|
 |
 Juror Vito-Leonard Scarola’s Statement I would like to thank LPAPA for this opportunity in allowing me to get to know all of you through your artwork. An overwhelming number of the drawings and paintings submitted demonstrated a pursuit for excellence and were of very high quality and professionalism. This proves to me that today the human figure still is and continues to be a viable form of inspiration and expression, especially, during these post modern times where the state of “Pluralism” continues to reign in the art world. This multiplicity makes it difficult for developing and aspiring artists in finding their true calling or voice. You are all to be commended in choosing to focus in perpetuating the age long tradition of figurative drawing and painting, both as an individuals and as a collective group. I would like to congratulations those of you who are represented in this exhibition and in particular the award winners. On numerous occasions, disappointed students and artists have approached me wanting to know why the work they submitted into a juried exhibition were not accepted, whereas, pieces they felt were inferior to theirs were. I am sure that most of us who have been bold enough to submit work for competition have experienced this at one time or another. For some this may be a time of confusion, frustration and inhibition. I know that this debilitating experience can often stifle creative progress and ultimately prevent one from pursuing careers as a working artist. I would like to offer some words of encouragement “Never give up.” “Try, try again.” and “Continue to learn”. I would like to take this opportunity to offer all of you a brief synopsis as to the criteria I used in selecting the pieces that have been included in this exhibition. I feel a personal obligation to share with you my beliefs, viewpoints and the fundamental criteria that I have used in the selective process. These beliefs have been developed after many years of experience as a teacher, juror, and as an artist trying to achieve personal excellence through my own creative endeavors. I trust this explanation may help some of you in further improving your skills and understanding the underlying principles that make great art. In evaluating works of art, the questions often comes up as to whether or not jurors base their selective process on their personal biases or tastes such as likes of dislikes for a particular style of painting, media, trend or subject matter etc. Do universal aesthetic standards exist for evaluating works of art? If so, are they consistent and do jurors often use them? Can one rely on them? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes. As you can see the selective process can be rather complex and of course somewhat confusing to some with so many seemingly contradictory points of views. Be assured that the evaluation process varies from juror to juror with divergence in background and experience and is not to be taken personally or as definitive. Nevertheless, I do believe that universal truths exist. In particular, there is a belief that most judges would agree is paramount in evaluating works of art and that is the concept of “quality”. Unfortunately, the criteria used in defining quality may be just as elusive as the multitude of criteria used by different judges in defining art itself. However, I will attempt to clarify some of these truths and give you my interpretation of “quality” . My basic premise or definition of “Quality” is directly correlated to the degree that the artist demonstrates his or her skill in turning the commonplace into the sublime. I trust this definition and what follows will be helpful in your understanding the reasons as to why the particular pieces have been chosen to be represented in this exhibition. In evaluating drawings and paintings for a group exhibition I generally use four simple phrases to help me categorize the work to be included or excluded. They are: 1. Wow! 2. It works 3. It works but…. 4. It doesn’t work. Usually, of the four categories, pieces that are in the last two categories do not get into the exhibition. This may seem rather fanciful arbitrary or simple. However, these decisions are complex and based on what I believe to be the following aesthetic criteria: 1. The fundamental ingredient to what I call the “WOW” piece is its authenticity. Other key words I use to define this concept are: genuine, innovative, unique, inventive, original, novel, and distinctive. Pieces I select in the “Wow” category are rare and their authenticity usually surprises me. They are the award winners. The “Wow” piece may or may not necessarily exude extraordinary technical skills. However, what sets it apart from the rest is it’s pure manifestation of the creative human spirit, the human soul, and human intelligence to its highest degree. It is an honest reflection of the artist’s personal investigation, journey, and discovery process. This process is exemplified by the numerous personal choices the artist has made during the course of its creation in the quest for producing a cohesive work of art that transcends technique or subject matter and expresses a unique and personal interpretation or point of view. It enters the world of the divine and offers other artists a point of departure. What makes a work of art authentic is its connection with and its reinterpretation of lessons given to us by the artistic giants of the past. It is by standing on the shoulders of these giants and reinterpreting their lessons that we as the artists of today are able to make the necessary aesthetic links that produce innovated and personal works that in turn will continue to inspire the next generation of artists. I believe that a piece is not authentic unless a new link or a reinterpretation is expressed. For example if a piece is a direct copy in style or concept of another artist or if it tries to emulate the look of a photograph it often falls short in its authenticity and I will not accepted this piece into an exhibition no matter how skillfully the execution. That is not to say that copying the great works of art of themasters or using photographs as a source for learning or inspiration is not viable. On the contrary, these resources if used effectively may provide subject matter for innovative and personal creative exploration. In fact I have included a few pieces in this exhibition that I believed to have been derived from photographs or other artists. I trust you will understand that the reason they have been included is that they transcended their derivation and have become unique expressions by making a unique personal statement. 1. When I define a piece as “It Works”, it requires that the drawing or painting expresses a unified whole. That is to say, it must convey the concept that the “whole is the sum of its parts”. The art piece shows evidence that the artist is aware of and has used the elements and principle of art effectively in creating a unified whole. If any part is altered or missing it would no longer work. The key word I use to exemplify a piece that works is “Oneness”. Other key words I use to define this concept are: unified, cohesive, complete, orchestrated, resolved, organized or well composed/designed. The piece exudes a sense of maturity, sophistication, and refinement. The piece reflects the artist’s intent and resolve and as a consequence it is selected in the exhibition. 1. The key word I use to define the category “It works but….” is “Unresolved”. Other key words are: unfinished, incomplete, not unified and unorganized. Usually pieces in this third category have some wonderful passages, however, there is one or several parts that create disunity and as a consequence are rarely included in the exhibition. The parts far outweigh the whole. These pieces are sometimes included if I am given a pre-established number of pieces to fill the exhibition in advance. I find this to be the most difficult part of the jury process. 1. The key word I use to define the category “It Doesn’t Work” is “Amateurish”. Other key words are: unoriginal, crude, pedantic, “kitsch”, commonplace, overworked, too derivative, unfinished, poor execution, unskillful, tacky, and unsophisticated. Works in the last two categories often fall short because too much time is spent on making images that do not reflect personal choices or the choices are immature or unsophisticated. Usually, there is too much emphasize on the unskillful use of technique or it is clear that the artist struggled in an effort to make the image look right but was unsuccessful. For example, a piece that does not work usually expresses a lack of aesthetic understanding, inaccurate proportions, or incorrect drawing skills since it is clear that the intent of the artist was to produce an accurate representation of the image but was unsuccessful. Whereas, an intentionally distorted or abstract piece that evokes the artist’s initial intent works well if it appears to be created honestly. Pieces that “work well” illustrate the choices the artist has made with eloquence. The interpretation of the subject matter is novel, intriguing, and mysterious and it becomes a reflection of the artist’s basic idea or expression or personal statement. The basic idea of a piece should mirror the intent of the artist. Although this may not always be clear to the viewer. Subject matter is often times an important or main part of the content of a painting. However, it should never stand-alone. Beginning artists often feel that if they choose to render appealing images they will almost be assured of praise and will more often than not be viewed as good painters. This is far from the truth. From my standpoint if too much emphasis is placed on subject matter alone, or one uses emotionally charged images only for the shock value or attention, or emphasis is placed on over sentimentality or beauty, or any other emotive or intellectual devises that draw attention to themselves, this will prevent one from seeing the true nature of the creative process and ultimately falls short from a qualitative standpoint. The subject matter by itself should not be used to attract praise or attention but rather it is the manner in which the artist has interpreted the subject that reflects the true essence of creativity. These are some of the underlying principles I have used to evaluate you work. I trust they have brought you closer to understanding where you fit in your own development as an artist. I wish you all a fruitful and productive career. Vito-Leonard Scarola Professor of Art Saddleback College Vito-Leonard Scarola Vito-Leonardo Scarola is an accomplished artist and is currently a full-time professor of Drawing and Painting at Saddleback College. He has been teaching visual arts for over thirty years. Formerly, he served as Dean at the Art Institute of Southern California currently the Laguna College of Art and Design. He has also been a member of the faculty at California State University Fullerton, California State University Long Beach, Fullerton College, Orange Coast College, and Irvine Valley College. Mr. Scarola is a native of Italy and has lived and studied in France. He holds a MFA degree in Painting from CSULB, a BA degree in Painting from the State University of New York, Brockport and an AA degree from St. Gregory’s College. While in France, he earned two French degrees in Language, Art History and Civilization from La Sorbonne and L’Universite de Caen, respectively. Mr. Scarola has been instrumental in organizing and leading successful art workshops and study tours to Europe since 1984. This comingsummer 2007, he is scheduled to conduct a Plein Air drawing and painting workshop on location while traveling throught Greece for four weeks. Student may enroll for up to six units of credit through Saddleback College.
Back to Go Figure Gallery page |
|
|