reckoning with rodin
scored a timed (free) ticket to the recently re-opened national gallery of art west building last week. half the first floor available. some beautifully crafted furniture in the queen anne, chippendale, federal styles. but whoah nelly, the sculptures! prompted musings about art and intention, art and commerce, art and aesthetic, ‘good’ art.
first, these AMAZING (how do i not remember seeing them before?) small portrait busts (36 of em) by daumier. so friggin cool. broad caricatures of french politicians with intense, distinctive detail. meanwhile, faces and figures in his nearby paintings look washed or misted, kinda seen through a fabric. nothing soft about these busts, though!
degas’ pieces (one of the little dancers of course) didn’t do nearly as much for me. in fact, nothing at all. maybe cause we know so much more about him. or think we do. which brings me back to the internal debate about separating artists and their art. maybe i can’t always do it after all.
carrier-belleuse’s fantasy bust of a veiled woman (marguerite bellanger?)
don’t know much about albert-ernest carriere-belleuse. just two sculptures at the nga. this one (fantasy bust) in terracotta, with a wonderful expression, who was this woman? what was she like? his other sculpture there, the abduction of hippodamia, was probably completed with the help of rodin, a student in his workshop for a while. rodin started in that apprentice/assistant system, established and used through the centuries with everyone from leonardo to damien hirst. a problematic system. contemplating the whole idea since last week.
plus side from the old masters: those guys taught the workers as their students. and the ones who could make it in that marketplace (not even going into that) would move on while the others had a job. maybe to some extent, those staying in the workshops expressed themselves best by copying/supporting someone else and doing it really really well. a follower instead of a leader. you can be artistic and be a follower. there’s tons of them. every hotel room has a print/painting by one.
problem side then and now: what about those people? if assistants put so much time and talent and energy into a piece, shouldn’t they get some credit? did those assistants consider themselves artists? what pieces did they create outside the mentors’ workshops? more relevant to me, now: is this version of the thinker made by rodin or by one of his employees? assuming that rodin actually made the original model and cast in 1880, what about this one cast in 1901, much larger than the original. who made that model? it was like a shop really, where you’re paying for the rodin name but not necessarily the art made by him. the burghers of calais even notes “reduction cast probably 1895.” but we never learn the name of the person who did the reduced model or the casting. is it even important?
meanwhile, i LOVE the ribs showing through in age of bronze, whoever did it.
the age of bronze by rodin. nice biceps.
chihuly, kehinde wiley, hirst, others continue the workshop approach now. koons freely acknowledges that he envisions the whole but relies on others to implement it. no dealing with the specifics, just the idea. and yeah, the fair thing would be to call it the koons corporation really but the world’s not fair so instead, well, what? a somewhat immoral system. unfair and that’s that. bothers me so much because what it comes down to is this: if no one wants to buy my creations, i will still make them. cause i want/need to express myself. (and i know — my privileged position of being able to carve out time to create within a work week, and not having to live off my art.) but if koons couldn’t sell to anyone, would he still make art? i don’t think so. he’s in art to make money, not making money so he can do the art. meanwhile, rodin made art for art’s sake, at least for a long time. many many rejections before he began exhibiting. eventually he made money, so he expanded with a workshop. also so more people could see the art? why make so many castings of so many different size models? i don’t know his reasons. but he did take credit for others’ work as well, specifically with camille claudel (so typical: man ray and lee miller, duchamp and elsa von freytag-loringhoven, walter and margaret keane, henry gauthier-villars and colette, etc etc etc). claudel left rodin’s workshop (and him), and over time she was finally recognized as a major talent. but even now, do you ever see her work without reference to rodin? not the same with rodin: exhibits rarely reference carriere-belleuse.
the waltz by camille caudel. no i didn’t see this cause it’s in france, but amazing, right?
and so we remember the name rodin and we will remember koons and wiley and chihuly. i propose that we re-classify art completed in the workshop way. how about ‘factory of…’ or, in a less judgy way, ‘studio of…’ or ‘workshop of…’? more fair to all artists involved than the current system because yes they are employed by the big name dude, but the assistant’s work is also remarkable and not the artist’s own. i’d feel better if exhibitions included the history of those who worked on the piece. don’t have to read about it, but you can.
but back up. who decides what is exhibit-worthy anyway? until recently, mostly white men, and subsequently, we remember mostly white men and automatically think of their work as ideal. now who decides what’s good? i submitted work for a bunch of different virtual shows over the past five months, and was rejected by all. people on the street seem to like my stuff, but not people in charge of public, organized shows. sure, i get it — my art is not “beautiful” or technically proficient. but it is bright and it is fanciful, and it is pleasing to the eye. and it is original. part of me wishes everyone would catch up to me. not really saying all this to get a ‘poor evie’ or pity or that i’m a misunderstood artist. just saying IT IS. that’s all. yeah, it would be nice to receive money and show/gallery acceptance cause that means it affects a lot of people and i’m sending more beauty/good out into the world. not in a factory way, though. i love making the piece/cutting wood/learning and expanding too much to delegate it. and i love the way much of my art looks. i’m really lucky.
like the rodin exhibit, art and craft are wondrous. the line, the tone, subject matter, play of colors, placement and relation, wood grain. gives a gift of warmth and comfort and awe or fascination and relations to past memories. other aspects matter more to other people and value accrues there. my art is simply not pleasing to the great number of people or those who represent the great number of people (through galleries, etc). so fucking what. my satisfaction comes from the piece itself. making it, appreciating it when it’s done. everything else is gravy. i do like what i like and know what that is. and i did like the rodin. would love to see some claudel.