Joan Mitchell's turbulent and unpredictable personality shines though much of her work and it's clear she's a true original. Her paintings of seemingly familiar locations (such as parks and city streets) are abstract expressions of her personal interpretation. She isn't my favorite abstract painter, and I must say I'm far more affected by the depth of Rothko's simple shapes, and the tension of Pollock's passionate lines. I definitely respect Mitchell's success as a true nonconformist who strove to produce art in its purest form.
I've been thinking a lot about Joan mitchell's success as a nonconformist, as Hannah put it, in relation to Mitchell's upbringing/background. Knowing that this artist came from a very privileged and wealthy family, I realize that in many ways it was probably easier or at least more safe for her to take big risks in her work than it would be for a professional artist who is struggling to make money. Many artists seem torn between making things that are "true" to themselves or their ideas, and making work that will sell, get them shows, etc. And of course we could go much deeper into these ideas and see that they are quite complicated and ambiguous. However, the bottom line is that people, (even artists!), need food and shelter. And for someone like Joan Mitchell who never had to worry about those needs being met, perhaps it is less risky to work freely and try new things.
I was thinking the exact same thing that Nath was, and posted it on the blog but for some reason it didn't get up there. But anyways, I get what Nath is saying. Do you think that the fact that Joan Mitchell was from a pretty wealthy background influenced her success as a WOMAN artist? Do you think that she would have been as successful (or as Nath said, been able to take as many risks) if she had to depend on her art as a way of living? Mitchell said that she didn't really care about what she got from selling her paintings. I feel like often times in the art world, it is harder to be successful as a woman artist without already having some sort of "leg up" (like already being able to support yourself financially, or knowing somebody in the art world). But I'm not sure. Maybe somebody can contradict this? I think it's an interesting thing to think about.
In reponse to what Natalie and Alison have said about money being a catalyst for success....I am sure that would/could be the case for Joan Mitchell. Georgia OKeefe did not work a hardcore job either, even out West in the desert. I think if one is as deeply talented as Joan Mitchell, and Georgia they cannot help themselves but to make art, it is how they breathe and live, i would think. So the money would help take all worries of living away. If any one of us had that opportunity, what would we produce? Having financial security is helpful for anyone's endeavor. In Joan's life she was very successful because it seemed like she was just destined to be profoundly creative. I find her work to be stimulating and relaxing at the same time. Vibrant and soothing. Like Hannah has said, tho, given a contest i would choose to look at Rothko and I am without words to explain why. selene
City Landscape
Untitled, 1958
Hemlock
Evening on 73rd Street
Ladybug
Untitled
Chord VII
La Grande Vallée
4 comments:
Joan Mitchell's turbulent and unpredictable personality shines though much of her work and it's clear she's a true original. Her paintings of seemingly familiar locations (such as parks and city streets) are abstract expressions of her personal interpretation. She isn't my favorite abstract painter, and I must say I'm far more affected by the depth of Rothko's simple shapes, and the tension of Pollock's passionate lines. I definitely respect Mitchell's success as a true nonconformist who strove to produce art in its purest form.
I've been thinking a lot about Joan mitchell's success as a nonconformist, as Hannah put it, in relation to Mitchell's upbringing/background. Knowing that this artist came from a very privileged and wealthy family, I realize that in many ways it was probably easier or at least more safe for her to take big risks in her work than it would be for a professional artist who is struggling to make money. Many artists seem torn between making things that are "true" to themselves or their ideas, and making work that will sell, get them shows, etc. And of course we could go much deeper into these ideas and see that they are quite complicated and ambiguous. However, the bottom line is that people, (even artists!), need food and shelter. And for someone like Joan Mitchell who never had to worry about those needs being met, perhaps it is less risky to work freely and try new things.
What do others think about this?
I was thinking the exact same thing that Nath was, and posted it on the blog but for some reason it didn't get up there. But anyways, I get what Nath is saying.
Do you think that the fact that Joan Mitchell was from a pretty wealthy background influenced her success as a WOMAN artist? Do you think that she would have been as successful (or as Nath said, been able to take as many risks) if she had to depend on her art as a way of living? Mitchell said that she didn't really care about what she got from selling her paintings.
I feel like often times in the art world, it is harder to be successful as a woman artist without already having some sort of "leg up" (like already being able to support yourself financially, or knowing somebody in the art world). But I'm not sure. Maybe somebody can contradict this? I think it's an interesting thing to think about.
In reponse to what Natalie and Alison have said about money being a catalyst for success....I am sure that would/could be the case for Joan Mitchell. Georgia OKeefe did not work a hardcore job either, even out West in the desert.
I think if one is as deeply talented as Joan Mitchell, and Georgia they cannot help themselves but to make art, it is how they breathe and live, i would think. So the money would help take all worries of living away. If any one of us had that opportunity, what would we produce?
Having financial security is helpful for anyone's endeavor. In Joan's life she was very successful because it seemed like she was just destined to be profoundly creative. I find her work to be stimulating and relaxing at the same time. Vibrant and soothing. Like Hannah has said, tho, given a contest i would choose to look at Rothko and I am without words to explain why. selene
Post a Comment