Formula painters

Over the years I've noticed many painters basically paint the same thing over and over again--just varying the angles, poses, etc. Some sell quite nicely--as if the artist made a successful painting and then simply worked to recreate it over and over again. I am sure that's good commerce but is it art?

I won't attempt to put that question to rest here but I will say, for me, it's not the work of an artist if it's not evolving. I know I admire the artists who over time reinvent themselves and their work on an ongoing basis. Sure, style exists--it's good to be able to be identifiably unique. But to just repeat one's self seems like a sell out.

Now, I know first hand the pressures of art and those who profit off of it (gallery owners, collectors, publishers, etc.) and how they would like an artist to keep producing what has sold before. I can't tell you how many of them have told me to paint more like this other artist, or do more of that one thing they liked, or to paint in a more popular medium. That certainly discourages ongoing exploration and experimentation.

Every true artist walks a path of constant examination of self, work, and value. And that makes the art evolve. Just like the great musicians try new things with each CD (to many exec's distaste) artists keep pushing themselves to push their work.

So when I see an artist whose work now looks nearly identical to their work 10 years ago, or even a year ago, I disappointingly categorize them as a formula painter. Those who I can spot (due to a distinct style) yet be excited because of something refreshing I call an artist.

I want to be an artist.

Posted via email from Stephen Thompson Western Art