This may or may not be relevant to your artistic practice.
The realisation is that my latests three paintings aren't finished and that they're mediocre.
Big deal, you say.
Well, I thought they were finished and I even thought they were great! How we fool ourselves.
That's the big deal!
I'd duped myself into thinking they were not only finished, but we're great too!
For some reason, I suddenly came into the studio one morning and saw the brutal reality of their actual mediocrity.
But it's from this that I can now begin to see their potential to be better. And this is of course of great value. If these paintings don't change based on this insight, the ones to follow surely will.
My current concern is that I don't know how to make these current works better. Or what that even means, 'to make them better'.
The yardstick I often use for determining whether a painting is successful or not, is this:
Could this painting hold its own while hanging on the wall of the National Gallery?
(I know this sounds grandiose, so forgive me for that.)
If the answer is no, then I instantly know I have a problem. And currently, my answer is an indefatigable no. These paintings couldn't hang on the cloakroom wall of a major gallery.
So something has to change. But what, and how? And are these just vacuous words? Or can they be made concrete with actual change?
With these large-ish paintings it's easy to allow sloppy passages to appear. And because they're big paintings the passages of sloppiness can be big too! A definite drawback of working larger.
How do you step out of creating mediocre paintings to creating great paintings?
I know all artists have great paintings in them. But how do we create a change in ourselves to bring about this greatness in our work? What exactly needs to change?
It's all personal of course. But I suspect it begins with 'seeing' the mediocrity in one's work, when it arises. Nothing can change and grow until this awareness comes about. But you need to look for it, as it conceals itself from us. Or we slovenly allow things to slide.
So today my three paintings are mediocre. Certainly one of them is, without question. I see it. I know it. But tomorrow is a new day. And tomorrow they don't have to be mediocre. If a paintings not varnished, it can be reworked.
I think an artist also needs to know for themselves what it means for a painting to be great. Greatness has a different criteria for different artists.
I personally 'feel' a great painting, you don't necessarily need the words to describe why it is great. It's not always clear why a painting seems great to us. We just know it. And we also know it when it isn't great, too. But my National Gallery test is my best yardstick.
I think that knowing when you've created something mediocre is a deeply empowering thing. It allows scope for change and growth. Without this recognition growth can't begin.
How do you each determine when your paintings are great, or if they're great (or maybe that's a word you feel uncomfortable with), and when they are mediocre? Is it something that can be put into words, or simply a feeling?
Or do such questions seem irrelevant and for the concern of those arrogant enough to believe in there personal capacity for greatness?
No business with a product for sale allows the product into the public arena without first passing quality control. Artists (entrepreneurs that we are) run our own quality control departments. And that means recognising when we create something that is mediocre, and when we create something that is great.
I wonder if the greatest gift any artist can have is to own the capacity to see the shoddiness in their own work when it surfaces!
Bon voyage
