True. Very true. Many artists make elaborate works as preparation for succinct final pieces. I myself have made large oil paintings and then made small watercolor-gouache paintings as followups afterwards. I also do the opposite. Yes, it's a matter of exploring. And then there is the everlasting case of Picasso who took great works, like Velasquez's Maid of Honor, and redid it as his own painting and then another from that and so on, always finding a new work in the last one, and all of them from one work by a different artist. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 11:37:13 AM Subject: FW: [-empyre-] The archive -- ------ Forwarded Message From: "G.H. Hovagimyan" <[email protected]> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:45:16 -0400 To: soft_skinned_space <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] The archive In the 1970's artists would do installations and performances and then makes drawings of them. The drawings were presented as concept or proposal drawing even though they were done after the work was made. Actually I find that this is a traditional practice among artists. You start a painting or sculpture and then make drawings as you go along. It's a way of exploring the way you think. I have always found that being an artists is directly contradictory to the bureaucratic systems that demand for any grant or exhibition that you present a clear proposal of what you intend to do. Most of the time an artist makes art because they are exploring and discovering new paths of perception. It's not about product. This of course is the opposite of a commercial market that demands product.
