Comparing galleries for MA Professional Practice module

Choosing galleries for this comparative study has been a real trial. The idea to take to galleries and compare them, is simple enough but to have 3000 words to say about the differences seems almost impossible. That they should be similar types of institutions both public or both private and of comparable scale seems initially counter intuitive but after consideration is actually fairly obvious; if the are similar the differences are less obvious and therefore have to be explained. Although actually the public / private distinction could actually be played with, say comparing a privately owned gallery with pretensions to philanthropy to a public gallery which now has to have commercial concerns in the modern world, for example the Saatchi gallery with the Dulwich Picture Gallery.

My eventual choice has been to choose two private galleries, of relatively medium scale not so big that they were amorphous multinational machines but not so small that if I blinked they might go to the wall in the current economic climate. One of the most significant factors in the choice was that as I would like to make some form of living from my art practice, while there might be more to be said about the very large galleries such as White Cube it would be personally advantageous to investigate the workings of galleries in which I could visualise my own work being shown in.

The context of my work - How instrumental is it?

For my MA studio proposal, I intended to and still might produce a potted history of portraiture to give context to the work I intend to make this summer counter intuitive to make a meaningful proposal particularly in art, or at least the form of art I make. However in many ways it has no bearing on my work and the reasons I make it, I am aware of the history of the various genre's I work in, the portraiture, life drawings and paintings on canvas, the sketch book drawings, the landscapes I make when on holiday, but they are not an active reaction to the history. I am conscious of history, my skills, techniques and subjects build on methods and history but the true reason I make the work is because I want to. I draw things from life as a semi meditative process, because I like to, I have drawn since I was about seven, partly as a way to analyse the world  and partly because it was something I could be good at.

Why do I paint portraits?

My own art is not limited purely to portraiture, I have painted and drawn landscapes, cityscapes, still life, as well as dipping into sculpture and video, but portraits dominate my work and I have always returned to drawing and painting them. My version of portraiture is limited really to work directly from life and not from photography, but I can't really deny that there has been some great painting with photography as a starting point and where photography was used as a major reference, but when I have tried  to work from photographs, I find it difficult to know know when to stop and the resultant work can lose its life.

Given that, it is not really surprising that I don't really get hyper-realist paintings from photographs, the sort that dominate the BP portrait award at the National Portrait Gallery.  I understand the theory but I don't agree with it, They can only ever be as good as the photograph, for me they really show up how the photograph has super-ceded painting as representation and make the act of painting look like pointless nostalgia .  The portrait painting from the photograph is similar to the huge number of copies of paintings made to disseminate the likeness of Elizabeth I. The serve a purpose where a sitting would be infeasible, but they are always a painting of a photograph of a person rather than a painting of a person.

The next question is "what is wrong with that?"

What has Portraiture ever done for us?

If I'm going to try to put my work in context I should really start with the simple but big question of  "What is the purpose of portraiture?" Whether painting, drawing, photography, sculpture, videoed or any possible medium why make a "likeness" of a person. The concept of what is a likeness itself can be questioned, but if we start simply with the question "why, pre-photography would someone make a drawing or painting of a person?" It is probably to record what they look like.

Why would you want to record what someone looks like? At a very basic level it is representation, to show them and others what they look like and to have their presence when they are not there, as a reminder or memento.  This simple idea of representation, is then complicated by the relationship between subject and portrayer, whether the portrait is commissioned or the subject is paid or whether there is a more complex social relationship occurring.

This intention of the portrait is hidden behind the ostensible purpose of representation, whether it is a dramatic swagger portrait of a monarch such as Ingre's Napoleon I on the Throne or Gainsborough's Mrs Sheriden in a romantic rural idyll. Whatever the setting or scale there is always the supposed purpose of showing what the sitter actually looked like.

Photography took over the job of documentary representation from painting, drawing  and the like. They lost this purpose that had given this surreptitious opportunity to imbue subjects with subliminal qualities. The painted portrait became obsolete and liberated at the same time.

Some sort of proposal for my work for my MA

I have long felt that the type of portraiture,  I do, that is directly from life, is a dying and neglected art, yet here I am doing it, because it feels right for me. It feels very relevant to me and to the world around me,  so I feel I need to  investigate, the historical context of it and whether it really is neglected and what relevance does it have to contemporary life and art.

After a long discussion with my wife (argument) I began to wonder if there is actually any grounding in my theory that my type of work is undervalued or is it just me being jealous and wallowing in self pity . Maybe it is just a way of making excuses for my lack of success in selling or at getting gallery interest.

I figured out during said discussion that I need to establish in my head and in writing some parameters and rather than move the goal posts to fit my prejudices and pre-determined answers try to establish a context for my work based on fact and maybe even the opinion of others.

All hyped up but nothing to do

My MA has started at London Met and I'm excited and nervous but I can't actually do any thing. We've had our first lectures and on theoretical writing and research methods but they were really just introductions to the course, we have no actual work to do. We have also had our studios allocated but they're not actually ready to work in.

So I've decided to blog, about something almost completely unrelated, about celebrity art, not artists as celebrities but particularly celebrities that take up painting. Well not take up painting , but take up exhibiting paintings.

The example of these that has grabbed my attention, thanks to www.ArtInfo.com is Bob Dylan, whose "Asia Series" is being exhibited by the Gagaosian Gallery. They are paintings of scenes inspired apparently by his travels in the far east. Although they have subsequently turned out to be paintings from vintage photographs, which in itself isn't that shocking. If I had travelled in Japan and Hong Kong, I might well buy old photos and make paintings from them, but it turns out he found them on Flickr, and mostly on one particular 'photostream'.

There are so many levels on which I am finding this amusing. I don't really care that Bob Dylan has copied the photos, but that the Gagoasian has exhibited them is funny, they have already been involved in the Richard Prince making art out of Patrick Cariou Rasta photos lawsuit in the past year. Wonderfully Prince has written the text to the Dylan Catalogue.

Just when you think Gagoasian can't damage its reputation further they are showing unoriginal paintings which, purely because they are by someone famous for his music, which no-one seems to have mentioned aren't very good,

MA interview

So I went to my interview, the course leader was late and hadn't read my personal statement, so he almost solely asked me technical questions about my painting, which threw me. As ever in interview I don't feel I acquitted myself very well. I felt I flustered and bluffed badly. Then it struck me I don't know what an MA is really supposed to give me. I mean yes the opportunity to develop my work and the chance to study again is what every body sites, but actually I don't desperately need a space to develop my work and I'm happy with the critical discussion at Magenta. But I do need the qualification to progress my career and I do enjoy critique even if I do get defensive in the moment when my work is discussed (I assume every one does, its that or get upset) and I am looking forward to writing about art again.

If you've done an MA what did you get out of it that just being in the studio with other artists would not have given you? I'd like to know, I don't want the CV spiel that you give when you're trying to impress or trying to justify going back to Uni, I'd just like an explanation.

I'm a portrait artist, I'm exploring the genre and developing my work, finding out what works for me without aping the work of others. I don't really know what an MA will do for me apart from hot house that process, how should I have answered the question 'What do you want from an MA?'?

MA personal statement

This is the personal statement I wrote to apply to London Met to do the MA Fine Art. It was an interesting exercise to try to encapsulate my art career and priorities in one page. Its a taster to hopefully provoke questions at interview. If you have any thoughts please leave a comment

"Brendon O'Hanlon Personal statement

I currently work on my art practice at Magenta Art, a studio and artist development space I co-founded and now run in Holloway, while working part time on the IT Service Desk at Haringey Council. My main motivation to do an MA is to enable me to teach art at university level alongside my continuing art practice.

Prior to studying fine art I spent eight years designing costumes for fringe and amateur theatre and short and low budget films. I made the switch to painting in 2004 after I went part time with my day job in IT. I exhibited paintings made while unable to find work in costume. The positive reaction to the work and the satisfaction of having final control of my work convinced me to pursue painting.

In 2006 I chose to study BA Fine Art at Middlesex University to have proper studio space, learn more about the ‘art world’ and for the opportunity to meet other artists. There I took the chance to experiment with video, performance, sculpture and guerrilla exhibiting as well as developing my painting. Joining the art discourse and discovering the varied nature of art and artists was probably the most significant and unexpected benefit of doing a degree.

My final degree show work was stripped back and very simple using my drawing and painting skills to show my interest in identity and human interaction. My dissertation looked at Mauritian art, I decided to analyse the attitude to visual art within Mauritian culture with the advantage of my personal viewpoint being half Mauritian living in Britain both part of and outside of the culture.

Since my degree, I have experimented with painting from video excerpts, from my own material and footage from sources such as YouTube. This was part of the process of trying to adapt my art practice post university, I realised that although it enabled me to work without a live model and I was able to capture subjects in a manner that working with a live sitter did not allow, the work lacked the immediacy of my painting from life. I have come to realise and accept that my best work is intrinsically time based, a record of my relationship with the sitter or subject. Rather than try to contrive an image or situation I should react to the subject as I work.

I am aware of the debate regarding the relevance of the painted portrait in contemporary art and I was reluctant to concentrate on it, but out of all my work, portraits have always stimulated the most postitive reaction, so I decided to reclaim the portrait for myself, by doing as many as I could for the next year. This has become about 2-3 paintings a week, also enabling me to refresh my skills, and I have particularly been trying to perfect the one sitting portrait. This work has led me to realize the increased relevance of the portrait. The live sitting conflicts with modern life; the digital world tells us everything can be done virtually, but the portrait emphasises the enduring value of human contact and personal relationships.

Magenta Art was founded in 2009 as supportive environment with studio space, an art reference library and regular events aimed at new graduates. We have had several exhibitions and open studios including being part of Islington Exhibits. It has also become a space for older art graduates to come back to art. The experience of the past year running Magenta has reinforced my desire to work in art education, helping others work in art along side my own practice. "