What were you thinking, Georgia O'Keeffe?

My absolute favourite thing about London is the richness and availability of arts and culture, there are so many museums and galleries within convenient proximity to me, that it is virtually impossible to be at a loss of what to do. As a fan of modern art, naturally one of my top places to visit Britain's national gallery of modern art; the Tate Modern. Having been announced that there was going to be an extension to the historic power station several months ago, I was very excited that it is finally open, and even more excited that my return to London would coincide with the opening of a special Georgia O'Keeffe exhibit there too, meaning that it was the first place I visited once I had a free day. 

Awkward poses

Georgia O'keeffe is well known as the "Mother of American Modernism" and a prominent figure in bringing the work of modern female artists to attention. To me, as well as to many others I'm sure, her most memorable works are those of enlarged flowers representing femininity - so I was surprised to learn when I immediately entered room 1 that dispelling this idea was the self-proclaimed purpose of the exhibit. Slightly taken aback but willing to consider new ideas for old artwork, I enjoyed the first room of early sketches and charcoals. 

It was in the second room of the exhibit, Abstraction and the Senses, that I began to get a little skeptical. Even after reading that these paintings were demonstrating the links between hearing and seeing, showing that music could be portrayed visually, honestly as gorgeous as they are, I was finding it difficult to look at them without seeing an expression of the female form. 

Grey lines with Black, Blue, and Yellow 1923

It was when I realised I was actively trying to prevent myself from accepting this interpretation that I started to think about the relationships between the artist and their art, the art and the viewer, and the artist and the viewer. 

The first question I had, was why do artists paint what they paint? To me, art has always been a method of self expression, a way in which to portray feelings and ideas which cannot be done through any other means. Because of this I think often while painting about a quote from Lacuna (a Barbra Kingsolver novel about Frida Kahlo which I would highly highly recommend) which likens an art exhibition to the display of the insides of the artist on the walls for all to see and judge, making the artist incredibly vulnerable. I think this a common sentiment, shared also by O'Keeffe, as she described her paintings of the flowers around her home as evoking the feeling of the "cool sweetness of the evening" she experienced while painting them.

White flower no1

This raises a second question which my views are much less clear about, what is the exact value of the opinion of the viewer? O'Keeffe was very vocal in her lifetime denying any connection to female form in her work, stating that "When people read erotic symbols into my paintings, they're really talking about their own affairs", and reportedly even changed her subject matter to detach this idea from her work. I am unsure about if this is something which would be important to me, and I think that this is because of the unclear purpose of art. For me, hearing others interpretations offers an interesting insight into new aspects which I myself might have not been aware of, and it does not bother me to hear others interpreting the meaning behind things in a "wrong" (or perhaps it would be more apt to say "different") way to what I intended, but for O'Keeffe this is not the case. She sets out to portray a particular message and idea, and is maddened by those who do not take away from her work what she intended. But, is this really wrong? Could it not be said that another role of art beyond the ideas of the artist is the ideas of the viewer, with art (particularly abstract art) acting as a sort of creative ink blot test offering insight into our own ways of interpreting things? 

La Lacuna - one of my own most frequently (mis)interpreted paintings

Furthermore I was lead to ask, in terms of what is "right" and what is "wrong" in art, where does the authority lie? Perhaps I have been reading too many books and articles about post-modernism lately, but this is something I almost always end up asking myself when I visit a modern art gallery. Does the value come from the thought, time, and skill put into the work by the artist? Does it come from the experience that the observer takes away from viewing it? Or does it come from the value its aesthetics and ideas contribute to society and culture in general? And then who dictates the answer to this? In any case it is unclear whether it is more reasonable to be frustrated by misinterpretations of ones artwork (in O'Keeffe's case), or to be confused by such frustrations (my own case). 

Red and Yellow Cliffs, 1940

Because I was distracted more than usual by ideas in this exhibit, I spent significantly less time standing around drawing some of my favourite pieces than I usually would. During the time I spent on 2 short doodles, I overheard some pretty interesting discussions about interpretations of O'Keeffe's work, which caused something to dawn on me - artists, art critics, and general artistic people think and talk about these sorts of ideas. It is for this reason that my conclusion on the debate is that Georgia O'Keeffe would have been fully aware of the debate which her denials would be initiating. 

From the Faraway, Nearby, 1937

Really, I enjoyed this visit greatly. The information provided in the rooms was thought-provoking, the artist history (and details about her relationship with photographer Alfred Stieglitz) were interesting, and the paintings were stunning. I left the gallery wondering if the discrepancy in motivations for painting provided a golden opportunity - to gain benefits from other motivations even if they were not the primary goal when a painting was made. It is surely possible to benefit from feeling of self expression, the reward of good reception of what you've made, and the recognition of your ideas, when you only intended to paint something because you like painting. I was filled with inspiration not only to write this post but also to paint something 'controversial' of my own, something to do with the female form but possibly also expressing other thoughts, and eluding to ideas about the relationship between artist and viewer. I was struck by a quote underneath the final painting from a time when O'Keeffe was talking about taking a flight home in 1965. She said "I couldn't wait to get home to paint it".

Sky above clouds IV, 1963

Now, I myself cannot wait to start painting something new for myself. Tot volgende keer!