Conjecture on Content

Content.

It can be a difficult topic for artists.  I envy those artists that have a clarity of purpose in regards to their content.  They know what they want to do, or want to say.  We aren't all that lucky.

The conflict I hear of most often, is an artist having to decide between what they want to paint, and what their gallery / buyers want them to paint.  Typically, galleries like to see consistency of content.  They want you to provide them with more of what they know sells.  And collectors like what they like, and sometimes if you change what you're doing, they no longer like it.  And as an artist, you want your work to sell so that you can make a living.  But at the same time, your interests and knowledge as an artist grow and expand, and sometimes you just outgrow what you're doing, and it becomes time for a change.  That's when this conflict arises.  Should the artist rake the risk of losing sales by changing their work, or give in and just keep doing the same thing?  Those that give in tend to start losing their love of painting, and it becomes work that they have to force themselves through.  It can also stunt your growth as an artist.  So, I feel the correct answer here is obvious.

But, that particular problem isn't mine, nor do I ever expect it to be.  I'm not the kind of person that would fret over such a thing.  The question that plagues me is, "What should I paint?"

When you look at contemporary painters, the vast majority of their content falls into four categories: Landscape, Figurative, Still Life, or Abstract.  The first three are representational, meaning they paint what they see, even if it's in an impressionistic style.  And abstract also usually either focuses on one of those same three subjects, or is pure abstraction, with no subject.  These four content types are represented in the banner above.

This is my most recently finished painting, 'An Artist's Journey'. Sorry for the poor picture quality.

For most artists, making this decision is simply a matter of painting what interests them.  They love nature, and paint the breathtaking scenes they encounter.  The texture in an old, dilapidated building fascinates them, so they paint it.  The atmosphere and symbolism of a dying flower fascinates them, so they paint it.

Some other artists have a message they wish to convey with their art, and base their content on that.  The glaciers are melting, and global warming is a thing, so they paint majestic glaciers and icebergs.  The degeneration of society is a problem, so they paint symbolic images illustrating it.  This kind of content is less common.

When I consider this question in regards to myself, I can't help but ask a second question: "What makes a piece of art important?"  Take the four paintings in the above banner as an example.  They are done by some of the most famous artists in current art history.  What made them so famous?  What does art need to become successful in today's world?  If you were to travel fifty years into the future, and look back at today's contemporary art world, what would a piece of art need, to be viewed as an important work that stands above most other art of its time?

These are questions I've pondered on many occasions.  I've drawn a few conclusions, but I don't have any concrete answers.  Historically, if you want your work to be viewed as important, you can be the first to do something, such as Jackson Pollock with his splatter paintings.  You can help to kick off a new painting movement that itself becomes viewed as important, such as what Monet did with his painting above, "Impression Sunrise".  It's possible to simply have a transcendent style and skill that sets you apart, such as is the case with Vincent Van Gogh.  Or you can simply be the product of good marketing, such as is the case with many paintings that are now famous.

Of these four avenues, the only one that is actionably pursuable, is the marketing.  It's a common opinion that at this point in art history, there is nothing new to do; everything has already been done.  I don't know if that's true, but it certainly isn't an easy thing to do.  Likewise with starting a new movement, which more or less goes hand in hand with doing something new.  And you can't simply decide to develop a transcendent style and skill; it just happens.  So, I have no answer to this question for the contemporary artist, beyond marketing.

If all you wish for is to be financially successful, the answer seems to be a bit easier.  Any of the standard four content types will work perfectly fine.  The work doesn't even necessarily need to be good.  You just have to market your self well.

Which, still leaves me with no answer as to "What should I paint?"  To be honest, representational art just doesn't interest me that much.  I don't want to paint a vase of flowers, or fruit, a simple figurative, or a landscape.  I want something more.  But, I don't have a message that I want to convey.  Recently, my content seems to be leaning towards my life as an artist, but I'm not exactly overflowing with content ideas on that front either.

Lately, I spend too much time looking at a blank, or half-worked, surface, with no idea what to put down.  It's my biggest problem.