Why don't artists want to talk?

ArtLog is now online and anyone who has stayed at the Centre can become a member of it. This should make it possible to create an "Annaghmakerrig Community" online where artists can see what other artists have written, add comments and create their own entries. The facility is there at the moment to login and create entries but a technical hitch means it is not yet possible for artists to see the entries of other artists.

On a bad day, I am beginning to despair of the whole project! When I talk to artists and explain the idea, they are always very enthusiastic, energized and raring to go but that does not seem to translate into ArtLog entries. I know artists are unique and special but on the other hand everyone else in the entire world wants to tell their stories so why don't they? It may be that it interrupts the creative process ---yet my research would indicate that reflecting on the process actually makes the work better. It is extra work which ideally should be done at the time of making---but can be done in stages or even when the work is finished. Is it modesty, conservatism or laziness?

Whatever it is I think it is a pity. Many, many fine artists spend their whole lives working on their art and never get the recognition they deserve. ArtLog, at the very least, allows the artist to make a statement about what was important to them, their motivations, what they hoped to achieve. This record will stand for future generations to read and relate to.

Moreover, what about the young artist starting out who is unsure and tentative, in dire need of support and mentoring. What kind of comfort would the ArtLog entries provide to him/her? I have spoken to many artists who talk about how lonely art making is, the isolation, the worry, the feeling of inadequacy, the lack of achievement and how marvelous it would be to have fellow artists to talk to. Indeed, I have noticed this at the Centre the way artists talk to each other, exchange ideas and techniques and generally shoot the breeze! So why not carry on that interaction and do it virtually once they have left the Centre?

Maybe at the end of the day artists don't want to talk and that is all there is! Perhaps I should have chosen scientists!

Back Again

Well, the summer is over and it is time to get back to work on the ArtLog Project. Currently, I have a number of artists who have agreed to trial the system. I cannot say how grateful I am to these people. I know the pressures artists are under and greatly appreciate the generosity of spirit that has led them to become testers. It will be interesting to see how they get on. In a world where everyone is connected to the internet, blogging or sending emails, watching films on laptops and having virtual relationships with people you will never meet, artists seem to be apart from this. Not all of them obviously but I am curious to discover what is behind the reluctance to share their stories in particular the making of their art. Indeed, it may be that it is not possible for them to do this...that the process is too intuitive or tacit to be articulated. This should be an exciting experiment!

Process

As the new ArtLog system comes closer to going online, it is time to think about the nature of the artistic process. There are more questions than answers. Is it possible to chart it? What are the elements that are involved in the process ? When does it start and perhaps more importantly when does it end and why? When you think about it at all, the process that goes into producing any kind of cultural production is incredibly complicated. How does an idea, a feeling, a response to something, an intellectual concept become a painting, book, poem, score that communicates to the other person and will continue to do that over time. The Mona Lisa stays enigmatic to every generation and that is the genius of the artist. But in most cases, the craft, technique, skill gets overlooked and yet this is a fascinating process to non-artists. Really, the making of a work should stand beside the work if one is to to appreciate what has been achieved.

Why keep records?

I had a converation today with someone who could (would?) not understand why ArtLog is necessary. She maintains that Art is over documented as it is--that artists are generally paranoid,keep everything,blog, self promote and therefore, document all the time. Obviously, I do not agree. Artist may very well keep records but they tend to be for the purposes of stimulating the imagination or triggering responses and are arranged in a very personal kind of order that only makes sense to the artist themselves. I can remember arguing this concept with a writer at the centre who said he had his notebooks and wrote everything down.He had been at the Centre two/three years previously so I challenged him to tell me what he had been working on at that time. He came back somewhat chastened because while he had written about what interested him then, he had not actually written down exactly what he was working on. This, I think, is the point. Record making is one thing, but record keeping so that the records makes sense in a different time and place is a whole other thing. Its an old fashion notion otherwise known as history!

The fresh air of Annaghmakerrig

I have just returned home after four days spent at the Centre working on ArtLog. My task was to catalogue and abstract the entries. I have to say the content is fascinating. It is so interesting to see how people make connections, fashion their work and give their ideas physical form. More than one entry speaks about the impact that surroundings have on an artist's creativity. The Centre is positioned in a very beautiful landscape which has its own particular light changing with the time of day,not to mention the weather!. For example,this visit was punctuated by spectacular fog which surrounded the Centre in moist cotton wool and made it seem further away from the real world than normal! However, artists in their entries have spoken about how interacting with nature....simply by going for a walk..can stimulate ideas and illustrate new connections. One artist spoke about how the singing of the birds reminded her of a line in a poem. She mentioned it to a composer at dinner, he came up with music and now between them they have a poem set to music. Another artist spoke of walking to a faery fort which set off a whole load of associations in her mind that she used in her work. It seems to me, that as an artist, you are never off duty, that inspiration can lie in the most unlikely spots and in everyday occurences. How marvellous is that?

1% inspiration and 99% perspiration

I have often wondered when people use the term "artistic genius" to whom are they really referring? It generally implies some huge success or distinction in a field. However, anyone can be called this no matter what their metier- advertising executives to artists. It also, I think, implies that the person concerned has no real control over their genius..it just flows out of them and they can hardly help themselves.
Non-Artists cling to the notion of the artist as genius because it makes it slightly easier for us if we believe that artists are inspired by God, special people with a special calling so that we can be awestruck by their creativity and bow down in wonder. However, it is a fact that an artist's last work can be their finest as they bring a lifetime's experience and expertise to their art. I was talking to a painter recently at the Centre who made an interesting point. She said she thought it was such a pity that commercial success tended to come early to young artists who were taken up as the "hottest new thing" while the vast majority of artists spent their whole lives honing their craft with little or no recognition. She thought this made the process look easy when in fact producing Art that strikes an empathetic chord in other people is one of the the hardest thing to do.You certainly cannot do it well without being an expert in your chosen medium. I think Edison summed it up when he said "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration!"

Artistic process

ArtLog is a project that is attempting to record the history of a residential artists centre by documenting the artistic work that the artists carry out there. Software has been created so that artists can document or log their thoughts on the work as they do it. The project grew out of a concern that the trace or record of process is being lost in the modern age. Artists have always kept diaries, sketchbooks, written long letters to friends but now everybody uses email, digital cameras, blogs, twitter and other forms of mobile communication. This is fine except it can all disappear overnight! Paper is surprisingly robust and will survive neglect. Digital files are not by any manner of means robust and unless carefully managed they will decay and very, very quickly become obsolete. Unless we try hard to record our history, it might disappear and future generations will have no insights into what our world was like.
This history of a work of art is important. Non-artists are always fascinated by how an artist produces a work whether it is a picture, poem, musical composition. Those of us who can't envy those who can and want to have a little window into the world of the creative person. Perhaps artists dont think they should tell the rest of us how they do it? Is it important for artists to maintain a sense of mystery about what they do?. Do artists want to portray themselves as mere conduits for divine inspiration? ?The old romantic notion of the mad genius in the garret!
Well, I expect some do but most of the artists I have met are seriously intelligent people who work and practice at their art. People who enjoy the problems their work presents them with and actively seek out more problems not to solve. There is definitely an unknown factor in Art that can be inspiration or flash of insight that is hard to explain but a lot of art is technique and mastery of that technique.