The Pain and the Painting
It is my personal and professional aspiration that my artwork be worthy of the The Academy in Art. What that means is that eligibility for that distinction is not my call. Academic realism is neutral. I paint what I see. What I, as an artist look at, is my prerogative. My subject (what I look at) is common street people, clochards, if you will excuse my school book French. Given the choice, I'd rather be known for subject, than for an innovative, but idiosyncratic, style. Painting, for me, is a medium—not an end in itself.
Having disclosed my professional bias, I will also disclose that I am an admirer of Philip Guston's work. He is a titan of American art—despite his last work and, possibly, because of it. His artwork has relevance to me in that my subject invites comparison to that of Guston's last painting style—the crudely painted, pneumatically-inflated figure paintings of the 70s and 80s. Not the gangs of hooligans in Ku Klux Klan hoods driving a car and looking for trouble. I am thinking of the series titled "Painting, Eating, Smoking," including the images of a figure malingering in bed.
The irony of the artist's casual disregard for decorum is not lost—given the artist's acclaim and financial success. The word smug comes to mind. To put it bluntly, it's hard to tell the difference between a Guston and a bum.
My we be blunt? Guston is frankly unsympathetic toward his subject—to put it politely. His late work is stridently satirical in its ridicule of some decidedly unsavory characters. But what I would like to know is what are his sympathies? He stands for nothing. Worst of all, he fails to come to grips with his own humanity. Derelicts are sufficiently ridiculous in themselves not to require added ridicule for being ridiculous.
Read his biography. His life story, that is. I understand the purist's rejection of rationalism in the aesthetics of art, of the artist himself as subject. Granted, art doesn't require psychoanalysis. Critical theory would be incomplete without considering circumstances. Seriously, if van Gogh's madness is not dismissed as irrelevant to his painting, why shouldn't Guston's be considered?
As a young man his father committed suicide. Philip found him. It doesn't require psychoanalysis to appreciate the fact that he suffered mental and emotional trauma. Understandably, he felt drawn to a career in art. From an early age he had wanted to be a professional cartoon artist. Evidently, he found it too superficial for the emotional load he had to bear, and he steered towards becoming an easel painter—instead.
Fast forward to the 70s—and what we may call his cartoon strip phase. The repressed returns with a vengeance. I say this, not to bury him—but to praise him. What I know about Philip Guston and his background—in the context of his art—makes me all the more sympathetic. I maintain he would make an excellent subject—for my art.
The graphic art of Brian Higgins can be viewed at: https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/8-brian-higgins
One-of-a-kind works of art can be viewed at: https://www.saatchiart.com/account/artworks/1840403