Artlives Archives: A selection of discussions from the group

Katherine writes on contemporary figurative art:

In thinking more about Beer's work, I was reminded of another artist who's work I saw on the cover of "Contemporary Art" summer '96 issue. Melanie Manchot combines photography and painting and the subject of this body of her work is an old woman's body. Some of the images are close ups of this old woman's primary and secondary sexual body parts, one of which includes her face and is a take-off of a porno/cheesecake pose.

The text says things like "Manchot offers here a new way of seeing the aging female body -- as beautiful and sensual; a terrain mapped by life's experience. From the body of this ageing woman we can read her history..... in the pleats and folds of the stomach with its white ridges and loose skin, in the wideness of the hips..... a thickening of abdominal fat.... breasts sag...darkening around the nipples... bent slightly arthritic toes.... splay out ..... we are forced to ask deeper questions about the nature of existence, that go beyond the packaged surface of pert breasts and a wrinkle-free face." So the artist's measuring stick is youthful, physical beauty. She offers no other  information about this woman and no other way to value her. The artist's absolutely beautiful technique further makes this old woman look unappealing. The artist has chosen to disregard various other measuring sticks besides her "packaged surface" -- for example, that of mature accomplishment, or of years of devoted work -- maybe this woman is a doctor who has saved lives, maybe she wrote a novel which changed lives, or raised children who do. The artist merely reinforces instead of challenging her value of youth and all of her stereotypical and sexist views of women.

Now, Beer's work does not do this. She is not condescending to her subjects and does not use some unrealistic measurement of their value. She doesn't put them in the negative light of, say, academic prize winners, or elite athletes, or deeply philanthropic wealthy, or brilliant inventors, or of the success that comes after many decades of creative, dedicated, consistent, driven and focused work. She really takes them as they are, and since their social position parallels her artistic stance, she finds value in them. Their own value. And she is honest about how she irritates them into being her subject and the irritating nature that they have. Katherine

Thomas writes on Giacometti and Sartre

Here's what drew Sartre to Giacometti: "What impressed him most was Alberto's uncompromising commitment to experience as a search for the absolute, admittedly doomed to failure, but imperative for that very reason" [Lord] By the time they met in 1939, Giacometti had already had successful shows with his surrealist work, but had for three years stopped working that way.  He had become *obsessed* with representation of the figure, or just the head, but when he placed himself in front of the model he "discovered the insurmountable distance separating them". All his life he felt paralyzed between the immense number of details and the impossibility of managing the totality of the figure or the head.  Beaten but never immobilized. Giacometti went through a 10 year period of beginning plaster sculptures life size and working at them obsessively until they were the size of a matchstick!  He would wander the streets of paris covered in plaster dust, and when someone would ask him what he was working on he'd pull a matchbox or two out of his pocket and show them.  People thought he had lost it.  Imagine TEN YEARS of having your work, despite your best intentions reduced to the size of matchsticks!  But the process eventually ead him to do the work he is now primarily known for.
The reasons were of course, far more complex, but I wanted to share the story to give you a sense of his incredible persistence, and what amounts to faith in himself and the creative process.  How many artists in his position would have gone relentlessly on in a direction that was so difficult and seemingly fruitless when they could have gone back to what had come easily, been successful AND sold well?

Thomas

Ben writes on the practicalities of shipping art

Comments on crate building. 

Determine the thickness of the paintings/wframes that will be in the crate.  Obtain 1" white pine that thickness and a little more (but if it is over 8", I would considered using plywood for the sides of the crate, but I won't go into that now). Assemble the outside edges of the crate with the white pine (using glue and nails --drill first so as not to split the wood) insuring that the paintings will fit into the crate.  The crate will have to be a shade wider than the widest painting and a shade taller than the tallest. When this is completed, lay it on the floor and check to see the paintingswill fit in it.  OK? 

Next: Get some plywood.  If you think the trip will not be too rigorous, you can use 1/4" luan plywood.  Otherwise 3/8" underlayment plywood will do. If the crate is small than 4' x 8', cut the plywood to fit the crate and NAIL the first side on.  If the crate is larger, then you will have to piece the plywood panels.  Determine how this is most efficiently done, cut the plywood.  On the outside side of the plywood (the side that will be outside the crate), join the panels together in this fashion: Using 1" x 3" white pine, cut pieces that will fit around the outside perimeter of the crate.  Using glue and small screws, attach this to the panels (putting the screws in frm the inside side of the crate).  Good idea to mark with a pencil where the screws go, so you will not drive a nail into them.   Then cut 1" x 3" wp to fit over the places where the panel parts are to be  joined.  Again, glue and screws from the inside of the crate.  This will make a pretty durable large panel.  NAIL it to the edge pieces. Repeat the process for the top of the crate, but you will attach this side with screws so that it can be easily opened.

In packing the paintings, wrap in plastic and then brown paper.  I put the smallest work in the crate first (face up).  I secure this painting in the crate with 1" x 2" wp and metal braces with small screws.  The painting should rest on what will be the bottom side of the crate, and the wood braces (to which I have staples strips of cardboard) are placed along the sides of the painting and attached to the edge of the crate. Then a sheet of cardboard over this (should be the same size as the inside of the crate).  Then the next largest painting, bracing it into the crate in the same manner.  If you are lucky, the braces will not have to be removed to lift out the painting underneath, but painters are not that lucky.  So, you should make notes on the braces to remove the screws with arrows pointing to where they are.  Add sheet of cardboard. Repeat the process until you have all the paintings in the crate.  Another sheet of cardboard.  I like to put strips of cardboard all around each painting to absorb as much shock as possible. Place cover on the crate, and screw in place.  Drill holes first or the wood will split. Mark on all sides of the crate how it is to travel.  UP with an arrow is OK. You can mark "Fragile" etc., but it is not a good idea to label it ART.

Now, when you ship, you may have problems with insurance.  I have been using an Inland Marine Policy for several years.  Finally I got a policy in the mail and read it.  It did not cover damage due to improper handling.  Hell, that is why I bought the coverage.  My insurance agent took the issue to the carrier and they would not insure for that.  And, in fact, gave me all of my money back for the past 3 years of shipping insurance!!! I think I will not be able to insure my work when being shipped in the future.  So, good, sturdy crates are necessary. Oh, I always photograph the process.  Each painting, and an image of each painting after it is placed in the crate, and a photo of the completed crate.  Hope this helps.