SageWoman

Yesterday the husband and I went to Asheville to do a little shopping. As a rule, I'm not a shopper, but I needed to go to AC Moore and pick up some paints; Books-A-Million for a couple of magazines; Greenlife for incense and grape seed oil. At Greenlife I made a pleasant discovery. The new issue of SageWoman magazine is on the racks and my art is in it. *hee hee*

Unlike the current PanGaia issue in which I am the featured artist ... and they totally screwed up my work ...
the SageWoman work looks good! I was greatly relieved to see the images nicely printed. Granted, the original painting (Sage Woman) for the article was done in watercolor and the magazine is printed in black & white so the colors aren't there. I don't have a problem with that. The smaller illustration was done in graphite, but it looks good, too. Both hold all the values of the original images. I can live with grayscale images as long as they are printed nicely. My painting was even the Index page feature art! *hee hee*

I confess, after seeing the PanGaia issue, I was really concerned about how the images would be printed. I put a lot of effort into the work for both magazines and it's upsetting to see it ruined. It doesn't help knowing there is nothing I can do about it either. As I said in my rant post about the entire issue, the printing of the work in SageWoman was a deciding factor as to whether or not I would do future illustrations for BBI Media. After seeing this current SageWoman issue, my confidence has been restored - to a point. There are still three illustrations for the next SageWoman yet to be printed. They will be the final deciding factor, but I'm okay with the wait until I see them because, after seeing the current SageWoman, I think they stand at least a 50/50 chance of looking like the originals.

Isn't it funny how we artists are so sensitive about our work? Each image we produce is our "baby", our creation. Like a novelist whose works is radically changed for a move script, the work, and the artist, suffers a kind of violation of that creative process. While there are certainly many artists out there who are content to be cranking out work for the masses, work which meets the needs of a client or publisher, most art is born of an artists' soul. It comes from a deep place inside, a place of imagination, of complex dream and thought, of inner vision.

There is something an artist needs to say, to tell the world about who they are, what they see, what they feel. It is our expressions and emotions on canvas or paper, in sculpted form, in woven fabrics, in molded clay, musical notes or the written word ... or any other method or media used to create the work. And there is always a deep desire for that work to move a viewer, listener or reader. We want you to experience what we have created. We want you to see that part of ourselves we've put on display.

Why this is I don't know. It's ironic I find explaining the reason why elusive, being that I am an artist. I can say it's a joy when others "see" what I've done, and it's sad when they can't. One of my deepest irritations is when someone looks at my work and quickly dismisses it. I value critiques because they are extremely important for artistic growth, but I despise it when someone says something like, "That's really nice, but why don't you paint such-and-such instead?"

Excuse me??? Why the F*&K do people ask such a question?

If I wanted to paint such-and-such, I would have. If I felt something emotional about landscapes, I'd paint them; or seascapes and lighthouses; or bowls of fruit; or vases of flowers. I'd paint cans of soup or a sink full of dirty dishes if I had an emotion attachment to the subject matter. I paint what inspires me, lights me up, or of course, whatever my Muse says I have to paint. *see, Muse, I am paying attention to you*

I also don't like those, "That's nice. My Aunt Mary paints landscapes just like that guy's pictures he did on TV. Now, she's a really good artist."

No insult intended towards the late Bob Ross, but um, what's his work, and Aunt Mary's, got to do with mine? I'm not a real artist because I don't paint dilapidated barns in the middle of a forest of happy little pine trees?

How about this comment some guy said to me once. "It ain't art if you can't tell what it is."

I had to restrain myself from smacking that fool.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about art, what is art, what makes art good, etc. I can respect a different opinion. If it weren't for diversity in art, we'd all be painting the same thing, the same way, like programmed robots on an assembly line. But y'all that guy was just plain stupid. In one sentence, he condemned and dismissed great artistic movements such as Abstract, Cubism, Fauvism and Dadaism. He bashed great artist like Jackson Pollock, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning and Wassily Kandinsky. All because they didn't do like his girlfriend and paint an apple to look like an apple.

It's amazing.

While I do respect different opinions, I also think some people are just narrow-minded. I have the same opinion about the many people who view nudes and think they are pornography. It's like saying the human body is a sinful, shameful thing and must be kept covered and cloaked in darkness, away from the human eye. Do these people take baths with their clothes on? Do these people never have sex? Do they think babies are born with pajamas? What???

Michelangelo's sculpture of David is pornography? Arthur Hacker's A Female Nude is pornography? Nude Veritas by Gustave Klimt is pornography? Pierre Auguste Renoir's A Seated Bather? Albert Moore's Venus? Auguste Rodin's Thinker and The Kiss? Lord Frederick Leighton's Actaea The Nymph Of The Shore? Gustave Dore's Andromeda? Albrecht Durer's Adam and Eve? Or Klimt's Adam and Eve or Allegory Of Scultpure? The Bath by Weguelin John Reinhard? And After The Bath by William Bouguereau? These are all pornography because they show a nude figure?

I guess it's a good thing Leonardo put clothes on the Mona Lisa. And I suppose Botticelli's Venus is acceptable 'cause the old gal does seem to show a little modesty at not being born in her Hanes Her Way briefs. Poor V, buck nekked on the half-shell.

But, obviously I digress from the beginning of this post, which was to say I'm happy my art didn't get screwed in SageWoman. *hee hee*

Y'all have a nice day.