Hope resting oil painting by Scott Burdick |
Archived Comments
Enjoy the past comments below for Gold mine…
Nothing to do with art, Robert, but to do with grammar. ” All that glitters is not gold.” Not true. Some that glitters is gold. What he meant to say was ” Not all that glitters is gold.” The placement of the word ‘ not ‘ is often incorrect in such statements.
Robert, I really like the idea that you lend your painting to someone who couldn’t afford it. How very generous of you! Lesson learned.
I’ve had the opposite experience in a way. After completing an involved commission by a client who expected a masterpiece, he asked that I keep the original painting as a long term loan. Citing security and future moves, the client displays a full size print instead. The original hangs in my living room and makes for an interesting tale for visitors.
Robert~ You’re right; the gold mine is better.
A couple of years ago I was not allowed to try and sell several good paintings at an outdoor festival because they were not matted, much less framed. My family was having a large reunion to celebrate a 70th birthday (not mine, which is long gone) and I decided if they won’t let me sell these paintings I’ll give them away. Some of the paintings, all watercolors, had won prizes in various juried shows. The rest were good work. None were throw-aways. On the evening of the big party I gave away 30 paintings to cousins, nieces and nephews and their spouses and off-spring. Every one was having a really good time. What they didn’t know, and somewhat to my surprise, I was having the best time of the whole crowd. It was way more fun than merely selling. Your point is right on!
The gold mine painting not only indicates your future style and technique but is a far better work.
The head of the figure in the front is way too small. The composition has nice abstract feel to it but I can’t get over the disproportions in human body. The chief is more to my liking, he feels very human and fragile.
I love the fact that you lent this work “the chief’ and it came back to you. Great what it says about you, and about the folks that ‘enjoyed and ‘held’ it. I suggest, and you agree by sharing it, that works speak of much more than themselves…
I knew Henry Dawson of Kingcome village before he died in 1968 and it is a good picture of him. Looks like him. Those people probably liked it because they knew him and it was a true picture of him.
Is THAT why artists have a reputation for being poor? Well, maybe it’s OK if you sell it AFTER you finish painting it for fun! I think youve hit on the reason for “formula” artists. Would any of us like to be that guy with the smarmy paintings that all look alike and are always predictable? He’s wealthy though! This is not to be confused with a recognizable, individual style, where each painting is varied and different and fresh.Repetition of the same proven success formula may increase wealth but it sure prevents growth and development. Tough choice perhaps!
What a wonderful story! Friendships and suprises like that are the icing on the cake of life.
I quite like both paintings Robert, and you have told us an engaging painting story. Much appreciated by me and such a delightful surprise for you to be reminded of your prior art efforts and your grandfather’s pursuits.
Gold mine! A metaphor for what art can be for some artists. (Art lover, UK)
All that glitters can also be fool’s gold – fool’s gold being what some folks buy just because of hoopla….I would rather buy well-executed art from an unknown than something someone with a bit of a reputation has churned out just to grease their bank account…just my opinion. roberthead_khh@yahoo.com
I completely agree that money as a motivator is not something that will drive one to create their best work. That said, I also was made to think of all the things I have heard about poverty through the years. Being poor builds character is one I have heard over and over. Actually, I don’t think so. Poverty just makes things hard. I would guess the same percentage of poor people who build character of their poverty is the same percentage of people that build character from different adversity who are rich. I don’t think poverty builds character at all. Those who build character from diversity would have done so rich or poor. It is something intrinsic in themselves that takes challenges and turns them from lemons to lemonade. I actually believe that thinking that poverty builds character is a very convenient way of avoiding dealing with the very real issues of have nots. It’s just too painful so we use tired cliches to romanticize the horridness of poverty. And I don’t believe that if you do what you love money will follow. It does for some, not for others. To think that is really not to notice that…for instance…one is far more likely to rise in this career…STILL…if you are male and white. It’s just true. Again, like poverty…it ain’t pretty to look at, but there it is anyway just beyond the cliches. What keeps me going is this. Despite the obvious …if you care to look beyond the entitlement that is yours no matter who you are….people rise. And then….dark skinned, female, gay, over 60, whatever the barrier….you realize that once one of the group with the harder entry makes it…well, then we are all richer for it. One more thing. If just one makes it, the others are never going back into obscurity and wishing. Be prepared to share the pie. Equality…once out of the box…never goes back into the box. Never. It was like my experience of reading “Girl with the Pearl Earring”. Vermeer so missed the point. He should have left her his paints…not a stupid earring. tnmason@gmail.com
Big thanks for that wonderful Salvador Dali quote about being a manufacturer of wealth. It was exactly what I needed to hear. Re. today’s letter both the portrait of Chief Henry Dawson and the Klondike mine one are good paintings, but IMO the Klondike one is much stronger.
Like the paucity of your grandfather’s gold mine, I too have experienced the power of paucity. Lacking any formal painting or drawing instruction, I struck out on my own teaching myself to use oils. I began by painting simple flowers and fruits. From that, I graduated on to landscapes surrounding me here in the Great Smoky Mountains. Still completely self-taught I then moved on to experimenting with the human form. All of my efforts were done without the thought of selling my work but rather just for the pleasure it gave me to create using the brush. I think Mr. Daniel H. Pink said it best, “Money can extinguish intrinsic motivation, diminish performance, crush creativity, encourage unethical behavior, foster short-term thinking, and become addictive.” I had no money, no art education and no monetary motivation when I painted “Robert Busheyhead”. I painted his portrait just to see if I could. My pleasure was immense.
This is funny, I feel like Mr. Phipps trying to see the hologram I dont get it. I dont see anything in the gold mine painting whats there to like? Quite frankly I wouldnt give it a second look. Why do you think it is a better painting? The way I see it, its all wrong. The composition leaks at the bottom right, figures dont seem to add meaning, colors look confused what am I not getting? I love the chief a lot!
I love the story, Robert! I think everything about it tells of the character of your spirit and the people you loaned the painting to. And, I like both paintings. I love being able to give away a painting occasionally, for the right reason of giving it away. The joy of giving is so much more than selling it. Don’t get me wrong, selling feels good too. To receive a painting from the past that you did, and get to really look at it from your more experienced perspective is a gift in my mind also. I can still see your “handwriting” on these paintings. There was love in both of these paintings and it comes through. Thanks for giving us the gift of this story.
In the 1980’s I sold a painting of an underwater scene with a bare breasted mermaid. Nearly twenty years later I went to a client’s home to take photos in preparation for painting the portrait of her two children. While the children were changing clothes I noticed what looked like an unframed canvas leaning against a bookcase and went over for a closer look. I was struck by a familiar scene. It was the same painting of the barebreasted mermaid I’d sold (to someone else) nearly twenty years earlier. I asked the client where she got the painting. She said it came from an estate sale in the area and she mentioned that the artist’s first name and mine were the same. She didn’t know that I had signed it with my former married surname. I was pleasantly ‘shocked’ to cross paths with this piece of artwork once again. She told me she had intended to find this ‘unknown-at-that-time’ artist and commission more art by him/her. We both had a moment of serendipity. She has turned out to be one of my best clients.
YOU SAVED THE PAINTING ON THE BACK?! Amazing! Years ago when money was tight, I whitewashed the old work on the back then painted a new work on the front. Needless to say I don’t do that anymore. The things we do as new artists is astonishing, isn’t it? If I ever reach enormous fame in art, the conservators are going to have a field day when they X-ray my early works. They will find not one but several previous works underneath. Hey, things were tough in the beginning and I had less sense and money. Well, less sense than money. I feel I’m doing a service by over painting on canvases. I’m keeping people who research these things employed. Right?
I thought the Gold Mine a much more interesting painting than the Indian portrait. For one thing, it tells a story of your past family history and also was well done. Somehow, you need to display both sides. Thanks for your letters. I just finished a workshop with Arne Westerman. He emphasized the story telling in his paintings.
Watercourses, even gold sluices, that flow toward the viewer, perform the psychological service of implying impending abundance.
Lovely,just lovely…