Aug 17

Written by: sophie
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:41 PM 

As an artist and working with artists, there is often the dilemma and internal dialogue of desiring change, and development; but not wanting to lose one's style. I grapple with this dilemma myself...

Just recently I was given a postcard of a watercolour and ink drawing by Piet Mondrian of a Blue Chrysanthemum. Mondrian in my brain is simple geometry and primary colours - this drawing is arresting in its delicate line work and hues and tones. I couldn't believe it was a Mondrian - AND it's in the Guggenheim. Was this style only looked on favourably by the art world after Mondrian had become famous for his geometric compositions - or was it acclaimed at the time?

 

Some artists are happy to evolve in the refinement of their application while retaining a very similar look - others feel the need to explore a wider range of creativity - from photography, painting, sculpture to drawing - and some artists, always stick to painting but their styles will change entirely over the years - being recognisable for one genre, but not for another. One wonders if there is a correct and incorrect developmental method.

 

From a critic, general art public and later, art historical point of view, when is "this change" viewed as an "art movement" that the artist has originated, or is responding to; versus an artist who feels the need to explore different avenues.

 

Is it commercially more savvy to stick to one "look" and refine that, and thus become instantly recognisable - or can one be as commercial and collectible having a variety of styles?

 

As a creative, I sometimes yearn to do pure abstraction; another time it will be an abstract landscape - the following year it could be conceptual art around a theme that is mixed media? Will this one day be viewed as my responding to "movements", or count against me as a style that's not instantly recognisable or consistent?  One ponders...