Sunday, September 28, 2008

Keith Haring

I admire much about Keith Haring’s process, but I am most interested in his stream of consciousness approach. He attributes his style to a moment of inspiration when he discovered his artistic vocabulary: He borrowed a friend’s studio for a day and set large, 4-foot sheets of oak tag on the floor, and began to draw with black sumi ink. Letting his subconscious be his guide, he drew through his then recent abstract style into new and surprising images that would become a complete vocabulary. This kind of stream of consciousness artmaking reminds me of the automatic writing experiments of the Surrealists – experimental and improvisatory, but also fun and playful.

I also respect his conscientious form of activism. Graffiti art is often considered criminal and anti-social, but his take on street art was community-enriching. He created work rich in social and cultural commentary, and he engaged in conversation with the viewer both literally and through his artwork. He made his artwork in the middle of the day, in public. His work did not confront as much as question the viewer. He did not destroy public property, but repurpose empty advertising displays – urban blank canvases. And he was conscious not to emulate the graffiti artists (whom he respected and admired) but to create a new style informed by their aesthetic.

Haring’s images – crawling babies, flying saucers, vibrating dancers – seem to invite a variety of interpretations from social commentary to satire or even a spiritual or universal ideal. Whatever the interpretation, it appears to be rich in meaning, and his images represent a fully-formed iconography that must have been born of some postmodern analysis. Like Mark Tansey, who reappropriated images and themes from art history to comment on critical theory, or Cindy Sherman, who reinterpreted iconic images of women to confront gender issues.

It was surprising to me to discover that this was not the case. He discovered his iconography in an almost spastic burst of the subconscious. His oak tag experiments, which took place in one day, gave birth to his “entire future vocabulary.” “I have no idea why it turned out like that,” he said. “It certainly wasn’t a conscious thing. But after these initial images, everything fell into place.” He would come to use these figures to comment directly on social issues, especially in his placement of images next to (or sometimes on top of) subway ads, but it is astounding to think that such a rich iconography can be traced back to one potent spark of imagination.

My artwork looks nothing like Keith Haring’s, but we do both seek meaning in imagery derived from the subconscious. I like to explore images of dreams and mystery, contrasting images with obscure contexts that invite the viewer to connect the dots, to achieve their own meaning. Giorgio De Chirico has often been an inspiration, and I think the common thread here is a play on the innate human desire to make sense of one’s surroundings, no matter how little help you are given by the artist.

This is where the similarities end. I have to labor to reach that subconscious level, it does not always come naturally to me. Haring’s work was improvisational; I work and rework my compositions in sketches. Using white crayon on a fixed-location surface, he could not edit. I edit furiously. His work was public; mine is private. His work was extroverted; mine turns inward. Though it seems everything about our processes differ, I would like to work the way he worked. I am always looking for that kind of freedom, but perhaps it’s been in the wrong places.

Keith Haring died of AIDS in 1990. He would have been 50 years old this May. A wonderful collection of his images can be found at the Keith Haring Foundation website.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You have placed it perfectly: "to achieve their own meaning."

And that’s what it is, isn’t it? A release and catch?

To me, interaction (individual interpretation) is one of the strongest reasons TO paint.

New Art School said...

I agree. But it's also the aspect of artmaking that I am somehow most eager to dispense with. I do believe (and preach to my students) that interaction is a key part of any art experience - a dialog between artist and viewer - but have been reluctant to show my work, even in a "hey look what I did" way.

Is it still art if no one sees it?

Anonymous said...

At what point does This Song I Wrote or This Picture I Drew become art?

Have you ever looked at a finished piece and said, “Look at that art I made.” Something is wrong about that, but I can’t quite figure out what or why.

Think about the work you have destroyed before anyone saw it, was it art? If it was, why did you destroy it? If it wasn’t, why wasn’t it?

Help! I can’t stop thinking about your question.

I have notes at my bedside.

New Art School said...

Oh man, good questions. I've got more.

Do you feel compelled to show your work? Is it necessary to have your work validated externally? I think I know the answer, but we are dealing in theory. I suspect we both agree that art begins with the spark of imagination, and the audience is rarely witness to that moment. So what does the audience matter?

I am sure that destroyed works are art, seen or unseen, but why are we destroying works? Is it because we view our work as disposable (or just shitty), or are we trying to hide something? If it’s the former, then why bother? If it’s the latter, then all the more reason to show it.

Anonymous said...

you guys are getting into lots of great stuff here; people have written tons of books and made careers out of this central question of whether a work needs to be perceived in order to have meaning...what that meaning is, how it is influenced by the perceiver, the creator...

it's tempting to go into quantum stuff and talk about consciousness, but I'm not that knowledgeable on either,

and anyway, I really just came over to the site to mention how I saw this big Haring mural somewhere on NYC's Upper East Side while on a drive back from VT last week and it was fun to look at with some of this NASchool knowledge...

(the working definition I've always used for art was a creation that worked to explain some part of the human experience to us in symbols...by that def, it's art as soon as you start to make it, whether people see it, it gets destroyed, or you think it's "meaningless"...but again, isn't defining "art" the kind of thing that philosophers and meta-theoricians spend their entire careers doing?)

Anonymous said...

also, just today I read about this film, which the NYT doesn't seem to think much of, but might be neat...

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.pi7.ru/main/1666-ispancu-zapretili-igrat-za-sbornuyu-anglii.html ]Чистота через призму прогресса [/url]
Мужской взглядна дамскую прозу - жизни...
Сначала некое пояснение по поводу такого, как я (мужчина) взялся писать дамскую прозу…
Хотя… так, наверное, не обязано быть, всё-таки женская проза подразумевает - дамский взгляд на… Да на всё что угодно! И вот решил я попосмотреть своим мужским взглядом на всякие женские… штучки-дрючки… сорповождающие жизнь великолепной половины человечества...
Данное проведение (История про Ксюшу и её подруг) можно расценивать как иронию, а можно и как пародию на дамскую прозу, однако, серьёзного в этом тексте в иных местах даже побольше, чем есть в самых серьёзных романах...

Anonymous said...

I need to know what Cliff says with that!!!


mccourt insurance

Anonymous said...

[url=http://printerservis.ru/magazin/product/764408401]Оригинальный картридж BROTHER TN-2175[/url]