Meg Cranston born 1960 is a practicising Californian artist who has exhibited internationally since 1990. She is currently a professor at Fine Arts at Otis College of Art and Design.
In an interview between Meg Cranston and Nico Israel in 2008, Cranston rejects the idea that artists should develop a signature style what she calls a ‘trademark image’, describing it as ‘unethical to brand yourself’(7). Cranston’s diverse artistic practice which ‘encompasses object making, writing, performance, theatre, and even curating’(7), promotes an artistic career that is full of diversity and to some extent a bit generalist, is just as credible as those who are specialists in one field. Detailing that she found ‘having a particular style seemed hokey in a way and doing the same thing over and over, which had been considered a virtue’(7) became highly suspicious to her. Cranston’s explicit disinterest in establishing a recognisable style gives confidence to artists who also engage in various processes, and mediums like myself.
Often when considering my own artistic practice I frequently have this concern to develop a signature style, or that my works needed to develop coherently or logically. Cranston’s thought-provoking attitude challenged my former way of thinking that erratic variation from artwork to artwork and delving between varieties of mediums shouldn’t be perceived as amateur as it is commonly considered. Cranston reveals her ‘unclassifiable’ freedom, stating ‘I don’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad’(7), making me realise that essentially sticking to one style or medium is limiting and restrictive. Another multi-disciplinary artist who enjoys employing and utilizing a number of mediums, methods and ideas is German artist Gerhard Richter. Richter delves in between painting, photography, sculpture, writing and performance. Linda Weintraub in her essay “Inconsistency”, describes Richter as an example of an artist who “engages in a multitude of formats and mediums, thus rejecting the assertion that exalted artists to originate a distinctive style”. (Weintraub, 7)
Cranston’s lack of concern in asserting her uniqueness was also inspiring, claiming ‘I’ve tended to use myself as the subject not because I feel I’m unique, but because I’m similar to others’ (7). In regards to my own practice time, and again I would strive for uniqueness within my artworks having this want and need to produce an original work of art, whereas Cranston enjoys the relationship of being similar to others and exploits her similarities and differences as a subject for making art.
This interview encourages artists to step out of their comfort zones and exceed their boundaries. Cranston’s advice being that ‘someone once taught me that you should take the worst comment about your work and base your next show on that idea’(17). With her example of writing a play, something she had never done, suggests that inexperience of mediums can also be a positive methodology for making art.
References:
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Weintraub, Linda, Athur Danto and Thomas McEvilley. “Art on the edge and over: searching for art’s meaning in contemporary society, 1970s-1990s” Litchfield, CT : Art Insights, 1996.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The interview definiately encourages artist to step out of their comfor zones. For myself as well, was afraid of go abroad. It was a nice that I could feel energy from the text which pushed my boundaries.
ReplyDelete