Drawers Anonymous

Yes, it is true. Rejection is inevidable. But the truth is, you have to ask yourself if you love something enough to keep trying even when you aren't getting support or praise. I'm in art school right now, and that's how it is for me. Sometimes I get some criticism and a kid who half assed his work gets all the glory, and it strikes me as unfair, but then I remember there are people who DO understand my style and I guess that's what counts in the end. So you see, we may all get rejection but it's no true determination of our talent. What does mark your potential is how much you are willing to put into it, even if it means putting up with bullshit.
 

Stop doubting yourself and do something about it. Rejection is terrifying and can be crippling but if it really means anything to you, then you just have to get back up and work even harder.

It's not just a love affair, it's an obsession. 'Eat, drink and sleep art.'

Good luck.
 

Just keep on working at it, all kinds of people, all kinds of art, will find where you are supposed to be. It's a difficult area to make a living at but you truly have talent, gotta have that get up and go spirit.
 

If you want to be a successful artist or illustrator, it's handy to not have very high standards. Just go with what's fashionable and you'll be noticed. In the real world, the mediocre people always rise to the top and the greatest people are ignored, hated and misunderstood. This keeps the world nicely fucked up and insane.
 

Interesting replies and points of view, everyone -

To the anonymouses, you seem to be hitting on a question I've been having - is talent quantifiable? If all art is subjective, who determines what is great and what is mediocre? Is success defined by money and praise?

And to the second anonymous, I'm curious to who you might be referring to in particular? Do you mean how artists like Sargent or Van Gogh weren't appreciated during their lifetime, but now hang in museums?
 

Yes, success is ultimately decided by how many people with fat wallets think your stuff is worth their time. Not only is all art subjective, everything, literally the whole world is subjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. The only thing in art that everyone can agree on is skill but as you might agree, that is the least important thing about art, especially today. An artist can think their own work is wonderful but if no one else agrees they will starve to death. An artist that is perfectly uninterested in the opinions of others is either the worst or the greatest artist that ever lived.

As for Sargent and Van Gogh, I think the former was very successful while he was still alive and the latter was admired by the elite avant garde but was too "advanced" for the general public. Personally, I think Sargent was a boring hack with a tremendous amount of skill. Van Gogh was slightly more sincere; had more than just talent. He literally wanted to change the world with his art and that's what permanently kept him out of the limelight while he was still alive. Although I don't consider him a genius, he had enough of the rabid ideality that is required for genius to shock and offend the normal people around him. But he was not idealistic enough to realize that art can never change the world in any significant way. The best it can do is make it prettier in spots and give a few highly sensitive meek people an outlet for all their fears and insecurities regarding the chaos of the reality. The fact that Van Gogh is now highly regarded and hangs in museums is proof that he was willing to compromise his ideals in order to be accepted and loved by others. He was such a brilliant buffoon that even though he chose a harmless vocation as an easel painter he made such a mess that it changed easel painting forever.
 

Anonymous: Yes, I've been thinking what constitutes reality and truth, and I've come to conclusion that what is commonly accepted by the majority of people is considered "truth". But perception is dependent on the viewer - what it true to them may not be true to another.

And sometimes, the majority of people can be completely wrong - like when they thought the earth was flat.

And yes, definitely success in the Fine Art world as an artist is determined by people with fat wallets, or sometimes whether they think your painting matches their sofa.

So as artists, are we dependent on the acceptance or approval of others? It it our goal to try to "touch" or impress people, or are we just doing it for ourselves and it shouldn't matter what others think? (In terms of self-fulfillment, not putting food on the table).

I suppose that is just human nature - to try to seek acceptance from others. Or your worth is perhaps contingent on that.

Art is a pretty selfish endeavor, I think.

For me, drawing keeps me sane, gives me a purpose, something to live for. Maybe it is the same as any other distraction that people choose in order to get out of bed every morning: television, shopping, 2.5 kids.

I am curious then, what is your situation then? I assume you do art, but for what reason? Are you trying to get in the business?
 

This comment will probably have nothing to do with the interesting discussion going on about art, but I think you shouldn't have much to worry about. Your stuff is amazing and the fact that you try to sketch every day is very admirable and something I have yet to do on a consistent basis (not good because I'm trying to eventually get good enough to hopefully make a living on art as well). I see this amazing work yet when I read your comments you seem so insecure about your future among other things. The future is frightening because it is unknown but why spend time freaking out about what's going to happen? The time I spend worrying is time I could be using to do work. Because I'm so new to the world of art all I can say is keep up the awesome work.

I especially love the points anonymous made about the whole world being subjective, and that skill is the thing most everyone can agree on and yet the least important thing about art today.

A big thing I always hear artists say (and this includes all areas of art) is that skill can always be learned, but creativity cannot. Since I'm going to a rigorous design school with incredibly dedicated and talented people, so skills are very high. But it seems that while the skills are a big plus what is most crucial is the idea behind your work.
 

I really disagree with anonymous, going with what's fashionable puts a stopwatch on your craft, it will only be "fasionable" for so long. When the Charles Dana Gibson's Gibson Girl became popular, all the art schools began teaching students how to draw the Gibson way, so by the time they all got out of school, it was going out of fashion and they're craft was a bastardization of something original; Gibson's point of view. that is what's interesting to people, friends, the public, and most importantly, to you. Your point of view. thats the challenge.
Success is not dependent on money. not for everyone. Success is not for other people to judge. you define your own success for yourself, I define it for myself and for where I am in my life. My Uncle hates his job and lives paycheck to paycheck, but he's raised an awesome family and works his ass off, thats success for him. for me, right now its volunteering to do local show posters and whatever else I can find, and getting them dispayed is part of the journey I can call "success." as long as I keep and on the look out for the next job (all mostly without pay, haha)
check this out though, i t's an interview with Alan Moore (Watchmen, V for Vendetta, etc.) take care!
-Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGq-9X3ho7U
 

bombproof: I think most people would be very suspicious of someone who can ape a successful style perfectly. Your Charles Dana Gibson example doesn't quite apply because fashion is not about literally copying something else exactly. It's about putting a personal little spin on something within a very limited context, for example, flower patterns on sandals. This doesn't really take much effort if you happen to be a naturally creative person. Gibson's subject matter is still with us to this day. Pictures of pretty girls with dumb looks on their faces will remain fashionable for a long time to come.

m: It's true that perception is dependent on the viewer but there are some things that are true for all viewers whether the viewer can acknowledge it or not. The fact that perception is dependent on the viewer is one such thing. It applies to everybody across the board. This inescapable reality is an absolute truth.

There are no absolute truths in art. At best, you can have a fundamental value within a limited context but as soon as art expands beyond that context, all internal values are up for redefinition. So if you want to be a success while you are still alive, the best bet is to work within a small context that's already widely accepted. You'll be able to "touch" or impress a lot of people this way because most people are satisfied with what's easily acquirable. This might feel fulfilling for you or it might not. It depends on what you want out of life. If you still haven't figured that out it's good to remember that everything you do is selfish, from shifting in your chair or scratching an itch to saving the world. It all begins with a selfish impulse.

As for me, I went to art school and was considered very talented. But I was also a worrier. I worried for a long time then I stopped worrying and began to think, which for most people looks like exactly the same thing. After that, I came to conclusions about art and everything else. The acceptance or approval of other people became worthless as it is to any independent thinker.

It became obvious to me that art is never totally satisfying at any point, which is why artists keep producing work. They have a sort of carrot-on-the-stick mentality about it. I always doubted that mentality. It appeared too mindless and I didn't like picturing myself as a donkey chasing a carrot around his whole life. I still paint and draw but only as a hobby. A few people have expressed interest in buying my work but I never follow through on it because I don't need the money at this point. However, many things are possible in the future.
 

flower patterns on sandals? haha, you've lost me. and have misunderstood/ misinterpreted my comment.
m- I believe that what people(clients/art directors) will find interesting is your point of view, and thats what art directors want to see, how YOU will solve a problem YOUR way, ask any art director, I heard it from Sam Weber himself( he used to be an art director), they want to see something different and effective. yes, some people, personally, are fine with doing the same thing over and over in their career, some people have to keep moving in style,genre, etc.
"for an artist to be interesting, he must first be interesting to himself"
-Robert Henri (the most beast art teacher ever)
yeah, i think we are communicators as artist, we are privileged and can bring truth , what's true to us into our work and I think that will make our work much more effective, interesting and satisfying.

check out the Illustration Academy, I would seriously consider it. I went with Jeff Love and Francis Vallejo and some other peeps this summer and it changed my life. everyone who went there really. I could write a 20 page paper about it. It prepares you for what's to come, how to get started, EVERYTHING! I hope to go back this summer also. anyways....
thats my shpeal, and all I have to say, :)
-Will
 

Grabmeister: Your stuff already looks good enough to make a living - thanks for the encouraging words. I've always thought that true skill would in a way encompass both technical ability and thinking ability.

Will: Yes, I've watched that interview before, it's very encouraging. I think for most people in my family though, money does equal success. But that could be because we are asian.

Also, I stare wistfully from afar at the Illustration Academy, and I am sure it is worth every penny, except I don't believe that I am worth $7000.

I've just always wondered - what if nobody liked your work at all? What if the whole world's population turned to 1? Would you still do art? Would it still have meaning? If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

I don't like the idea that the concept of myself is caused or even worse, determined, by other people, but I think in society it somewhat works this way.

Anonymous: I've always thought that happiness is like the carrot-on-a-stick. Or a moving bus. Happiness is always moving away at the same rate we are approaching it. If we were ever to feel satisfied, we'd become bored and look for something new. I think this is motivation for most people. To reach for something that is continually out of reach. It gives us purpose.

I would like to not crave approval or acceptance from others. I would like to find it unnecessary. I have a weak ego, though.

It's similar to money. Money is another thing that I don't want to need, but I do, and I sort of loathe needing it.
 

Guys, maybe your attitude is part of the reason why you find little success. The mediocre don't typically rise to the top. Think about how many mediocre people are out there! Are they ALL at the top?!

Out of all the many art blogs I subscribe to, this one is probably updated the least frequently. I don't know how many of you actually submit art to this blog and if you submit art less than you draw, but I get the impression that a professional artist probably draws more often.

Why in the world would you loathe needing acceptance? Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you lived alone you would still do art, but it would suck because it would just be scratches in the dirt or something. Art has always reflected not only the vision of the individual artist, but the vision of the society around the artist. That is a beautiful thing and it's nothing to be ashamed of. As for the money thing, money rules.

You have to choose your audience. You can't be liked by every art person, but you can be liked by the audience you choose. I've chosen the commercial art market, people who like illustrations in books and movies. So, I don't care to listen to all of those people who say it's not real art if too many peasants enjoy it, or if it makes a lot of money.
 

Zd: Yes, if you think of the hierarchy of anything, the majority of the pyramid-the middle- is made up of mediocrity. But as some people have said, the value of any artwork is completely subjective, unless you define it in literal monetary terms.

I am the only one who posts to this blog, no, I am surely not a professional artist, and I very much wish that I drew more. I don't post often because I don't have anything worth sharing.

I wouldn't do art if the goal were just to make money - if I wanted to do that, I would have studied something more practical, like pharmaceuticals or accounting. Rather, I am going to do art regardless, and unfortunately, money is a necessity.

I loathe the idea of needing acceptance because then I will always be at the mercy of others. Yet I enjoy the community feeling of artists, other artwork, learning from others etc. But this relates more to the fact that I'm a hermit than anything else.

There is no such thing as real art - anything can be art.

Needing anything is like a shackle. But art is a shackle I'm happy with.

Do you have a blog?
 

bombproof: I was trying to say that art is really not much different than fashion. Styles come and go and everyone has their personal preferences which are based on nothing more than whimsy. The so-called "geniuses" of art are the people who determine what the popular style/fashion will be for a limited period of time.

Robert Henri was not a philosopher so I wouldn't take anything he says about truth very seriously.

zd: I have a higher standard for mediocrity than you do and that's because I have a higher standard for humanity. Going around feeding off the acceptance of other people strikes me as a pretty miserable way to live. Great things are never accomplished if you consider whether or not it's acceptable to everybody else first. That's a timid way of going about things. Even good artists have some individuality. It's not much but it's enough to get them noticed.

m: If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it then it doesn't make a sound. Sound is created by the receptor sending information to the brain for processing. If the receiver doesn't sense anything then sound isn't created.

There's something off about your happiness analogy. If happiness is always moving away then no one would ever feel happy, which isn't true. Happiness in art comes from the feeling that you've created something beautiful or unconventionally clever. This is only temporary though so the artist needs to top himself continuously. That is, of course unless he has other things to provide happiness, like money or love. That's when complacency sets in and the artist stops evolving. So it's not the happiness that's out of reach but the artist's personal aesthetic ideal. Things like love and money soothe the anxiety and hopelessness of ever reaching that ideal.
 

Anonymous: So then, following the tree reference, does nothing have value until someone assigns it value? Of course different things have different values to different people...

I suppose I am different then in that what I make almost never makes me happy or satisfied. I am rather more happy in the process of pursuing some unachievable goal, or what you call the personal aesthetic ideal.

Do things like money or love provide people lasting happiness, or is it temporary like being semi-satisfied with what you've created?

I really don't know. I don't know what makes other people happy, or if they do indeed feel true happiness. I suppose I might have felt true happiness, momentarily, when I was a kid, perhaps while spending an afternoon playing with mud or plants. The less you know, the less you have to be upset about.

Isn't happiness just a release of endorphins in your brain?
 

Yes, you decide for yourself what your values are. But don't believe that you have any kind of control over this choice. Your personal preferences in any situation are always determined by causes that stretch beyond your limited existence. You don't get to choose your DNA or what era you are born in etc. yet these things are important uncontrollable factors in every decision you make. There's a difference between making choices and believing that you have control over the choices you make. You can do what you want but you don't decide your wants.

Different people have different values but hardly anyone has a coherent set of values. That is, you almost never meet anyone who has carefully analyzed their values to see if they make any sense, if they value anything real. Can you perfectly describe what your goal in life is? Most people can't. They'd rather keep it vague so it doesn't oppress them so much. What is an aesthetic ideal? Can you rationally justify having one aesthetic ideal over another one? You can't. If you worried about something like that you'd probably go nuts. The best you can say is "That's what I like" and for an artist as opposed to a rational person, that is enough.

There is no such thing as "lasting happiness" if by that you mean permanent or "true" happiness. Happiness is temporary. Anyone who is always happy is completely insane. It's true that the less you know the less things will upset you but getting upset is a sign of mental activity. I think most people today would volunteer for a lobotomy if they felt it would make them more happy.
 

I pretty much agree with everything Will has said.

also...

Disagreee with almost everything anonymous has said.

and...

Do art because it makes you happy. Art is not here to make you bummed. I completely understand how it can, I mean, I look at a Rockwell and start to cry...but how lucky are we to have the chance to make pictures for a living!!!????

So it's all good. As long as you are making a somewhat decent living and are making art then things are well. I realized the cars, money, possessions are unimportant as long as I still can get the rush of happiness that comes with finishing a successful piece, or from that knowing I learned from an unsucessful piece.

M, you draw beautifully. I briefly mentioned you to John English of the academy. I really think you should join us at the Academy this coming summer. You will do extremely well!!! (the money issue can be worked with...email me and I can give you the down low on the payment plans/scholarships available).

Cheers.
 

Anonymous: I do say "that's what I like", and it is enough for me. Strangely, my taste or propensity for certain things is one of the only things I like about myself.

My goal in life is self-improvement. To if not reach an impossible ideal, then to come as close as possible. Of course, the parameters are defined by myself. Most people would just say that their goal is to be happy, and that is what would make me happy. Continually moving closer to where I want to be. To rise from lowliness.

Francis: Maybe if I find the courage to do more work and get over my fears, I can think about the academy. I think the one cool thing about it being pretty pricey is that nearly everyone there will be serious about learning.

It is really not art that makes me unhappy - it is other things - people's expectations, my own inadequacy, having to work 5 days a week of retail in this dimming economy...
 

Margarette, this is all so interesting. To read such intelligent (and also some simpler) approaches and insights is wonderful. Anonymous is clearly a very wise one and has very open eyes. I think I understand the prupose to this discussion now. How many of us here are actually allowing these opinions to sink in? or are there imediate counter arguments arising in our heads? Either way, what happens here or what happens in the whole of society is reflective of humanity. Comments on the individual's value and how it depends on everyone else are very interesting, but I can't help but think about how even these discussions fall into a certain premise. We are an organic mass and we live in a parodoxical Universe; The individual - the collective, solid matter - no such thing as solid, only vibrations of smaller particles, which inturn are not solid themselves, God - Devil, Unconscience - conscience, dark - light, female - male, etc... The ying and yang are the best representation of this though, because if we recall the symbol, they are one and the other, yet they are not. One is not, but with the other. And ultimately, it is one. Basically, what I'm trying to say without getting too off topic is to embrace all these contradictions is healthy. Make art, for yourself for others for yourself. I know I kind of strayed from the conversation, but this is relevant.
You may not remember me, but I've had a few conversations with you, a few times in FIT and once we spoke for about 2 hours over the phone, and you have been saying the same thing then as you are now. This is fine, but if it's paralysing then it's not. What I'm referring to is you as a person, not just the "artist". Creating your person is essential to the bettering of your abilities. In this light, anyone that is in a state of productivity or reimagining of self is an artist. Realization of the relevance of this approach is inevatable. How you think of yourself and of life and the world goes hand in hand with your state of mind when you sit before a blank piece of paper.
 

m: The simplistic attitude towards life that people like Francis have is perfect for being a successful artist. You can learn a lot from him. The doubts and insecurities you are having about your chosen path are signs that your mind is struggling with the conformity and compromise that's necessary in order to find a reasonably comfortable position in society. Everyone goes through a similar process no matter what vocation they take up. Most people call it "maturing" but it's really a dulling of the mind to the great mysteries of life for the sake of practicality.

The human mind is capable of far more than merely crafting amusing pictures for the entertainment of other people but exploring that potential is a daunting task. It requires an incredibly single-minded and unflinching attitude that almost nobody has. Compromise flies out the window and you're likely to end up with no friends or fawning admirers; just your absolute certainty of purpose. That's what I call Genius.

Since you're not likely to be interested in that, despite your hermit-like existence, you should probably take the invitation to the Illustration Academy seriously. It helps to be around other people with a similar passion and the support, advice and maybe even friendships you'll get from the experience could give you a leg-up on your career.

The only other option you have is staying in retail and worrying about your inadequacy for the rest of your life and that only leads to bitterness and regret (not that many successful artists don't end up bitter and regretful anyway).
 

Lolo: Yes, I remember you. Mostly what I've learned from this discussion is that everyone has different views, and everyone will choose his own path. Whether it is the best path will differ from other perspectives, but is ultimately decided by yourself.

I still don't like talking on the phone.

Anonymous: You think that conforming to society's standards as selling out, yes? I have never really fit into society well, but slowly I've been conforming at my family's behest. It makes me quite miserable.

Some of society's rules and expected behavior just baffles me:

1) You are not really supposed to say what you think.

2) You have to dress a certain way in different settings, and how you dress affects how you are perceived.

3) Most people have jobs they absolutely hate to buy things they don't need.

4) You are supposed to act like you like somebody even when you really don't.

5) You are supposed to smile even if you're not happy.

6) You are supposed to chit-chat about pointless things, like weather, and sports.

7) You are supposed to say "how are you" when you really don't care "how they are" and they, in turn, are not expected to say how they really are, but just "good, and you?"

8) You are supposed to make eye contact with people when they speak to you, but not too much, and you are not supposed to stare.

But I've decided that this is something I have to do somewhat, I have to conform somewhat, even though society strikes me as absolutely insane, because I've become accustomed to things like running water and toilet paper.

I suppose though that things like this, the facade, comes naturally to most people, so they are not really selling out, they are doing what is natural to them.

You are probably correct in that I will choose the "simpler, happier path" - though I think any path will offer some inner conflicts - I am curious as to what you refer to as the great mysteries of life.
 

The great mysteries of life: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What are we doing? What's the meaning/purpose of life? And so on....

These questions remain a mystery to most people because of the pressure society puts on them to conform to its standards by the time they reach a certain age. There is no patience for the time it takes an individual to answer these questions and they are almost universally considered unanswerable anyway. Instead of a real education, which would include the answers to all those questions, we are taught that to be a responsible person (an adult) means that you can hold a job, pay rent, and maybe raise a family so the cycle can be repeated again endlessly. Anything that doesn't neatly fall in these categories and doesn't hurt anyone is considered art. If for some reason you are incapable of doing any of those things you can become a monk or a nun and help those that can do those things conform whenever they experience doubts about their monotonously cyclical and soulless existence.

Your list of ridiculous social behaviors is an indication that the normal, socially acceptable person is living in a constant state of fear. They are perpetually anxious about revealing any personal feelings or doubts that may disrupt the social decorum. The reason they have these feelings and doubts is because they haven't answered all those questions. Having no ideas of their own due to a proper philosophical education, they are expected to go through life without really knowing what they are doing. The only thing that makes this tolerable to them is that they see everyone else doing the same thing. This is called the herd mentality.

It is assumed that society and people are sane overall, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is a safe and comforting assumption. To have doubts about this is to place yourself in mental isolation which could lead to very disturbing conclusions. While you are in that isolation you are likely to experience an uncomfortable paralysis. But it's only uncomfortable because society frowns on people who don't appear to be doing much of anything. Just sitting alone and thinking about things does not help anyone reach their quota or the financial bottom line.

Making art or being an illustrator is just a job like any other job. They only seem exotic to people on the outside looking in. The people in those fields are just as irrational, cliquish and cronyistic as the people with "real jobs" they feel luckier than. Right now you are on the outside and you think it would be nice to be one of those people who are in. But you are going to have to do some mental trimming before you can become one of them. It's possible. I could have been "one of them" but the prospect was too disgusting for me. You might not have the same level of disgust as I did back then.

I chose sanity over popularity, Truth over superficiality. I cannot express to you how much greater life is when you pass that hurdle. Everyone has to experience that for themselves should they choose to value such things. If they knew what was at stake they'd be horrified. They'd become enlightened instantly.
 

Anonymous: I can't help but be reminded of "The Matrix" by this conversation. I'm a nerd.

Like Neo, I've always sensed a wrongness and strangeness about society and the way the world works. There always seems to be an unrealness and meaningless to it.

And Neo sought the truth - and the truth turned out to be horrifying and hard for the average human to swallow. Yet he preferred reality in all its harshness because it was real. It was not some sugarcoated falsehood, a literal imprisonment.

There were those - who were considered weak - who wanted to reverse the process. They wanted the blue pill. They wanted to believe the lie, merely because it was more comforting and mindless.

Red pill or the blue pill? I don't know what is real, or how reality can be defined.
 

I don't mean to sound too cliche:
Search within. Close your slanty eyes and quiet that noisy mind. The answers are in there somewhere. You'll just need to demonstrate some meditative patience to yourself. Give yourself this quiet time regularly, just to find that deep rooted silence, and answers will arise. The Universe holds the answers and you are made of it.
 

I guess I took the red pill.

The only definition of reality that makes any sense is "the sum total of existence". If you apply this definition logically then you can make distinctions between what exists (part of reality) and what cannot exist (not reality). Everyone tries to make that distinction but since they are not educated in logic they get fooled into accepting things that are not real. This doesn't necessarily mean they are unhappy. They definitely appear to experience happiness but its always over minor and hollow things. This tiny, almost insignificant happiness they feel is only possible because they actually do feel anxious and miserable most of the time.

A pretty good philosopher (Schopenhauer) once said that happiness doesn't really exist. To him, suffering was more real than emotional pleasure and what people call happiness is really just the relief they feel when their suffering has temporarily decreased for whatever reason. It really doesn't matter to them what the reason is. That carelessness is what makes them insane.

99.999 percent of all people will cling to that little happiness in their lives because it's all they have to look forward to. This is why things like art, love, sex, family and a career have such a quasi-religious appeal to people. They are running away from reality, that "thing" which threatens to make everything appear as it really is, whether you like it or not.