No More Secondhand Art:
PETER LONDON:
Brings Out the Artist Buried Inside Each of Us
"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."
- Pablo Picasso
"For the most part theories serve only to mask the shortcomings of the
artist. Theories are worked out afterwards."
- Auguste Renoir
Regardless of our age, position, or occupation in life, the need and desire
to express the thoughts, dreams and aspirations that are quite uniquely and
distinctly 'our own' is a strong one.
Like a series of multi-colored maple leaves falling upon the blanket of the
ground during Fall, at first glance we see textures of seemingly similar
shaped objects and colors merging together; however, upon individual &
closer inspection, we recognize that each leaf contains markings and lines
and contours to its color that make it remarkably distinct and separate
from any other.
Unfortunately, far too many people in our society go through life
frustrated at their seeming inability to express their true selves in an
artistic manner.
Regardless of the idiom and whether it be painting, drawing, illustration,
music, or writing, far too many people have experienced something negative
in their lives that falsely inform them that they have 'nothing to say' or
'lack the talent' to give voice to their expression.
Artist and writer Peter London is on a mission to change these notions.
A Professor of Art Education at Southeastern Massachusetts University in
North Dartmouth, London is a noted artist, a practicing 'art therapist',
and a painter whose work has been exhibited extensively in New England and
Canada.
In his remarkable book entitled No More Secondhand Art: Awakening the
Artist Within, London sets out to break down the barriers and roadblocks
that people experience in life that stunt or retard their ability to fully
execute their own innate artistic expression and ability.
Midland-based artist Jodi Patterson, featured in a Review cover profile
back in October, 2000, first heard of Peter London from Vito Kobitz, an art
education professor from her days as an undergraduate.
"Post-Modern Pedagogy in art education was not something many people were
talking about in 1990," explains Patterson. "I found Peter's teachings both
validated what my visions in art education were and what art can truly be,
polar opposites of what my 'other' art education professor dictated."
Consequently, Patterson along with Creative Spirit Center of Midland is
bringing London to town for a workshop and exhibit entitled Around London
that will feature works by London along with 14 women from across the state
of Michigan.
Held at the Jodi Patterson Studio/Gallery, 132 1/2 Main St. in Midland, an
opening reception will be held November 15th from 6-9 PM with the show
remaining open on Tuesdays from 3-6 PM through December 15th.
"I was floored when Peter accepted my invitation, because I like to share
and wanted more people, especially those in education, to hear what Peter
has to say. It is so rare to find authentic encounters to share in a
gallery space."
The work featured in this show is the product of an intensive weeklong
workshop that Jodi attended at the Detroit Institute of Arts in July.
"The women featured in the show are from varied backgrounds and the pieces
displayed are the end result of the workshop, when Peter asked us to depict
what we wanted to say about ourselves."
"We will ask our audience to be involved by writing their responses to our
work and put those on the gallery walls, too," continues Jodi. "None of us
will be showing our 'regular' work."
Regardless of whether you are an accomplished musician, artist, writer, or
painter, the insights of Peter London offer a fresh and incisive map at how
to make the link between bringing out the unique and original 'voice'
within each of us.
Recently I had the opportunity to interview London extensively, beginning
with my own experience as a 6-year old at South Elementary School, when an
art teacher told me that my drawing was so bad that I belonged back in
kindergarten and actually walked me over to the Kindergarten art class for
a one-hour session. The experience was a devastating one that resulted in
me never attempting to seriously draw anything but stick figures ever
again, shifting my own artistic expression over to the verbal arts.
Hopefully you will find London's insights illuminative, compelling, and
useful in finding the courage to give 'voice' to your own artistic
expression.
Review: One of the fundamental notions explored in your book centers
around the notion of innate creativity and how this is often stifled or
discouraged by popular aesthetic assumptions about what constitutes 'good
art.'
Do you feel that aesthetic criteria or definitions are important, or
should we suspend and dispense with them in terms of placing a 'value' upon
what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' art?
London: That is a great question to begin with.
Many of the people I work with teaching in a university setting, or to
non-artists like those at The Creative Spirit Center, are people that come
to me with a traumatic tale similar to your own that happened when they
were young or vulnerable.
They made a wonderful and straightforward image in the way that a 5 or
6-year will do that did not correspond to some adult's vision of what they
saw in a catalog at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The difference between what an adult thinks and values and what a child
does is so great. When the adult overlays their views on that of a child,
the child has no argument, no background, and suffers a tremendous wound.
And unfortunately these damn wounds don't heal over too easily. So like
you, they go through life with this unfortunate 'tag' that is completely
and wrongly placed. Of course it is little solace that 74% of Americans
have that same reaction, but there it is.
In fact, any expression that is sincere and that is supported by real
conscientious effort is as much as that person can do at the time, so to
judge it good or bad relative to an aesthetic measure completely misplaces
the true project that it is.
The 'purpose' isn't necessarily to make something pretty, but to say
something as true as one knows.
True and pretty have no equation.
Review: But our society still places 'value' on art in terms of whether
it conforms to a popular standard of quality. Of course you always have
artists that try to shatter that notion apart and break through with
something new and truly original, but do you feel that America right now is
locked in a stage of derivative art or are you witnessing many artistic
'breakthroughs'?
London: There is a general kind of trend that happens periodically. We are
in one portion of a cycle. Societies endlessly cycle. On the one hand there
exists this desire for uniform standards that are imposed by some body of
expertise and we are going through that stage now on the upper levels of
administration.
Our national standards demand accountability which leads to the kind of
appetite for a lot of fundamentalism and a turn to the right and dogmatic
adherence that reads literal translations into what constitutes 'good art'.
In short, it mirrors what happens socially and politically.
The underbelly of the 'publicly sanctioned notions' is the hedonism and
wild abandon that is happening. You get that in the vernacular of music,
rap, dance, hairdressing, and piercing, which are all expressive art forms
in which resistance to the publicly sanctioned formulates.
So those two poles cycle like the great big juggernaut they are. In the
publicly proclaimed we have this tremendous appetite for conformity and
standardization, and the under-belly, or 'under-represented', we have an
equal appetite for breaking out of the confining elements.
Visual arts today merely exhibit right now more of the underbelly of the
society while the formally sanctioned art that happens a great deal at
schools represents the publicly sanctioned appetite for conformity.
Review: In Tom Wolfe's book The Painted Word, he explores the notion that
modern art in America gains acceptance and value only through the
assistance of verbal explanation to support it. He then goes on to argue
that truly great art does not need the assistance of words and that the
visual strength of the piece should stand on it's own. How do you feel
about that assessment? Is it art if you have to 'explain' it to people?
London: I think that in fact the image is never fully self-explanatory.
Recently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art I was looking at some Japanese
and Chinese landscapes that were exquisitely rendered with extraordinary
realism.
They were aesthetic and moody and remarkable, but I didn't know until I
read that this particular piece was painted by a monk who retreated to the
mountains after the collapse of the Chiang Dynasty that the work depicted
the four graces of Chinese virtue - scholarship, poetry, contemplation, and
music - that the four fellows in the piece were doing those four things.
I didn't know that what this artist presented was really a political
statement about the vicious nature of society and that he was going back to
earlier virtues with this remarkably subtle protest.
So the reading deepens your appreciation of the art. It makes the poignancy
and overlaying of the resonance and act of appreciation much greater.
Our minds aren't only optically sensitive; they're also intellectually
sensitive. So I don't agree at all with Tom Wolfe that a work on it's own
will convey all of the implications.
Review: How do you overcome lapses in technique if you are a person that
does not consider him or herself to be a good visual artist? Don't you
find that people are hesitant to express themselves visually based upon
these conceptions of good artistic technique?
London: The first answer I have to that question is when Henny Youngman the
comedian was asked in the streets of New York 'how do you get to Carnegie
Hall?' and he responded, 'Practice, practice, practice.'
The same is true with technique. The more you draw the better you get. The
more you paint, the more you ride the bicycle, the more you write, the
better you get.
As with walking or language, everyone is awkward when they first start. But
if you continue the effort refines your eye, your hand, your mind, and you
can be enormously accelerated by some kind of formalisms.
It's like reading material on how to wire a light switch. The same thing is
true with reading how to lay down a wash with watercolor. Once you read it
or take a course you can have it.
What unfortunately happens is that people invest enormous amounts of
concern into technique when it is the easiest mechanical thing to acquire.
The more difficult thing is how to address your work in a mindful, or a
caring, or a courageous and imaginative way. These are the things that
really make the difference between an artist of note and a simple hacker
who only has technique.
Review: How do you get people to stray from these 'defined guidelines',
especially when they often get lost without a sense of the 'familiar'?
London: I think that the social fabric of society, unless one is a
psychopath or a sociopath, keeps you within the confines of expectation and
memory which is all for the good because it gives civilization its
continuity and un-scariness as you steer through daily life.
Imagine waking up and the person lying next to you is completely different
than the one you went to bed with or if you asked a waiter 'what's for
dinner' and he replied 'What is dinner?' So expectations are important.
But the time devoted to staring at the blank page is also important because
it opens the gates to infinity, whereas the rest of society puts a grid or
matrix to which one orients oneself.
The blank page or 'silence' brings one to a place where that matrix is
dissolved and you can go anyplace where one's desires lie.
For some people that is so overwhelming a disorientation that they flee
back to the comforts of the societal matrix. But for others, in the
rectangle of the blank page, they exercise appetites or proclivities that
the society does not invite, which is a delicious opportunity.
For some people, just offering a time to stand in a neutral position where
they don't have to go shopping or make the beds or do anything but think is
a welcome respite.
Secondly, no judgement is at play regarding whether something is good or
bad. We disengage all those premises so this timid worm of a self then
feels good enough and safe enough to come out and say what it has to, which
is all it really takes - the encouragement of one's peers to facilitate the
process.
Review: What about your own work? How do you keep pressing your own
boundaries as an artist?
London: In my next book coming out that is entitled Drawing Closer to
Nature, I describe a little bit of an episode that I experienced that helps
with that.
It's too long to get into now, but what I will say is that in my mind when
I come up to my studio, each time I go there I disconnect from the demands
placed upon me that I'm conscious of. By the time I get to the studio the
conversation there is only devoted to the person that I already know who's
looking to discover the person who I am still, but have not yet maybe
acquainted myself with. That's my project in art.
With that sensibility in mind, when I work, if the work looks too familiar
to me I say, "Well, I've already been there before. Let's see what's around
the corner." There always seems to be another corner that I haven't turned
yet.
Review: What do you feel is the most challenging component to keeping art
a vital force?
London: It's strange to say but I think it's finding the time and the
place to actually do it. What I find is that it is the thick soup that one
always finds oneself in the midst of in society that keeps one from
reflection upon and having the possibility of even saying something
hesitantly original.
Once one does create the time and space it's surprising how easy the next
step is. But it's the first step that people never speak of that is the
hardest one. That sounds like a strange answer, but that's my experience.
Like Virginia Woolfe said, 'Unless you have a room of one's own, the roof
of time and space, the likelihood of being for yourself, if you can't be by
yourself, is impossible to do."
Review: Do you think people are too concerned with understanding art rather
than experiencing it? I'm thinking about David Lynch films while I ask
this. People either think he is a great director, or else they scratch
their heads wondering what in the hell is going on because he doesn't work
in a linear manner.
London: I think there is always a problem of over intellectualization. In
my first book, No More Second Hand Art, I talk about this group of art
historians who have this exhibition. They are very knowledgeable people
that know how to make a good thing; but however a good thing it appears to
be, it is devoid of risk. Because they started out to do a good thing they
made a good thing, but it is dead in the water.
The intellect tends to do that. It tends to map out one's vicinity and
hesitantly walk through what one has already mapped.
There is an artistic sensibility that seems like risk taking, but what they
are doing is groping for the next thing, if only by a series of 10,000
little micro trials and error, which is half the answer to your question.
It's like the act of making love. We can plan it all out and map out every
gesture and sound, but if we keep doing it that way it gets uncomfortable.
Secondly, it offers little cultivation of the sensuous. We throw our soul
into it, but we don't cultivate it like say the Kama Sutra does, which
cultivates the experience of our physical entity, not only sexually, but
also in an aesthetically aroused way.
The popular notion is that when in the state of love making you go to a
'baser state' and fall back to bestiality. But as a matter of fact, you
needn't fall anywhere. Sensuality is a form of 'knowing' and intimacy, just
as it is intellectually. It's in all the esoteric forms of spiritual
practice. In Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity there is a form
of self-abnegation and a sense of being united with the god-head through a
fusion, but also through a mapping of the features and embedding oneself in
the other totally, the mind and body annihilated.
Well, we don't do a lot of that. So the aesthetic experience is lacking there.
Review: What exactly will you be doing at the Workshop coming up in November?
London: My approach to teaching is a holistic method. I work with the mind,
body and spirit. So first I will give the people a bit of an intellectual
overview and then we'll do some 'centering', or some bodily thing whereby
we align our physical self with the materials and the time and place and
one another and wake up our physical self. After that I will present a
series of exercises to bring out and elicit the inner thoughts and drives
to our expression.
Review: Peter, it's been great chatting with you. Do you have any other
thoughts or comments that we may not have touched upon?
London: Not at all. You've asked some very pivotal questions and it has
been a pleasure talking with you.