Rush Hour

The title of this post seems ironic to me, because I definitely have not been doing any rushing with my art lately. I can't believe I haven't posted anything in five months. My painting came to a screeching halt when Goldsmith's left Waterbury and I had to relocate back to my living room. Painting at home with only the television to keep me company is not the same as painting downtown, where people I know and random strangers would wander in to chat about the painting or watch me paint through the window.

Just before 2011 ended, I managed to finish my painting of Rush Hour Traffic. The scene is Union Street from the intersection of South Elm.

This particular painting was disappointing for me. Or maybe it's better to say I learned a few things about myself as a painter, mainly that I'm too timid. I was inspired to paint this scene while sitting at a red light at dusk--the contrasts of the brilliant artificial lights, dark shadows and illuminated sky were stunning. None of that comes through in the painting, although it does come through a little better in real life than in this photo.

I re-painted the clouds and the Courtyard by Marriott building several times, each time making them darker. I have a vague memory of being cautioned way back when I was a teenager about putting down paint that is too dark--"you can always make it darker, but it's hard to make it lighter." That probably was a warning for watercolors, not oils, but I guess it's stuck with me.

I will give myself a few points for doing better with painting cars than in previous paintings. The first time I tried painting cars, they looked more like pigs. I learn from doing. Now I just need to do more!

Conflict

Now that Goldsmith's has closed their Waterbury location, I have two paintings in my living room demanding that I finish them. It's not a very big living room, so having two easels set up makes it a little crowded.

For some reason, I'm having trouble moving forward with either one. I want to keep painting the big one of Fulton Park, but I'm almost finished with the little one. Reason tells me to finish the little one first, since it won't take anywhere near as long. But since I want to work on the big one, it's hard to get into the right frame of mind to paint the little one. So I paint neither.

I've considered putting away the little one until the big one is finished, but I can't bring myself to do that. I've definitely spent too much time thinking about this, because I'm starting to imagine a scenario, like a cartoon, in which the paintings start talking, each one demanding that I pay attention to it.

It would probably be easier if the two paintings were more similar to one another.

Connecticut Women Artists Open Juried Show

Tempus Lux: Clock on the Green, 2009             oil on canvas, 20 x 30 inches

Very excited to learn that my Tempus Lux painting was accepted into the 82nd Annual Connecticut Women Artists Open Juried Show. The Juror was Dr. Fereshteh Daftari, former Curator at The Museum of Modern Art.

The exhibit will be held at the Jorgensen Gallery at UConn, Storrs, June 19 - July 16.

The Reception and Awards Ceremony will be held Saturday, July 9, 2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Subject Matter

The Waterbury Fire Department stopped by my house yesterday to check for a gas leak.  Two very large firemen in full gear waited upstairs while the third fireman checked out the basement with a meter. We started talking about my art, since my almost-finished painting of rush hour traffic is on an easel in the living room.

First there was the standard polite compliment. The conversation quickly turned into a friendly debate about subject matter and marketability. When I remarked that I have yet to make any profits from painting, one fireman said the problem was my subject, that there is no beauty in Waterbury and thus there is no market for paintings of Waterbury.

I didn't have any other paintings in the house, so I grabbed my cell phone and showed him the detail of my painting of the Welton Horse fountain, which I have on an iPhone case for just this sort of situation.

Waterbury is full of beauty, but I guess not everyone can see it.

Mixed Media

I went to see the exhibit That's Women's Work at the Freight Street Gallery and was really struck by a mixed-media painting by Pam Bogert.

At first glance, I thought I didn't like it. I thought it was too crude, too grungy. Then I looked at it closely and realized that I love it. It's fantastic. I love the cartoonish depiction of Torrington, the caricatures of familiar sites, the playfulness of the depictions.

I'm inspired to do something similar of Waterbury, but I know it will be hugely challenging for me. Which is probably all the more reason to try.

Now for procedural questions. Do I try mixed media, like Bogert did with this work? When I was a kid, I loved playing with paper dolls and paper cut-out buildings. I used to take huge sheets of paper, lay them out flat on the floor or table, draw roads on them and then place the paper buildings I had made on them. Maybe I could do some sort of complex high-relief mixed media image. Something to think about!

In Progress

I've been working on finishing two paintings of Waterbury, one that I'm working on at home when time permits (which is far too rarely), and one that I'm working on almost every Friday in the window at Goldsmith's downtown.

First up, here's the one I'm working on at home. A view of downtown looking towards Grand Street from St. Mary's Hospital, at rush hour during the Autumn.

Taking photographs of my art is always tricky. Sometimes I put in the effort and camera technology necessary for a good photograph (as above) and sometimes I just do a quick snapshot with the camera in my phone with bad lighting (as below). When I go for the quickie, the colors are off and there's a tendency towards blurriness.

I have no idea when I'll get this finished. There's not that much left, but I never seem to have the time to work on it (have to do the things that pay first!).

Next up, the painting I'm working on at Goldsmith's, a view of Fulton Park in the summertime.

The lighting is a little odd. It's very hard to get a good shot in a small space when the painting is so large (48 x 36 inches). This is the largest canvas I've ever worked on, which is very fun for me. There was a sale, so I bought two of them. The second one will be a winter scene at Hammonasset.

A couple of details:

Eliminating Art

State Sen. Paul Doyle, 9th District, has introduced a proposed bill to eliminate the state requirement that the State Bond Commission allocate one percent of every state building project cost for the purchase of art.

There will be a public hearing on March 7. Please contact your state legislators about this.

Doyle justified the bill with the following comments in the Hartford Courant: "It doesn't hurt people in terms of the safety net. … it doesn't take food off the table of a poor person." The article makes it clear that Doyle believes elimination of the 1% allocation will somehow save money.

Doyle is severely misguided and misinformed on several levels.

First of all, eliminating the state requirement will have no impact on the amount of money being spent. I have been involved with the Public Art program, so I have an understanding of how it works. It's very simple. When the state decides to construct a new building, they figure out how much the project will cost. Let's say, hypothetically, it is expected that a new building will cost $20 million to construct. The state then figures out where the $20 million is going to come from. After the state confirms that they have the $20 million to spend, they start the project and set aside one percent of the funds to use later for the purchase of art for the new building. How much is one percent? For a $20 million project, it's $200,000.

Doyle's bill will not save any money. The money will still be spent, just not on art.

Secondly, eliminating the state requirement absolutely will hurt people and will take food off the table of artists (who are so often suffering from poverty the phrase "starving artist" is cliche). It takes work away from artists, it takes work away from the fabricators and installers who help make art happen.

The Connecticut Arts Alliance issued an excellent press release on February 8 which does an excellent job of explaining why the 1% program is essential. I have reprinted it below:

A Case for Public Art in Connecticut

CONNECTICUT’S ART IN PUBLIC SPACES PROGRAM

Administered, by the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism, the Art in Public Spaces Program Connecticut's Art in Public Spaces program was established by the General Assembly in 1978, the Art in Public Spaces program requires that not less than 1% of the cost of construction or renovation of publicly accessible state buildings be allocated for the commission or purchase of artwork for that building. Over 300 works have been commissioned since the program’s inception.  The works represent a wide variety of media, including sculpture, wall relief, environmental installation, painting, and photography; and range in scale from works on paper to monumental murals.

The purpose of the Art in Public Spaces program is to provide the citizens of Connecticut with an improved public environment by investing in creative works of high quality for public buildings. The program adds visibility to the cultural heritage of the state and its people.  To date, the Connecticut program has resulted in 318 projects created by 199 artists in 61 towns.   To see the towns and projects, visit  http://www.cultureandtourism.org/cct/cwp/view.asp?a=2214&q=274520

The Art in Public Spaces program has employed 90 Connecticut artists.  In addition to employing artists, the commissioned artist frequently contract additional employees hiring fabricators, studio assistants, structural engineers, electricians, architects, installers etc.  Artists who receive commissions purchase project materials from Connecticut businesses.  They buy paint, granite, glass, stone, steel, light fixtures and more.

WHAT IS PUBLIC ART?

Public art is more than just art installed in public spaces.  Public art, at its best, is a mirror that reflects local environments, cultural values, and the artistic vitality of the community in which it is placed.  Integrated into the design and construction of either exterior or interior projects, or created as a stand-alone objects, public art is planned and developed in response to a particular context or place and is site-specific – created for the specific conditions of the place in which it resides.  Public art makes sense of communities by creating landmarks, directional elements, and defining neighborhoods and districts.  Public art’s “placemaking” builds livable communities and contributes to the distinctiveness of a place.

BENEFITS OF PUBLIC ART

Public art:

·       Creates jobs and stimulates business activity.  Public art brings substantial economic benefits.  According to the Public Art Network of Americans for the Arts, ten (10) jobs are supported by every public artwork commissioned.  These include artists, designers, architects, engineers, fabricators, material suppliers, installers, and various types of assistants, to name a few.  Public artworks require transportation, site preparation, lighting, landscaping, insurance, and a host of services from small businesses.  The creation and installation of a public artwork is a dynamic contributor to small business development.  Notable among the beneficiaries are the creative industries made up of talented workers who are self-employed artists and free-lancers or free-lancers employed by micro-enterprises.

The maintenance and restoration of installed artworks provides an additional economic stimulus, generating business for suppliers, conservators, fabricators, artists, and others.

Boosts cultural tourism.  A Public Art Network Issue Paper published in 2004  by Americans for the Arts (AFTA) points out that “Many cities, counties, and regions have, over the years, acquired large collections of artworks in the public realm.  These form part of the cultural assets that attract visitors to the region, making a significant contribution to the local economy.  A diverse range of artwork in the collection by artists of regional, national, and international stature is important to establish a noteworthy collection that will serve as cultural destinations.” 

·       Attracts and retains creative people.   According to the Public Art Network of AFTA, colleges and universities report that public artwork has a positive influence on student morale, stimulates creativity and innovation, and contributes to student learning.  Public artwork attracts creative individuals and helps recruiting efforts on college campuses.  The presence of art work communicates a sense of pride and a college or university’s competitive edge and helps attract and retain a creative and high-quality student body

·       Enhances our public buildings and improves the quality of life for our citizens.  Artwork brings public spaces to life.  It improves the visual quality and appearance of public environments and buildings and contributes to the prestige of a community.  Public artwork makes government buildings and public university campuses attractive places to work, live, and visit. 

·       Defines the identity of a place and reveals the distinct character of a community.  Works of public art are symbols of the creative energy and artistic vision of a place.  They express the soul of a community.  Public art tells a community’s story and reminds residents and visitors of what makes a place special.  A community with public works of art has invested in its identity and cultural heritage.

·       Engages broad segments of a community in the acquisition of artwork.  The planning, selection, and commissioning of artwork is a broad-based collaborative process that brings together facility planners, site-based administrators, artists, architects, engineers, arts professionals, and civic and community representatives.  The process fosters relationships, resolves problems, and builds consensus. 

·       Is engaging and accessible to all.  Public art is for all to experience and enjoy.  It delights.  It captivates.  It brings us into a state of focused attention.  It can inspire awe and bring out deep emotion and satisfaction.  Public art opens new ways of seeing and understanding the world.  Public works of art stimulate the appreciation of art by Connecticut citizens.

·       Contributes to the sustainability of the built environment.  Public art, in addition to being aesthetically pleasing, can have a functional purpose.  When fully integrated into the site, it can incorporate sustainable features that contribute to energy conservation, water drainage, and solar conduction. 

BRIEF PERCENT-FOR-ART HISTORY

The percent-for-art concept dates back to the New Deal and the U.S. Treasury Department’s Section of Painting and Sculpture established in 1934.   The program set aside approximately 1 percent of the cost of federal building for “artistic adornment.”  In addition to securing high-quality art for public buildings, the Section was committed to stimulating a “democratic” appreciation of art by the American people. 

In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration (changed to Works Project Administration in 1939) to employ artists and utilize their talent and skills to enhance the built environment for the benefit of the public, the economy, and artists themselves.    Today twenty-seven states and over 300 municipalities legislatively allocate some portion of building costs for art acquisition.