky +1 215-317-0907 | Jane +33 546704225 Services: Press releases, catalogue essays, artist & curatorial statements, business writing, editing   ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588   I've always felt the artist's ability to know when to stop an intriguing thing and one of the signals in defining an artist, although I know some artists do struggle with knowing when to stop.  An artist friend back in The States told me once that he observed his child in a group of other children during a painting workshop for kids.  Each child was painting a picture, he noticed his son reached a point and stopped while the other kids just kept painting until they were told to stop.  He found it significant and I had to agree.  The completion of something is an important boundary; it contains the statement that anything more would be superfluous, unnecessary and an annoyance running the risk of ruining all that came before.  It signals not an end but the wholeness of something. It is with these thoughts that I have decided to stop.  I have been writing this blog for a year and half or so and it is about one year ago I participated in my first group exhibition with Core Gallery which marked the beginning of a fruitful journey out of isolation, one which I'm still on I'm happy to say; a journey made possible by Artists Talking.  I've said before and I'll say again any success I have relates back to this blog on a-n.  That journey is the very reason I'm making the decision to stop this blog.  With the launch of Rebecca, I'm now entering a new phase in my artistic life, one which is no longer isolated.  It is time to stop working in isolation but my dialog with history will never end. My sincere wishes of good luck and heart-felt thanks to a-n and everyone who joined me here discussing many fascinating topics, as well as to those who read the things we talked about.  I am very grateful for your engagement with my thoughts and the trust you showed me by sharing yours. As my friend and fellow artist Elizabeth Murton said recently, 'This is, of course, not farewell, but see you soon!' All the Best, Jane       ... Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking/projects/single/643588