Artblog of Pennsylvania Artist Claire Beadon Carnell: SIDE PORCH FLOWERS An Original Oil Painting by Cl...

Artblog of Pennsylvania Artist Claire Beadon Carnell: SIDE PORCH FLOWERS An Original Oil Painting by Cl...: 'Side Porch Flowers' SOLD Oil on Canvas 24 x 20 Last Summer I painted on a beautiful farm in Port Royal that had huge...

"Tackle Life's (Occasional) Stink with Ink"

There is a book coming out the end of this month called, "365 Thank Yous" by John Kralik. The author had experienced a number of disappointments in his business and personal life. Instead of dwelling on his misfortunes, he decided to embrace "an attitude with gratitude". He wrote a thank you note each day in the year, not an e-mail, but an honest to goodness handwritten note, stamped and sent via U.S. Mail. The recipients were business associates, his children, and even his favorite barista at his local Starbucks.

I am thinking, what a great way to start the New Year! I love buying note cards of all types at gift shops, museum stores, galleries, and on-line. In fact, Eric Olson Gallery currently has a collection of art cards (blank inside) for sale at www.cafepress.com/windmillcreek.

So beginning with January 1, 2011, I shall write a thank you card each day. I can only hope that the recipients will pay it forward with their own card and brighten someone else's day!

"Vatican Splendors" and Michelangelo

Yesterday, two friends and I traveled several hours in the pouring rain to see the “Vatican Splendors” exhibit at the Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh, a museum affiliated with the Smithsonian. It is the largest collection of Vatican art ever to tour North America.

It was obvious to me that the mission of the Catholic Church was not only to spread its word throughout the world, but that art played an important part in Church teachings. One of the most influential artists of the Renaissance period and my favorire was Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564). Michelangelo was a poet, scholar, architect, sculptor and painter. He was considered the supreme genius of Western art, superior even to the ancients.

In 1508, Pope Julius ll asked Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The artist initially turned down Julius’s request. He was a master sculptor (“Pieta” and "David") and had no experience in the very difficult art of fresco painting, one of the highest arts of the 16th century.

The word “fresco” means “fresh”. Fresco artists always worked on fresh, wet plaster and could paint only a limited area at a time. As the plaster dried, the pigment became fixed into the surface. Michelangelo worked painfully lying on his back on his scaffold 60 feet above the ground.

Pope Julius feared that he would die before he could see the completed ceiling. Julius would impatiently stand below the scaffolding, asking the artist when he would be finished. Michelangelo answered, “When I can!” The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel took four years to paint and was finished in 1512. Pope Julius died in 1513.

Teaching is a Profession, Not a Fallback

In a recent  discussion on one of the LinkedIn art groups about the merits and demerits of formal art education for practicing artists,  the hoary old chestnut, "Those who cannot do, teach" came up again. 


At the risk of sounded a bit like Andy Rooney, I intensely resent the implication that a teacher should be seen, by the fact of being one, as a failure in the "real" world.  It is disrespectful and untrue. This misconception gives teaching a bad name and undermines the dignity of the profession.

Versions of "those who cannot do, teach"  appear regularly in discussions about education, supposedly to demonstrate witty insight. Such statements are actually proof of a profound ignorance about the nature of teaching.

Becoming a good teacher requires mastering a complex body of attributes and skills, regardless of the subject matter. Such a body of knowledge includes compassion and patience, deep respect for the student, a drive to convey useful knowledge, planning, and presentation skills. 

A good teacher is made, not born. Teaching well requires training, apprenticeship and dedication that is rarely compensated properly. Those who do it well are genuine heroes, because they provide the continuity for our culture and civilization. Teaching is not and should never be considered some kind of default or fallback option.

There is no linking relationship between being able to "do" and being able to teach or vice versa, except that high achievers tend to be good communicators and thus often make better teachers. Since art is a form of communication, those who do it well are excellent observers and communicators, which are requisite skills for teaching.  

The corollary inference, that successful professionals do not become teachers, is also untrue.  Skilled "doers" are often grateful for their opportunities, and frequently find themselves teaching as a way of giving back.  Really smart ones know a secret: teaching is one of the best ways to profoundly learn a subject.  Stellar teachers posses a profound grasp of their subjects and from the yin-yang relationship of teaching and subject knowledge, convey enthusiasm and love of subject to their students. 


In my experience as a student at three art schools, my most revered teachers were those who also had the respect of their peers as professionals and practitioners in the real world.  Real doers often make great teachers, especially when they understand that teaching itself is a serious and complex skill.

Granted: there are many poor teachers.  Even so, it is more true to say, "Those who do well, teach well."

The Value of Art

Good or bad, art is a powerful force that has the power to inform, connect, and bond people to their culture and heritage. From the tole-painter who makes pleasant artifacts for local consumption to the greatest of all, art is the marker and indicia of a culture and it's level of civilization.

Art is a subject of intense interest and emotion to most people connected to the arts as either maker or consumer. Why? What underlies the power of art ?

Even though I should know better, since so many far better-qualified people have tried to answer the question, I'll try to dissect this omelette of passion.  In the ideal world:

1. Good art connects us deeply to life itself. Art creates a complex bonding passion between maker and observer which informs and explicates life to both it's creators and it's consumers. As such, it provides spiritual sustenance, and while explaining life's mysteries it also proposes new mysteries, thus providing an almost addictive propulsive motivation to make more, buy more, and see more.

2. Good art, regardless of the power of the pocketbook, is egalitarian in the sense that it rewards connoisseurship. In this sense anyone can enjoy art and even become expert in it's appreciation.

3. Good art is a luxury that is most often enjoyed by those able to understand and buy it, and to a secondary degree by those who cannot afford it but are yet driven to see it in public venues.

"Spirit of Fire"

by Eric Olson

Is it lesser art if it is unsold and unknown? 

Unfortunately, reality intervenes. The ability to acquire and consume art separates the moneyed from the plebian and thus we see the emergence of social and political drives that have nothing to do with art itself, and everything to do with power, dominance, command and control. At the highest level of this effect, we see the great robber-baron philanthropists who fund museums and give them important collections, in the median level we see those who combine a passion for their addiction with a passion for social position, and in lower levels, we see those who connect themselves to powerful patrons for personal aggrandisement, or who seek to make a buck in speculation. And of course, there are artist/businessmen who fit into each level themselves.

Is art and it's production inevitably tied to money and power? It is tempting to say so.

What of unknown, unsold art? What is it's value in society?  Is it better art if it's famous or expensive? 

Eric's Art to Appear in up to 200 Airports Nationwide

Eric Olson's internationally acclaimed "Transformations 2010" series artworks are now the primary creative element in a new national promotional campaign  that will appear in as many as 200 airports countrywide. The client, Robin Imaging of Cincinnati is a prominent supplier of precision high-quality backlit images used in advertising displays for high-traffic public spaces such as malls and airports and also produces the ultra high-quality mounted images for Eric's prize-winning colorful high-energy abstract images.

Robin Imaging has begun to concentrate on working with fine artists and as part of their promotional program offered Eric the opportunity to be the exclusive featured artist in their "Unique Services for Unique Artists" campaign. Eric said, "It's tremendously exciting to have been chosen for this highly visible campaign. It's also thrilling to see a commercial organization using fine art to help build their public image and giving the artist full credit."

The campaign will feature Eric's artworks in brightly backlit airport "filler" ads as large as eight feet wide, to be placed in unsold advertising display areas. Each display piece will feature Eric's artwork filling the entire 96-inch wide image area. The first piece, based on "Flows of Thought," is already in production and will be sent to Dayton International Airport for immediate exhibition in the ticketed passenger concourse.

Other artworks in the series including "Beach Umbrella" and others, are being readied for use in other locations as openings appear. The "Transformations 2010" series can be seen at http://www.ericolsongallery.com/2x3

Below, the piece that will appear at the Dayton Airport.

Taking Digital Art Seriously

Are digital artists discriminated against in the art world? Digital artist Jim Plaxco thinks so and so do I.

The issue recently came up in the "pFAn" (professional Fine Art network) discussion group on LinkedIn. The original topic question was, are females are discriminated against in the art world? There was only one comment on the original subject, but Jim's assertion that digital artists are the ones most discriminated against stimulated a number of long and thoughtful comments about the prejudices that digital artists must face, and how they might be overcome. Here are some thoughts based on my own postings in that discussion.

Most legitimate digital artists feel the freezing snub of the art world. Nancy and I recently participated in an exciting and fulfilling international art event, the "Chianciano International Prize for Digital Art and Photography" in Chianciano Terme, (Tuscany), Italy. The exhibition covered two floors of the Museo d'Arte, and displayed work by over 100 digital artists and photographers from 35 countries. The work was superb, and varied from the lyrical to the logical. The artists were predictably all very different from one another in dress, appearance and demeanor. But one clear common denominator existed among all, a kind of group release and elation, as if the group was collectively thinking, "Wow, we're being taken seriously. AT LAST!"

Digital artists do face many forms of discrimination, and there are many reasons for it. Leading the list of course: ignorance. At a recent opening of my work in the States, a nice woman sincerely asked me, "Now, do you do the work or does the computer do the work?"

Adding to this dilemma is the perception that if the artist uses the computer as a tool s/he is taking some kind of shortcut, not doing real work or that that there is little artistic skill involved. Some of this may be due to early "art" pieces which were actually playful bits of programming. and may also stem from a variant of computerphobia. A competent digital artist would argue that the computer and printer combinations used to produce good digital art are merely tools, and that the image itself and its content and emotional effect on the viewer is the important thing.

Artistic quality is a matter of the artist's own talent, perceptions and sensibilities, never the tool. A talented artist can make art out of anything, as Lee Bontecue proved in the early 50's with her works made on cheap cardboard using black smoke from an acetylene torch. Conversely, technical skill is only a matter of training, whether it's oil paints or computers. A technical tour de force is only that - it takes an artist to make it into art.

Many otherwise knowledgeable art buyers, gallerists and curators de-legitimize a work if a computer is involved in its production, apparently because they think little artistic skill is required. I recall a potential buyer peering closely at one of my early works, especially admiring the precision of a fine rectangular rule around the image. When I explained that it was done in the computer he grimaced and walked away without a word. Apparently he felt that the minor skill required to hand-rule a line was legitimate artistically, yet the considerable skill required to manage complex image processing software is not. I’m sure that if he only knew how much work is involved in mastering complex color management, or acquiring and learning sophisticated equipment, or composing and processing intricate images with great subtlety, he would never have been so disparaging.

Basic misperceptions about the alleged simplicity of making computer art stubbornly persist. Even a good friend, a painter of traditional landscapes, bridled visibly when I claimed, "It takes at least as much time to master digital software as a creative tool as it does to complete an MFA as an oil painter." Fact: it’s difficult to develop high-level mastery of digital tools. I've been learning Photoshop continuously for over ten years and reckon that I’ve only mastered about half of what it can do.

Supposing we get past all this, there are still the fairly real problems of provenance and infinite reproducibility, and related to that, authenticity. A computer can print the same file an infinite number of times - therefore it cannot be real art -- or so the thinking goes. The fact is, no digital artist wants to spend time making copies of an image when there are so many other ideas to explore. And it would be nearly impossible to sell them.

The truth is that when all steps are totaled together it takes about as long to create and print a major piece of digital art as it does to make a medium-sized oil painting. Once it's done and a few proofs have been made, it's on to the next image - or onward with the unending quest to find buyers. We’re artists, not publishers. We make art and we're smart. And that’s why you won’t find digital artists making huge value-diluting editions.

But what about copies or art found on the Internet? Internet copying of legitimate digital art is not a genuine problem. Most digital art files are huge - much larger than the vast majority of images found on the internet. And most digital artists are savvy about rights management and licensing. Still, a quality piece of digital art must be authenticated and assurances must be provided so the buyer knows that the piece they are considering has been directly produced or at least approved by the artist as his or her own work.

Buyers have a right to buy artworks that are rare, special and which won't be diluted in value by copies. For this, one needs to limit production, make each piece special and legitimately the direct product of the artist, and of long-lasting archival quality.

This is why I've come to think that a strategy of using lab-tested pigment inks, archival paper, personally signing and dating each piece, using genuinely restricted limited editions, supplying legitimate certificates of authenticity and keeping a careful database of each piece made, sold, loaned, exhibited, or given - all must work together to provide the all-important buyer assurance.

The knowledgeable art buyer needs and deserves to know that the piece s/he buys is not only genuinely produced or approved by the artist but is rare, limited, made for the ages, and will not be diluted in value by a flood of copies.

And of course, the work has to be stellar. No artist can avoid the really hard work of facing themselves, meeting self-imposed challenges, stepping up their game and working to make the best possible art s/he can. Even if "the computer does all the work." Ha.

In the end, if we digital artists want respect, we'll have to earn it through education, professionalism and personal excellence.