Ideological failure

The idea of selling our work was discussed a little during the hanging - in my tutorial i was talking about the nature of producing a piece of work and therefore commodifying it to sell with it's long line of history in painting. That though sounds lengthly but it reminds me of a few points in time. Once where i met up with my cousin Nigel in Bath and he was applying to the Pollock-Krasner foundation, i thought he was unaware of how commerical his work is (this on my part being a massive mistake) so it was a surprise when in the pub we were discussing painting and he said that quite formally his work is commercial and it made me feel how aware artists can be. This also reminded me of when James Iveson said to me you've always got to be honest with yourself as a artist and what your work is really about. 


Though it also reminded me when i was in the Hamburger Bahnhof in Berlin where we had the normal lucrative groupings in the gallery then we had to debate on something... but i was asking how much you become a commodity within a art school, not just outside the education system in larger institutions and what it means to take part in everything you can get hold of... but John said he thought it was a mistake to think your not a commodity. I think this applies to painters. Not in terms of agreeing to the commodification but making choices and decisions in a wider pool of experiences and practises and selling your work. The hardest thing about being a artist seems to be making decisions. 


I was reading about Michael Borremans again and looking at his drawings. He was talking about his work being ideological failure. This really hit with me because i've spent the last few years really studying how to use imagery that works for me and i suppose that is ideological to me. I've been looking at a lot of imagery through film and photography that deal with psychological and emotional conditions. Although i like the term condition on it's own. Nearly all my paintings have locatable spaces but mixes itself up with illusional figures, some story (mostly about pain) but the term ideological failure are both wonderfully contrasting ... it brings up questions about viewers, audience what your putting on the canvas, who's it for really...  and it changes the nature of imagery being for something in particular and perhaps even progresses the nature of imagery altogether by pushing it forward. I was talking about a lot of painters i like at the moment that use masses of collective imagery in their work - especially Matthais Wesicher and Neo Rauch... but they have a similar style/imagery like Dexter Dalwood, Jules de Balincourt, Inka Essenhigh... with similar consistencies which sometimes tend to be beaten to death in their paintings through the use of contextualisation rampant in the paintings. 

Cecily Brown takes a sensual stab at flesh though. When i was in Venice a week ago i went to the Scuola to see Tintoretto's work. The pieces in the stairway leading to the second floor were wonderful, more free than most of the paintings in there. It was good for me to look at flesh.... i missed looking at wonderful fleshy painters.