These are the last two paintings using acrylic on canvas that I’ve made, and I think you’d agree with me that the styles are quite different. The first one, titled “A Knowing Glance,” is a cubist-styled portrait, and the second one, titled “A Memory in search of Part 2 (Brant Lake),” is a landscape painting, which I have to admit, is pretty different for me, as I tend towards figurative abstraction most of the time. I was (or rather, am) happy with the art style of both of these paintings, but one could make the argument that if you didn’t know I painted them, you might think they’re by two different artists.
Is that a problem? How important is a consistency of art style as far as an artist’s career? One can make the argument that having a specific style is what makes an artist recognizable, most people can tell the difference between a Van Gogh and an Andrew Wyeth, and the fact that they both have consistent styles helps define their art. But as a working artist, do I want to paint the same style and the same thing over and over again? I never understood how someone like Chuck Close could paint countless self-portraits, or paint with the multi-colored grids over and over again (although to be fair, he did make some stylistic changes over the decades), or how Mark Rothko could paint floating rectangles for years (although to be fair there, I love his work – and – his older work was quite different). So maybe I’m not making the best argument with those two examples, but I think you get my point.
In the case of my Brant Lake landscape painting, part of my reason for doing it was to see if I could paint a convincing landscape, if I could paint convincing (or at least interesting) water. I’m not sure I want to do ten more like it, but I’m glad I took a break from my cubist portraits (see two more here) to give it a shot.
One aspect of this consistent art style argument is that it can definitely be a market-driven thing, especially in the New York art world, for an artist to have an identifiable style. If an art dealer wants to promote the artist, they can market it in a way that one knows what they’re going to get with a particular artist if the style is consistent. One notable exception to this idea was an exhibition I saw last January of Italian artist Roberto Cuoghi at Hauser & Wirth on West 22nd Street in NYC. I wasn’t familiar with his work, and I loved it, and I loved the eccentric range of styles. The press release really caught my attention with this description: “One of the most celebrated, yet enigmatic, artists of his generation, Cuoghi is known for an exacting, almost obsessive, research- and process-driven practice that spans the full spectrum of styles and genres.”
As you can see in my own installation photo from the exhibition above, there are a wall of portraits, but there are also cake-like sculptures on pedestals, and more-abstract paintings on the left side. There’s no consistency between these three different styles, and you know what? I love it! So why do I – or any other artist – need to get locked in on a certain style?
If you’re an artist who has an opinion about having an identifiable style and sticking with it for years, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.