Figuring the Figure
When I was at college, my painting and drawing lecturer and recently acclaim-ed artist Bill Robinson warned us, 'Don't you ever get a style!'
Most people know the saying - 'All style and no substance'.
Is style 'bad style'?
Bill Robinson's art could hardly be said to have been 'without style'. At the same time, it cannot be said that Robinson is a man of one style. Perhaps it could be said that as Robinson pursued different 'substances', his style adapted in relation to substance, his own character and ways in which others practice art.
In my college days, Robinson's work had a high visual affinity with the artwork of Pierre Bonnard. Students used to think that he was a victim of the Bonnard style, but time showed that he was working through his 'craft', building skills and sensitivities for the explosion of individual vision as seen in his farmyard series, Bill in the landscape paintings and the 'Creation' series.
Maybe style is a vehicle to being style commander. Perhaps style is only a side effect of the pursuit of 'substance'. Alternatively, maybe, for good artists, there is no style - only different 'substances'. It might be that (bad) style is substance that starts to repeat itself.
How then is one to 'figure the figure'? Is style good or bad?
Postmodern thinking suggests it is very hard or impossible to come up with something 'new' . Some Postmodern thinkers suggest that today's artist needs to be a 'bricoleur' - just a handyperson picking up the thing that works best. The PoMo artist should not be a purist of style, nor a person without style. Does the PoMo artist just visit a 'style shop' to choose the style to use?
Or is there a different way to regard the 'style shop'? Is the effective artist, the one who breaks into the 'style shop', and smashes a few things around - or is this a bit too violent? Is "Stand" (opposite) just trapped by Cubism or is there an element of 'break in' and robbery in the drawing? |
