I recently posted a few questions in a Facebook group titled “The Representational Art Group.” The page was launched in 2013 by artist Michael Pierce and holds about 11K members. My questions were inspired by a number of posts in the group that I read in the days following up to my post—namely one about the recently launched Jeff Koons Masterclass and another regarding the role of photography relative to observational, representational painting. Within the threads from these posts were conversations and robust opinions about “feeling” in art, perceived virtuosity, and the impact of the employ of technology on our assessment of quality.
So I gathered the following two images and composed the following questions.to see how the robust opinions that people shared regarding the above topics would be applied within a more “controlled” focus. I chose two modern works with comparable market values, utilization of technology, and potential for apparent “feeling” (one in subject and one in perceived process.) I though that this was a pretty balanced pairing in this context.
The first image is Sun (version 1) #2 by Glenn Ligon. It is a silkscreen and oil crayon on primed canvas from 2001 measuring 48 x 36 in. (121.9 x 91.4 cm.). It sold for $82,500.
The second is HEAD OF A CHILD 23 (SUMMER) by Gottfried Helnwein from 2019. It is listed as oil and acrylic on canvas measuring 180 by 160cm., 71 by 63in. It sold for around 77,000.
Now while these are both well-valued efforts, I am curious as to how, in light of recent discussions, members here might assess the following factors in these works:
1. Emotional content. Do you believe that one has a “stronger” emotional impact than the other? Do you feel your conclusion is influenced more by subject or perceived process?
2. Virtuosity. While Ligon had silk screened a page from a color book on to canvas to then add color with crayon, Mr. Helnwein (while not always listing the photography component) adds paint on top of large photographic prints to create his works. Knowing this-does one display more skill? One can arguably be said to be utilizing many more drawing skills…but which one? Think about it.
3. “Good Use” of Reference Material or “Valid” reference material. Both artists have elements of their reference material in their final works. Based on what we can see here—even though their artistic goals may differ—how has their reference added to your overall value judgement of each work? Does either’s use of technology diminish your perception of quality or invalidate the moniker of “art” for you?
Some had some very thoughtful and insightful responses that addressed some of my questions:
Head of a child emotionally draws me in because of the thought going on in the child’s head as well as the dark background against a glow of light rendered in the child’s skin tones. It’s quiet and moody. I love portraits and figures and always feel for the children. The other work is playful like chalkboard drawing… fun but I keep going to the portrait. Skill: one doesn’t display more skill than the other for me. I don’t look at art behind the eyes of if one is diminished because of the use of technology etc. if a work grabs my attention to look at it and explore the emotion or concept, than I believe the artist was successful in communicating visually to the viewers.
Head of a Child attracts me more because there is mystery to it. I understand that Lingon likely had thoughtful points to make, and it’s possible I’m missing something, but it seems very obvious in a clunky way. I don’t mind either artist using reference material, because art is what you do with the source. But I’m a little confused about why Helnwin would choose to paint on top of photographs. The resulting image could be created with photo only (manipulating exposure etc) and looks like a photo, so why the paint? Or conversely, you can paint super realistically at such a large size, so why the photo? (I do have some bias against photorealism… I kind of don’t get it even when it’s super impressive.) I’d be curious to hear the artist explain why he chooses this method.
Bloody Duchamp, he attempted a joke and for one whole century people have been cleaning the mess. Back to our questions: Emotional content of both paintings leaves me cold. Virtuosity - (Very funny, Mr. Waichulis since the first adult is trying to draw like a child, and the other demonstrates very good coloring skills between the lines and wins in your competition with his superior skill. I have to give to both of them excellent marks for very “Good Use of Reference Material”. I am fine with all tools including projectors and prints. As a teacher I advice my students not to use them till they get the skills of drawing and painting. If they can do more, they can do less if that is their choice. Those who can only do less, always do only less. There are those of us who cross the ocean using the wind and the sails with understanding of knots. We call ourselves sailors. And… there are those who sit on the deck of the ocean liner drinking martinis. They are not sailors. We call them passengers. The method of arriving to the destination makes the difference in art making. Unfortunately, the methods are very often overlooked and equalized. I appreciate when artists explain their process and public is aware what they are looking at or buying. Sailors and passengers can meet in the same port and have a merry drink. Oh, the stories …
Others seem to ignore the questions altogether and just shot from the hip :
One of them is a work of art. The other is overpriced toilet paper. Toilet paper is also a work of art. How many resources would you have to spend to get a single square just right?
Number 2 is a skilful copy of a photograph and says nothing except I’m really good at copying photographs.
as a visual artist I only see 1 work of art
I don’t find it productive to concern myself about the prices other people get…I know it’s frustrating to see something you don’t value getting successful sales when we all know how hard it is to make a living, but comparisons just aren’t productive.
Nr. 2 on your description is wrong. Maybe just to adjust a little weight to the scale, to encline on to the other direction. The artist is using a projector, to trace contours. It is not like working on top of a photo.
(this individual went on quite the tirade that my description of how Mr. Helnwein works so I offered this quote from Helnwein himself): “I distinguish between purely photographic works, which often lead through many stations and sources like collage and computer manipulation to the final print, and mixed media works, which are essentially oil and acrylic paintings, but are subject to a process of creation similar to the photos. As soon as I have the image I want, it is either projected onto the canvas and traced in outlines, or it is digitally printed on the canvas in a rough form and then further developed in ‘old masters’ method. First in acrylic, then in oil. The depicted people, objects and spaces in my pictures are from various archives (L.A. Public Library, Bavarian State Archive, etc.), from newspapers, magazines, books, and from people, objects and places I have photographed myself.” (Gottfried Helnwein, quoted in Thomas Edlinger’s essay in the catalogue “Face It”). Needless to say he was unmoved by Helnwein’s quote.
I share this all here as I think that it is a good exercise that I would not like to see disappear into the ether of Facebook. Give this one a think if you have some time. I would even recommend presenting these works and questions to someone promoting a strong opinion regarding “emotional content” in a work, the impact of value judgements stemming from the employ of technology in the arts, and apparent/perceived virtuosity. If the questions are sidestepped, the participant may not have formed a good scaffolding for their arguments/position. In any case, the exercise might prove insightful and informative for all involved in the discussion.
Best wishes and Happy Drawing/Painting!