Recently I did 2 different art lessons online with 2 different instructors. Both were "follow along" video's, the first one was simply watch with background music only while the second had verbal instructions (as well as some background music). I think I prefer to have at least some verbal instructions; perhaps just to explain the why's on some items. Both did allow me to stop, "rewind", repeat & zoom in closer - I did like that. And although I like both finished pieces, I can't help but wonder "did I create these, or did I simply mimic what I saw."
As I look at these on my easel now (and yes, I am in the process of framing one) I can't help but think that these "are not mine." I did not do the composition, I did not choose the color palette, I did not choose the light vs. darks. I did hold the brushes, do the brushstrokes, create the mood & movement ... but ... does that make it mine as an artist? It definitely has me pondering.
I recall long ago when I was new to painting. I was lamenting to an artist friend that I felt I was lacking as an artist because I hadn't gone to official art school. He said I was better off having not gone because I would only learn to create the instructors way & not my own. I didn't really understand that statement until years later. And now I wonder, are these 2 paintings above examples of that theory?
I recall reading about Thomas Kinkade, the painter who excelled at capturing light. But what I learned was that countless people learned to "paint his way." And a team was employed to do various paintings, in the Kinkade manner, except for the final touches of light. For that, Kinkade would handle only. A way to mass-produce and yet maintain somewhat a level of originality, resulting in a signature that would command a $$.
I'd be interested in hearing what other artists think on this subject.
5 comments:
An interesting quandary. All the renaissance madters had workshops as you describe for Thomas Kincaid. Come to think of it, so do the modern big names. It is the only way an artist can make really big money outside of mass produced prints. It also makes logical sense in a world where big names make most of their income from selling their name (Trump) and merchandising (Disney).
As for whether you are the artist or not, of course you are. You are certainly the creator and artisan. I heard a university professor almost mock an artist who had died and donated all their work, because there was no style or consistency. I was shocked, that this pompous non-artist should deride the creator, as even the act of choosing to follow lessons and copy is artistic. Likewise even the best copy is never exactly like the original, because the artist brings their own soul to the work, hence creating a standalone work of art. Some art pieces I have copied many times and each one is slightly different and with each one my understanding of the subject deepens.
In regard to the two works above I instantly knew they were different from your regular work, not better, or worse just different. I love the one with the trees and it is also somewhat more like your work. If you are worried about selling them as your own work, that is where the problem arises because I believe artists gain a following and repeat sales if they keep their work consistent or at least work in progressive series. Galleries prefer “reliable” artists and so do most buyers.
It is a quandary indeed, one in retirement I have stopped worrying about.
PS Good to see you blogging again. Happy holidays.
Thanks Sea for your comments. My style has changed so often that I hesitate to say it is consistent. But I like evolving - other classes I do online (such as the one I'm on now), I fast forwarded to the end piece. Studied it & now I'm off to interpret it myself. I think I prefer that way rather than step-by-step! Yes, good to get back to some blogging!
And Happy Holidays to you also my friend. Stay safe, stay healthy!
First of all, both of these are lovely paintings. I've had the same conversation with myself about whether paintings I've done along with a YouTube tutorial is truly "mine." I don't worry that it's plagiarism; they put it out there for the intended purpose that it would be copied. When I've had this situation, I've compromised by calling it "oil painting" instead of "original oil painting." Also, I always give a shout out or link to the site I used. That way I guess I don't feel like I'm hiding anything and I can go ahead and be proud of my painting. I hope you are proud of these two beautiful pieces of art you've created.
Thanks Helen for your comments. Glad you like the paintings, I actually do also. And, like you, I really can't consider them originals. But it's actually giving me the feeling of being in a class. Prior to pandemic, I would meet with a local art group once a month. Very often there was a demonstration of a new technique or how-to. I truly miss those and am looking at youTube instructions to fill that void. At least until it's safe to gather again. thanks again & Happy Holiday!
Post a Comment