(Work by Yinka Shonibare)
Vineesh
Vijayan asks: Sir, I have noticed artists getting into certain ‘style’ of
works. For example Subodh Gupta works with his utensils and that is his
hallmark style. Is it necessary to have a ‘style?’ Or is it a curse? How does a
young artist come to have his or her own style? Or how does he or she recognize
that this or that is his style? Two years back I attended a camp in Chennai.
Artists came and did whatever they do in their studios. Are the established
artists afraid of experimenting with various styles? (Vineesh had asked me a
question regarding Installation art. To see the answer please refer my previous
blog)
This
question has come to me in different forms while I go around teaching and
lecturing on art. While the young artists strive for arriving at a unique style
of their own, the established one continues with their styles. As Vineesh cited
in his question, some people take style as a curse and for some others style is
an inevitable and indelible mark of personality and genius of the artist.
Looking at the history of art, especially that of the contemporary art, I would
say that for most of the sensible artist, style is a point of realization and
for many others style is a feasible spring board. Let me explain it.
(Vineesh Vijayan)
There is a
saying that man is the style. We could say it other way round also. Style is
man. A man is recognized for his style; a woman too. At the same time, a style
also could be a stand in for someone’s personality and genius. For example,
when we see any work that has some kind of resemblance with the cubist style of
paintings, we generally say that he is influenced by Picasso. Not that Georges
Braque was a lesser figure in Cubism and lacked in his own style, thanks to the
proliferation of the idea that cubist style is developed by Picasso and the
unprecedented popularity of the images of his works all over the world make people
think that cubism is all about the style of Picasso.
I do not say
that style is a wrong thing; that’s why I say for many sensible artists, style
is a point of realization. When an artist, whether he/she is academically educated
or self taught, starts off his career, invariably he comes under the influence
of someone. History and tradition makes their presence in the new generation of
creative people, irrespective of their field of activities, during these
initial influences. Influence is not a bad thing as far as a beginner is
concerned. Influence of a particular artist or his style or many artists and
their styles, help the artists to test their own creative genius and talent
against the historical given. As they progress in their works, slowly they find
out what they have been searching for all these years. In this sense, style
becomes a path before it becomes a point of realization.
(Pablo Picasso)
Once an
artist arrives at that point, though the remnants of the early influences
appear here and there as traces, then ideating through materials or methods
becomes much easier and it would flow like water. An artist could react to any
given situation and the point of realization persists and that leads to the
organization of that artistic response to the given situation. This is what
makes an artist’s style prominent. Subodh Gupta could utensils to respond to
Hunger and wealth alike; that is not a problem. That does not mean that the
artist does not have any other mediums or materials available at his disposal.
It is not like that. The point of realization makes him or her feel that ‘this
is it’. And ‘this’ is capable of addressing and ideating the artistic concerns.
This is not
only applicable with the artists who work with physical objects or materials
but also with all those artists who work with ideas, concepts and even virtual
materials. That’s why if an artist recognizes his point of arrival as
archiving, wherever he goes, his idea about that place would be related to
archiving. If an artist goes to a country where industries have been closed
down thanks to certain reasons, this artist could attempt either documenting the
closed factories or documenting the lives of those people who were rendered
jobless thanks to these closure of factories. If you look at any artist from
any geographical location, you could see how artists going ahead in their
creative careers with this awareness of the point of arrival.
(Very Hungry God by Subodh Gupta)
However the
flipside of style lies in the demand that a work of art generates in the
market. The market is a phenomenon that works through the generation and
satisfaction of desire through commodity consumption and amassment of profit.
This results into a different social dynamics that generates profit as well as
desire. While profit has a lot to do with the actual exchange of commodities
and wealth, the desire has a lot to do with the social hierarchies that include
peer pressure amongst the rich. When some wealthy person has a work of an
artist with a particular style and he keeps it as his price possession to
further his wealth and position, his peer group people also desire for the same
work or the works that look like that particular one. So there generates an
artificial demand for a particular style of work and if the artist falls for it
and keeps ‘producing’ that kind of work, there is a huge problem not only of
aesthetics but also of ethics comes to take place.
Now, coming
to the idea of style as a spring board: We see a set of artists who do not have
much of a history in the field, suddenly throw some surprises for the art world
with some extravagantly and extraordinarily stylized works. These artists are
manufactured artists either by themselves or by a group of people who have
vested interest on them or through them. They come up with certain style of
work and their first work itself would have all the ‘possible stylistic
statements’ which their last work would be having at some time in future. In my
opinion, these manufactured artists do not stay in the scene for a long time.
They will use their style as a spring board to make an initial leap and after a
few experiments they would perish and go out of the scene even without leaving
a trace. In that sense, a manufactured style is a short living phenomena.
1 comment:
Thanks so much for your patience to give a very detailed and Absolute answer for my question sir.
After reading it I got a clear idea about how to proceed with my career, before reading your blog my whole idea about becoming a contemporary artist was to find a unique style and should stick to it until my death even though my heart wont accept it.
Now I understood Style is not something we should purposely find out. it is something I realize through ages when I see the career as a genuine passion not as a money making job.
after reading the blog one more question I felt like asking sir. How do you compare Realistic works and abstract works sir?
After 1000nds of years, to a new era of human race for whom nobody is there to explain the fame of artist, for how many crores that particular work was sold for, what artist tried to tell through his works, whose works they adore ?
Michelangelo, Plabo Picasso, Ron Mueck, Anish Kapoor ?
If my doubt is utter stupidity forgive me sir :)
Post a Comment