So I borrowed a book…
It’s massive. Easily 2” thick. With 60 interviews of giants in the art world.
It’s called Interviews on Art by Robert Storr.
The first interview is with Louise Bourgeois + let me tell you it was a lot to digest.
It wasn’t Louise’s fault, of course, but when I learn something new I have this full blown ego meltdown.
Alarm’s sound, my intelligence gets thrown into the hot seat + the internal interrogation begins re: what have I been doing with all of my time/resources that caused this discrepancy in knowledge I “should” have?
It’s a whole thing.
But after a couple more of these interviews, I started to notice a pattern: there is no one way to be an artist.
Now I’ve read close to half of the interviews + I’m convinced that while it’s incredible to read the thought processes of these other, very well known artists, it doesn’t mean that anyone else’s art is invalid or “not good”.
There has been one big change in my own thought process about my work though…
Instead of winging it all the time in terms of subject matter or even process, I find myself thinking things like:
- Why is this [specific image or process] interesting to me?
- How can the creation process be adjusted to add to the overall statement of this piece?
- What’s another way of looking at/creating a portrait?
The whole new perspective on what + why I’m working on the things I am has been a bit intense, but it feels like I've up-leveled.
In the past, my work was more of a healing modality + the content of that work was fully expressed in my first solo show.
Since then though, I’ve felt a bit lost so I gave myself freedom to tap into the work that I wanted to make just for the fun of it.
Now I realize both ways are acceptable avenues in which to produce art + the latter is expanding the subjects, the materials, the process + the final product in ways I never thought of before.
Moral of the story?
Push through that ego panic attack + keep growing.
