If you wish to see a dramatic clarification of the drawing began 11/17/2019, open two windows on your web browser, then go back and forth, from the version (published yesterday) to the final version (published today). This drawing is of extreme high quality, yet I worry, "Too complex?" Ashille Gorky worried much the same. As Gorky's work moved to maturity his compositions became more dense, more difficult for the casual viewer to comprehend.  In Drawing 11·17·2019 I try to give the viewer relief from its complexity in the upper, more open half, of the composition. Gorky did this too, but in a much different manner. I believe density is felt more astutely when contrasted by simpler areas of the composition.

​The painting, "Sentence", is moving nicely toward completion.

Yesterday's drawing is highly successful. T.S. Eliot's view of the artist, as dispassionate onlooker of passionate construction, is cathartic. The piece I show today is this. Me, the artist, administered till the drawing fulfilled its destiny. It bobs and rhymes and sings a tune full of rhythm, depth, volume, and quiet self-declaration. In endless satisfaction the viewer can move through it; this drawing gives as much as the viewer gives. This drawing is responsive. This drawing allows pleasurable consummation; the viewer need only commit to enjoying the world it presents.

This week The New Yorker magazine published an article on their online site in their "Page-Turner" section. It is entitled "A Hundred Years of T.S. Eliot's 'Tradition and the Individual Talent'" This article  is appropriate to me. I have been wondering out-loud, here, and to my friends, about art and mindfulness. Mindfulness in art, to me, is stating personal truth and reality. If taken literally, this is a monumental task. Knowing oneself is not easy, exhibiting oneself in one's art is even harder. T.S. Eliot's take is fascinating. Eliot believed the artist is a mere conduit of ideas, and those ideas are not necessarily an exhibit of the actual personality of the artist. For Eliot, the artist does not serve as a medium but has a medium: "The poet has, not a 'personality' to express," Eliot writes, "but a particular medium...and not a personality." In Eliot's famous essay, "I...invite you to consider, as suggestive analogy, the action which takes place when a bit of finely filiated platinum is introduced into a chamber containing oxygen and sulfur dioxide... The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum." That is to say, the artist is a catalyst. The artist isn't affected by the reaction, nor does any trace of his personality appear in the final product — but without the artist the reaction does not take place. Apparently Shelley said something similar, i.e, the artist is "the influence which is moved not, but moves."

What a relief it is to remove the intensity of self-criticism, questioning the exhibition (or not) of one's personality in one's art. Reading this article is a relief to me. I struggle with so many aspects of art-making. My art reflects me as its spark and not me as itself.

This release from self-hood allows for complexity as solution. Yesterday's drawing is such a thing. 

I wish to control the third dimension that produces depth within my drawings and paintings. I picked up a book of Vincent Van Gogh drawings. I saw the drawing I reproduced, below. I responded. Trusting information from one of my forebears is useful.

Negative space continues as a major concern. In this regard, I often think of Vincent Van Gogh. His drawings, and his paintings, exhibit deep concern for every portion of the surface. I too am concerned with surface minutia. In yesterday's drawing I tried to animate the negative space through shape contrast and play. I believe it works! Today, as contrary research, I will touch every smidgen of the surface with a mark.

Swimming in the open ocean is for the self-determined. It is risk-taking. Without risk-taking my art would be repetitive, I'd be bored, and I would have no chance of self-realization. Strange instigates change, instigates reality. Reality is deceptive. It confuses the ability to see truth. As example, there is a reality defined by the likes and dislikes of commercial art gallery dealers. They like art they know, not art that challenges them. This is not just from me. Jean-Michel Basquiat (from the little book, Basquiat-isms) said, "Most identifiable things are what [commercial art dealers] like. I did some portraits last year and they really hated those. But the artists like them." This was exactly my experience with my three recent exhibitions. This does not make me feel better or worse. I feel a need to question all my past art, a need to create chaos in order to seek true ground. This happened yesterday. If yesterday's images disturb you, then good for you and good for me. 

My art has not yet taken the rebel leap for which I yearn. The major jump has not happened! Yesterday I listened to the podcast entitled You 2.0: Rebel With A Cause on National Public Radio's "Hidden Brain". Please listen to it.

Several weeks ago I began my quest for rebellion. This activity, me becoming a rebel, is happening. You 2.0: Rebel With A Cause is about Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor who studies rebels, people who practice "positive deviance" and achieve incredible feats of imagination. Rebels know how, and when, to break the rules that should be broken. Gino ponders the traits of successful rebels. Recently, in my blog, I have written that I am afraid that my vast education, my high skill level, is holding me back from becoming my true self (read the blog posts that immediately precede this one: Talent versus Skill, Noxious Truth, and Radicalizing Me).

Yesterday's studio work is challenging me, but it is not yet the rebel leap I desire.

Things must change! I am well educated; thus I am well tied to past knowledge. This restricts me because knowledge is the stuff that came before me. I am uncomfortable because the past does not adequately inform my present. I am not those who came before me. I am me. I am here, I am now. That which has happened is useful, like a good diving board, but it does not fully clarify who I am. Education is who and what there was, not who and what I am. I do not want to be redundant. I do not want to be repetitive. I want to be myself.

In yesterday's drawing I stopped myself before I overwhelmed it with past history. I require radical alteration. I accept my despair. I have made great art, but my art is in the books, my art is in this blog; my past art appeared like fungus on a log; it grew from art history and personal history. That is not good enough! It does not make me. It does not represent me. It represents acquisition of all that has come before.

I have been away from the studio. I was attending serious business. I visited museums. I had a dream in which I dialogued with Picasso. I contemplated. I retreated from Making-Art. I contemplated Making-Art. My many recent exhibitions left me confused. "What am I doing?" and "Why am I doing it?"

The art-making I seek requires skill and talent. Today's contemporary art scene often appears devoid of skill. That said, there is a talent there, one that causes public and private interest and engagement. We live in a world where celebratory personalities head countries and engage many followers. Upon inspection, some of these leaders are devoid of the required skill and knowledge to do their jobs well. However, there is talent there, a talent that causes public discourse and public interest. That is the definition of Artist. This illustrates my personal quandary. My confusion is comprehensible. I received a lot of positive feedback from artists, some gallery and museum directors expressed appreciation of my art. I did not get a lot of sales. I take lack of sales as lack of engagement. My viewers did not choose to put my art on their walls. Desire speaks of engagement. I want espousal; I want my viewers to want my art. If they do not want it they must not need it. I have failed if my viewers don't need my art, if they don't need to buy it, or own it. I feel I did not fully engage my viewers. This saddens me. I want more. I want my relationship with my viewers to be consummated!

My skill is extremely high. I can do anything on paper (or canvas) that I can imagine. Perhaps I have restricted my imagination to knowledge already acquired. I must engage my skill with greater abandon, with ambition to disclose more deeply than that which I intellectually comprehend. I am not who I think I am; I am more. The only way to know oneself is to uncover oneself. I must walk naked into the world. People love to look at naked people. They are unable to NOT look. Is this the gap I have been unable to fill between my viewers and I?  I need to take off all of my clothes.

Referring to popular culture, this is what I see, We have a president of the United States who is more reality TV star than successful statesman or successful business person. This man obtained his lofty position by appearing to be upfront and personal (despite the many questions surrounding his truthfulness). He has engaged our entire population despite his lack of skill for his current office. That is his talent. It is talent that may serve me well as artist. I want to engage. I want people to pay attention to my art. There are NO limits to what I can do because I have the necessary skill to do it. My failure to fully engage my viewers is my lack of a certain kind of talent. One can see the talent I am missing in our current president, also it is present in reality TV stars, in pop music artists, and in show business celebrities. The artist Andy Warhol was more a successful celebrity than a skillful artist. This explains a talent I must nurture in order to fully engage my viewers. My extreme artistic skill is squandered if I do not have the talent to engage my viewers. 

I dreamed I was with Picasso in his studio. Picasso threw me out. Picasso silently waved goodbye to me. I reluctantly gave in; I said goodbye. I walked away from one of my great educators. I do not need mentors any longer. I must rely solely on myself. It is no longer about what I know; it is about what I do not know, what I need to discover.

Yesterday's drawing is much different from the one in this blog's previous post. There is a two-week gap in time between these two drawings. I have begun to take steps without knowing where I am stepping. I step in confidence without knowing where the next step will lead. That is a good thing.

I prefer to deal with the artifice of the third-dimension on a flat surface, on canvas or paper. This is obvious in my images; obvious in the two works I show from yesterday's studio session.

Henri Matisse constantly dealt with this problem. Many have said Matisse's art is mostly decorative. It is more than that. Matisse himself said this: "What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity, devoid of troubling or disturbing subject matter, an art which could be for every mental worker, for the businessman as well as the man of letters, for example, a soothing, calming influence on the mind, something like a good armchair which provides relaxation from physical fatigue." That sounds like decoration to me! Matisse also said this: "Expression, to my way of thinking, does not consist of the passion mirrored upon a human face or betrayed by a violent gesture. The whole arrangement of my picture is expressive. The place occupied by figures or objects, the empty spaces around them, the proportions – everything plays a part. Composition is the art of arranging in a decorative manner the various elements at the painter’s disposal for the expression of his feelings."

I agree with the second quote from Matisse more than the first. Expression is my desire too. However, I do not believe this (from Matisse): "Composition is the art of arranging in a decorative manner...." It is far more difficult that that. Expression is far more than decoration. It can be tough and caustic, clean or messy. I continue to research this problem.

​Let me show two works of Henri Matisse. One tough, filled with three-dimension references, the other absolutely decorative, absolutely flat on flat (see below). I have tried to prove my thesis, that the artifice of the third-dimension can produce superior, more expressive art. than flat on flat. These two works by Henri Matisse are undeniably terrific and expressive. Of the two, I prefer the former. They are both decorative, but they are both bold and expressive as well. Kudos to Henri Matisse! I will continue to research self-expression through the use of three-dimensional forms on a flat canvas. I intuitively feel this method will bring me far past the expressive limitations of flat on flat. I must say is, "I am not Henri Matisse!" I admire Matisse's art, but I admire myself more.