I have a great deal of difficulty defining myself as an artist. When someone asks me "what kind of artist are you", my first inclination is usually to answer "not a very good one" and laugh it off as a pitiful attempt to dismiss the question. Or I might try to explain the details of what my pictures are known for instead of actually giving a definition.
"Hi, I'm Darrenn. I draw and paint big guys with tusks." |
I also believe others have difficulty defining what I do as an artist. For some, it is a good thing. Some people seem to appreciate the fact that what I do is not a "trend" or a "fad". Some people like how my work looks like the work of nobody else (although the name Maurice Sendak gets thrown out fairly often).
I think it has to do with the color palette. |
I struggled mightily with the latter statement for nearly a year, despite the progress I had made during that time. I knew my art was getting better and stronger, but it was still undefined. It had developed its own sort of consistency and its own attributes which I could identify, but which were mainly unconscious and intuitive during the creation process (I think that's what people like to refer to as a "style", though I don't like to use that word).
In the year and chance that I've been out of school, I have learned to live with it. It doesn't really bother me anymore. The feedback I have received from other illustrators, even ones whose work I have grown up loving and admiring, has been mainly positive. I recognize that my work's lack of a true definition might make it difficult for me to find commercial jobs - and it truly has been a struggle. But I believe it's more important for me to do what I do, even if it means the path will be longer and more arduous.
I promise my next post will have more art and less rambling.
No comments:
Post a Comment