So, have been thinking a lot about a comment that John Paul Caponigro made to me at the end of the digital fine art print workshop. I don’t remember the entire context, but the phrase that keeps ringing in my head is, “…when you decide to brand yourself.”
For quite some time now I have been thinking about a voice. Artists are often encouraged to develop a signature style or “voice”. This is essentially a form of branding for artists. It is a way for people to quickly recognize your work. It is a way for galleries to know if they want to showcase your work, it your work will appeal to their clientèle tastes. It’s a way for people in the art world to categorize an artist’ work into a nice little tidy box. Although I understand the importance of a voice in marketing, I’m not sure how I feel about the need for a voice in an artist’s work. I wonder sometimes if its not just a way to label an artist and their work. Although this may help a collector locate work that they enjoy does it not also stifle an artist’s creativity? After an artist has worked in this particular genre or style for a prolonged period of time doesn’t this voice essentially become a stereotype? Or if utilized in the correct way does a voice really help an artist to focus and develop a progressive style? Humm…. Thoughts anyone?
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
YOU have this answer
remember Freda
Further:
I can agree with the many on one point regarding the marketability aspect of an artist having a need for a “LABEL”. However, isn’t being an “ARTIST” basically referring to an “INDIVIDUAL’S” own perception on life, world etc… and their undying need to exhibit to the masses or to the one that view? If that is the case “ART”, in my opinion, comes into existence by mere thought alone. (the true ARTIST DWELLS WITHIN) It is “only” when they feel compelled to share this, with even just one other, that their works existence can become more easily and readily “realized and or acknowledged by others”. When it is seen, heard, smelled or experienced by any of the senses of that one other or many others, it then becomes subject to their opinion. It is from that opinion that the “VOICE” “CAN”, not necessarily is, be derived. Ultimately I personally feel that the “Venue” has far greater importance than the “LABEL”. The debate then becomes “can the ‘VENUE’ be accessed and used without the ‘LABEL’?” If so, then don’t concern yourself with having to choose a “VOICE” you wish to have express your inner workings on the outside for others to experience, but rather with what your opinion of the “LABELS” others will give you and/or your “work” while and after experiencing it.
If their labeling of you and/or your work has no bearing whatsoever, then you had the answer all along.
In my opinion, artists think feel and experience without the limitation of a “the box”. Though useful for many things, boxes are far more restrictive and will ultimately reach far fewer.
The stereotype begins in the now and exists in all time wherever assigned.
The “LABEL” or “VOICE”, assigned to an artist by the one or masses, can be useful to that artist to focus on that “ONE” particular style, genre, etc… but only for that particular one or those particular masses as a the one. With that said, there is nothing anywhere that says an artist can not be focused on more than one progressive type of art, genre, etc… It is up to that artist.
You and you alone, as an individual, know what does or does not please you. It is only after it is shared with another that this can be acknowledged by them and subsequently shared with others.
Again these are my opinions and thoughts.
E
Once again these are strictly my own opinions and thoughts.
Comment by Eddy January 29, 2009 @ 5:30 pmHi Erin, Cool blog! I like your redneck story…maybe you should submit that to “Reader’s Digest”, Redneck Edition!
Comment by Raymond Gehman February 7, 2009 @ 1:25 amAbout “the voice”–if you think of it as just another name for “style” then you already there. You got your double exposures for one. I guess my voice would be “motion-man”!
God how do you find the time and energy to blog? I just typed you an email, and now these comments, and damn i’m exhausted!
Raymond
Well I don’t watch tv anymore. You wouldn’t believe how much time that frees up.
Comment by esparler February 9, 2009 @ 1:04 amI as you can see from the dates, I’m not a very good blogger, if blogging is supposed to be consistent and frequent. I like to think of your work as that popped motion. Its almost like a strobe. And I guess you could say you have 2 voices. Your National Geographic work and your popped motion work. But how does this tie into marketing. And when does the marketing begin to take over the creativity? I just reworked my web site and added a large number of collections of different types and styles. Displaying this large a variety of work is not recommend by experts,but I was more curious to see if by doing so I could see a developmental pattern to the work. A consistent thread woven through my shoots and through the various mediums. If you were to look through all that work you’ve do for National Geographic and the work you’ve done for yourself, do you think you would find a commonality of style, a commonalty or subject, or a community of treatment?
Did i just delete my 3 graphs of comments? I clicked “say it” and everything i wrote disappeared! Man i miss the 20th century.
Comment by Raymond Gehman February 7, 2009 @ 1:27 am