Paul's discussion : Excerpts

I think I am up for the challenge you present. Count on me to be direct, honest and opinionated. I have some pretty strong biases which I'm sure will reveal themselves quickly.

I see my website as a work in progress. It certainly is far from perfect, and your input is encouraged, but how good it gets is restricted by how much time I am willing to give it.

I will also have some things to say about the ideas you are posting.

Thanks, Paul

Kpoene - Re: Paul Klein 3/2/02; 12:58:49 PM (reads: 3655, responses: 0) Hi, Paul. I was skimming your bio, and I noticed that you have some animosity towards writing about visual art. What in particular bothers you about it?

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein 3/3/02; 10:37:42 PM (reads: 3646, responses: 1)

Well, Kpoene, I am impressed with your question. You cut through all the b.s. and went right for the heart. Unfortunately the answer is not short. I have the highest respect for good artists. Here, I define good artists as being those artists who put their lives, their hearts, their soul, their mind and their ass into their art. They live it, breathe it, eat it and feel it 24 hours a day. Ask a good artist why he or she makes art and they will tell you they have no choice. They have to do it. A good artist can be a painter or a sculptor, a writer or a dancer, a musician or a composer. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is as important as their art. Spouses are nice. Lovers are comforting. Kids are sweet. But nothing is as important as their art. Nothing. Good artists have dedicated their lives to their art. They aspire to greatness. Immersed in their life's work, a "critic" comes upon it. (Maybe I should just stop here. I think you can see where I'm going.) Segue ~ ~ ~ (It starts getting long here - most of what I say is summed up in the two previous paragraphs.) I talk to young artists all the time (I talk to not young artists all the time too, but the advice I share with the young artists is more relevant to this discussion.) I tell them that only 25% of them are still going to be making art by the time they have been out of school for 5 years. I tell them that it is particularly tough and that to succeed they have to be vulnerable. They have to be willing to stand naked to the world and say Here I am. I believe in me. And this is what it looks like. And if they can't do that they might as well hang it up already. Now, I don't expect any artist who is still in school to say that, but I expect them to believe that they are going to get there. I want the artists I work with to dig deep, challenge themselves and reach for greatness. I imagine the coach of the Middlebury hockey team wants his "artists" to feel the same way. I encourage artists to apply the same creativity they bring to their art to the whole of their lives. We frequently need to be reminded that the world is not pure, that we do not succeed merely on the quality of our art. It is not sufficient to just make good art. It needs to get attention, be seen, be heard, to be written about. (I believe, by the way, that everything I am saying here applies to life in general and to each and every one of us; no matter what we do, we should aspire to greatness. (Damn - all those idioms are coming back to me - some are incredibly stupid, like, Don't start vast projects with half-vast ideas.) In another discussion I was talking about the impurity of newspaper reviews. Where is the fairness in that? Is it okay for an editor to remove the last two paragraphs to make room for advertising? (Would you cut off the bottom 6 inches of a painting so it would fit over the couch?) Good artists are not prone to compromise. Compromise suggests that you are comfortable with your oeuvre being less than you know it can be. What kind of garbage is that? Yet we sure as hell know that a reviewer or a critic needs to be pragmatic, needs to write to some common denominator, and perhaps needs to be understood by the "masses." So we are confronted with the dilemma of a highly respected voice on this thread (and I am one of those who respects this voice) who wrote: . . sometimes I have to write on things that I don't know that much about. Then I just have to research, and trust my own opinion. I've found that just because you aren't an expert in the classical sense doesn't make you any less of a great critic . . . To a certain extent, we're all winging it. So the reality is that someone who makes their art their life's work may have it reviewed by a "great critic" who is just "winging it." Ggrrrr. I know plenty of great critics who aspire to greatness, who say great, thought provoking things, who inspire and befriend artists, who teach and guide and instruct and lead. And no more than is art for everyone should art criticism be for everyone We are all in charge of our own destinies. Our lives are our own. (More pontificating to follow.) We must make the tough decisions. We must seek to be fair. We must take responsibility for our words, especially if our words are going to affect others lives. I don't have any animosity for critics in particular. (I spend years teaching my kids the 3 R's: Responsibility, Respect & Resourcefulness. They know those phrases and their meanings inside out. By definition, artists know them intrinsically. Some critics do too. I have a problem with people who are disrespectful. I have a problem with people who are irresponsible. And I have a problem with people who don't use the resources that are available to them. When someone writes about art, I expect him or her to know the 3 R's, either in fact or in deed. And if they don't, they are performing a disservice not only to their reader, but to whatever they are writing about. I challenge myself. I challenge you to aspire to greatness, to be fair, to write with justice, to distinguish yourself from those who settle for mediocrity. I know of a great critic who from his insight and from his writing became one of the world's very most important curators; Okwui Enwezor. I know of a vastly important artist who graduated from Middlebury: Robert Gober. And I know of a still young art curator who is certainly one of the five most important American curators today, who graduated from Middlebury: James Rondeau. So, I want to make four points. Aspire to greatness; don't be intimidated. The road is long, and you have time. Neither writing nor painting is a sprint. It is a marathon. Great critics have made great contributions. (Try to be ethical - ultimately good ethics are very pragmatic.) Middlebury has graduated some very major players in the art world. Are you next? Or is it the other person reading this?

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein 3/4/02; 8:28:29 PM (reads: 3633, responses: 0)

Ok, I hope this works. It is a direct cut and paste from an unauthored/unattributed list of the top 10 artists in Washington, DC. (I represent Sam Gilliam in Chicago.)

10. Sam Gilliam This is easily the most famous of all local Washington artists, and his claim to fame comes together with the Washington Color School and the color exuberance of Abstract Expressionism. Gilliam's works have moved to become almost sculptural in nature. His talent for color and creation are undeniable. Nonetheless, he does not seem to "add" to the city's cultural scene with the creativity of a Clark or a Cleary, which goes beyond creating just art. (Emphasis mine.)

Kpoene - Re: Paul Klein 3/4/02; 9:06:56 PM (reads: 3655, responses: 0)

Well, I'm glad to see that you're getting the hang of this weblog thing. :) Thanks for answering my question, but you're going to regret giving me such a long answer, because now I have a lot more questions for you.

I am a visual artist, and I am also struggling with the idea of actually talking about visual art. somehow it seems to take away from the whole idea of actually creating something tangible, which of course is the point of painting or sculpting, otherwise you would write a poem.

As far as the three "r's" go (see, I was paying attention), how do you define 'responsible'? Is this referring to the idea of responsible journalism? Responsibility to the artist? What constitutes 'art ethics'?

We have been talking about whether or not critics should harbor a personal bias when reviewing because it influences their critique. How do you feel about this,as far as fairness is concerned? What makes someone a great critic (I know, I know, you said it was a matter of adhering to the r's and being fair) but how does someone who talks about other people's art really establish themselves as a master of their craft?

Do you really think artists have to be completely consumed 100% by their art? No families? No friends? To play devil's advocate here, I can think of one very successful painter, Thomas Kincaid, whose work, though of questionable quality or even originality, is some of the highest-grossing art in the country. And he has a wife and 2.5 kids. But I suppose that he isn't actually a very great artist because his art is boring. Hmm.

Kpoene - Re: Paul Klein 3/4/02; 9:06:56 PM (reads: 3655, responses: 0)

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein 3/4/02; 10:20:37 PM (reads: 3620, responses: 0)

Your dilemma about being a visual artist evaporates if you get rid of the adjective. Why restrict yourself?

You've got the essence of responsibility there. Art ethics are no different than sand box ethics or global ethics. (Oh, I hope they let me get away with that statement.)

With élan and panache!

No, I don't think artists need to be consumed with their art but it sure tends to be the number one priority.

Heather Harris - Re: Paul Klein 3/5/02; 6:32:15 PM (reads: 3723, responses: 0)

Paul....

I was glancing over the initial conversation that you were having with Kpoene and was wondering when you felt that you had become a true artist, not just a student still in school who thought he would dabble in the arts like you said, but when did you become vulnerable?

I was also interested in knowing how you would feel about reviewing your own art. In this circumstance you would know what the artist is trying to get across and would be able to follow the three "r"s that you mention.

Lastly, you comment to Stephanie that she writes more of human-interest articles than actual critiques. You quote, "I think you are neither challenging nor jeopardizing someone's soul by your words." Yet, after commenting how you feel that people shouldn't really critique art, how come you are challenging her to dig deeper into the art. This digging could cause her to find something negative about it and write a review that respects the audience, artwork, and artist, but is not entirely positive. I feel that a more human-interest approach could still be seen as a review but also is maybe the safe way out of not writing a negative review. Or do you think a critic should just refuse to write anything about a work which is to put it bluntly, bad. I am sure you have seen works of art that you feel are awful. One may be able to respect the artist and appreciate the amount of time that he or she took in creating the piece, but it might have just not turned out to the audience's liking. If you had to write a review on a painting that you thought was bad, what would you do?

I look forward to reading your response.

-Heather

Heather Harris - Re: Paul Klein 3/5/02; 6:49:51 PM (reads: 3722, responses: 0)

Paul...

Another quick question. I was just reading your son's bio, because he has recently joined our weblog, and he mentions at the end that he doesn't want to explain yet why you got into the art business. So I will ask you personally, why did you go into the art business and how did you get your start?

-Heather

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein 3/5/02; 9:44:17 PM (reads: 3717, responses: 0)

Oh, I don't think I am a true artist. Though I do see the gallery as my art form. So clearly there is some dichotomy going on here. I don't know. I don't feel the need to be consistent. I think I resist becoming as vulnerable as I encourage artists to be. Maybe that is why I put them on such a high pedestal. In terms of reviewing my own "art," how I install, sell, grow a community, educate and have fun, I think I am kickin' butt. I'm having a blast. Don't get me wrong. I think it is fine to critique art. I think you have to do it with respect - that doesn't mean you have to like it or that you have to agree with it - it does mean that you need to give it its due. Another thing. There have been a lot of times when an artist has brought in work for me to consider for representation and I say ya know I just don't identify with the negative feelings that are coming off those colliding shapes in the lower right hand corner (or some something) and the artist looks at me and says Wow, that's exactly what I'm going after. What we may accurately identify and not like may be exactly the effect the artist was going after. I guess if I had to do any art criticism (it would be under duress) I would talk about how it moved/effected me. I would not talk about it. (I don't know that I have ever thought about that question before. Thank you.) There are a couple of different reasons I became a gallery. One story is that I submitted a sculpture I'd made to an exhibit and got refused so I switchesd sides. Another is that I set out from college to do different jobs/careers for 3 years at a time and after teaching for 3, I am only half way through my 3 year art gig after almost 30 years of doing it. Suzie Mozes - Re: Paul Klein 3/7/02; 10:13:01 PM (reads: 3460, responses: 0)

Hey Paul-

I finally got caught up on this conversation! It's definitely been an interesting one. I have several questions for you. First, from your intitial response to Kpoene's question. You mention a good critic gets to know the artist. Do you mean that the critic knows the artist's work or gets to know them personally? We've discussed the bias created once you become socially familiar with the artist during class discussions. I think it is important to remain at a distance from the artist you are critiquing. Secondly, while you admit to not being a true artist, how did you develop this intricate definition of what a real artist is? Hope to hear from you soon!

Suzie Mozes

Edit this Page

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein 3/7/02; 10:42:39 PM (reads: 3420, responses: 1)

When I say a good critic gets to know the artist, I mean the artist's work.

I agree that a bias from social contact can effect the critique, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

The art world is not pure. Why handicap ourselves by pretending it is?

There are plenty of artists whose paintings or sculpture I don't like and particularly don't respect.

And I may feel this way for years and then one of them may have designed the set for a play I'm involved in. And we start talking at a party and I'm really impressed with his mind, his literary references and his predilection for Groucho Marx.

So I start seeing his paintings differently and it looks as if I might have been wrong once upon a time.

I think I know who a good artist is pretty much the same way you know who a good teacher is. We can tell.

After a year (or 20 in some cases) you get a pretty good sense of who the artists for the ages are, the merely great, the good, the how'd they get this far?, the lucky and the damned.

There are certain nebulous characteristics that separate some artists from the rest. I think I have a sense of what that is. I don't think it is the same for all artists. So I guess what I am citing is my interpretation of those core issues.

Edit this Page

Suzie Mozes - Re: Paul Klein 3/8/02; 9:45:55 AM (reads: 3471, responses: 0)

I have experienced what you are talking about first hand, ironically this very morning.

We went to the college museum to view David Bumbeck's work and write a review of his show. I had him as a professor in the fall term and disliked him as a teacher immensely. As a result, my review of him was particularly, unbashfully biased.

However, upon rewriting this article, I decided to give him a call to clarify a few points. It ended up turning into a long conversation, and I realized that I had completely misinterpreted his work. While I understand I am entitled to my interpretation, I had become too subjective. After the conversation with him this morning, I have a greater respect for him as both a teacher, father, son, and artist. It's hard, but I am willing to admit to my wrongdoing.

But then it begs the question, would the article be better if I never had come into any contact with him?

Edit this Page

Kpoene - Re: Paul Klein 3/10/02; 2:39:32 PM (reads: 3400, responses: 1)

i'm going to respond to suzie and paul.

i think it's very important to respect your initial reaction to a piece of art and your feelings after talking to the artist. opinions are fluid, one would hope. but recognizing that you really don't like someone's work is very valuable and interesting, especially if come to like it after talking with the artist. of course we should talk to artists about their art, find out why they made it, what they were thinking, and exactly what that grey dot in the corner really signifies.

suzie, i think it's very interesting that after talking to bumbeck your opinion of his work did a complete 180, especially since you had a class with him last semester.

as for you, paul -

how do we 'just know' who a good artist is? do you mean we just know who we consider to be good artists? what if i personally think picasso was a sham artist who never gave credit to african art when he was busily 'inventing' cubism? does that mean that i don't know what a good artist is? should good artists influence us? is that good art? what should art do?

Edit this Page

Suzie Mozes - Re: Paul Klein 3/10/02; 3:29:55 PM (reads: 3455, responses: 0)

kpoene-

i wouldn't say that my opinion has done a 180 at all! I still do not particularly like his work, but I understand it in a different light. I feel like now I am better equipped to write about his work since I now have two perspectives... mine and his!

Suzie

Mail This Story
Print-Friendly Version

This site is using the MinimalWhite theme.