This is a comment on public Internet material, an article published by a "Substack" writer. The write allows others to comment. He has the option under his personal control, by going to the "Settings" part of the website. The article is public and so are the comments. I commend him for leaving Comments open to all. The writer basically has no idea about Paul Gauguin. I myself have only one question: Why is he posing with chopsticks? Oh, well. I guess none of us have any idea whatsoever. But Gauguin, whose name I have never learned to spell because I guess I have never written anything about him, is my favorite artist. And, I do not like having him written about so superficially.
Excellent essay on a complex and extremely interesting subject. I've seen some documentaries and a feature movie about Gauguin, but many of the details of his life that you mentioned are new to me.
I particularly like this: "Artists are the genuinely wild, sometimes crazy, for sure interesting ones. They’re not after power or control; they’re after ultimate expression. Meaning. They aim to be understood, even if they never are. At a minimum they seek to understand themselves, that is, The Human Condition."
My late father was an artist and I observed his frustration of not being able to "make it" in the New York art world. I also saw the compromises he made by trying to be a responsible family man and an artist at the same time. In the end he was thwarted by both.
A thorough and fascinating dive into how artists become "great." While Wallace Stevens could hold down a full time job as an insurance executive, many of his colleagues never fully aware even that he was one of the great poets of the 20th century, Dali transformed his house and every facet of his life into an extension of his artistic expression. Pynchon dropped fully out of the public eye. Flannery O'Connor returned to her childhood home and her beloved peacocks.... In other words, only the artist can fully sense what they need to do in order to tap into the part of themselves that allows them to make art that matters. And non-artists love to cast judgment on the biographical realities of artists, to somehow knock them down a notch or two by pointing out their many flaws as human beings. The flaws surely aren't necessary to make great art, but neither should they be used as ways to denigrate the art itself. Hemingway is a classic example of this. For all of his misogyny and toxic masculinity as an ordinary human being, his female characters are consistently strong, complex, dynamic--read "Hills Like White Elephants" as just one example.
This was really enjoyable to read. Thank you for the "brief, broad-based biography" and the pictures from your books. This post is a good, full experience. I was in his story. I was hearing your expression. I was finding my own story in Gauguin's. I was grateful for your thoughts which maintained a certain levity and balance. What I can learn from Gaugin is that I can always go deeper and let go of all these mental/societal constructs a little more. I see the lengths he was willing to go for this transformative Art to manifest fully. I also wonder what his art might have been like if he invited his wife and their children into the process somehow, rather than sacrificing them.
A little conflicted about this one because I feel like we automatically give a pass to anyone claiming to be an artist, regardless of their contribution to society or posterity. And this gives any and every asshole license (reward, even) to be narcissistic, irresponsible, ridiculous, debauched, or whatever. Are these things essential to making good art? I don't think so. I doubt they're even helpful. (And I'd argue a lot of this art is dogshit, but hey, opinions are subjective.)
Artists are perfectly capable of making art while also maintaining some semblance of self-control. Indeed, it's the only way anything worthwhile gets done! It's the myth that art (or genius) and chaos/darkness coincide that we perpetuate that removes whatever moral and practical constraints would normally keep pricks like this in check. He was perfectly capable of holding down a job and keeping up his obligations to his family until he started hanging out with other artist reprobates, and like a plague, the contagion of artistic assholery spread to him and he became a boil on the ass of society like the rest. If a rock star doesn't trash a hotel room, bang a bunch of groupies, or get high before the show, is the music somehow diminished? or is it all baked into the image artists project to us and to each other to prove their "creative" bona fides? At the very least, it's a lesson in what happens when the wider society removes its social constraints from already morally weak individuals.
Tell me what you REALLY think 🤣🤣🤣. No--I respect your opinion. I totally get where you’re coming from. I largely disagree though. I don’t think a rock band thrashing a hotel room is a good/fair comparison to a passionate artist who ultimately died for his art. Love him or hate him, I find Gauguin fascinating. The point I was aiming for isn’t that you have to be fucked up to be an artist, it’s that many of our best artists happen to be so. I don’t think you HAVE to be fucked up to do great art...but so many artists (to varying degrees) are. And it makes a lot of sense. Those who become artists are often the rejects, the odd ones, the different beings who march to the beat of their own cosmic inner drum. I agree with you that G made a lot of terrible, narcissistic choices. But that’s my point: At the end I judge the man as subpar best. But as an artist? There’s no denying his profound impact on art. Whether you like his art or not: He changed modern art; he was a crucial part of the conversation. You may not like him or his art. You’re totally free to feel that way, of course. But his art, in my and tens of millions of others’ eyes around the globe, is deeply meaningful. What happens if we all condemn each other for our terrible choices? What about forgiveness? What about empathy? What about Redemption? Many people throughout artistic history have done horrible things. Yet we read them. We look at their work. We admire them. Again: Separation of art from the artist.
Michael, why do you say Gauguin "ultimately died for his art." I don't see it that way at all. He didn't want any social or cultural restrictions on his being. He didn't want the restriction of marriage and fatherhood, he didn't want restrictions on sex, on what to wear and how to make money. He died because he was sick (you say probably syphilis) and maybe other diseases from living as a native. Let's put that aside and not attribute his great innovative art to his sickness. I would attribute it to his willingness to flout the social mores and paint what he needed to paint in a way that was uniquely his style. What do you say? (and interesting substack!)
Don't I always? haha. Guess I've just known too many asshole artists ;-) I'm not saying people shouldn't like his art because he was a bad person. His life should be irrelevant to how one appreciates his art. I'm just saying I don't think these flights of fancy or descents into darkness are a prerequisite for making great art, and are probably even counterproductive to it--and society--at some point. But it's interesting to consider where that tipping point might be....
What's that old saying?? learn to "separate the art from the artist" which seems quite applicable to Gauguin (who btw I had never heard of until now. Great read)
This is a comment on public Internet material, an article published by a "Substack" writer. The write allows others to comment. He has the option under his personal control, by going to the "Settings" part of the website. The article is public and so are the comments. I commend him for leaving Comments open to all. The writer basically has no idea about Paul Gauguin. I myself have only one question: Why is he posing with chopsticks? Oh, well. I guess none of us have any idea whatsoever. But Gauguin, whose name I have never learned to spell because I guess I have never written anything about him, is my favorite artist. And, I do not like having him written about so superficially.
Excellent essay on a complex and extremely interesting subject. I've seen some documentaries and a feature movie about Gauguin, but many of the details of his life that you mentioned are new to me.
I particularly like this: "Artists are the genuinely wild, sometimes crazy, for sure interesting ones. They’re not after power or control; they’re after ultimate expression. Meaning. They aim to be understood, even if they never are. At a minimum they seek to understand themselves, that is, The Human Condition."
My late father was an artist and I observed his frustration of not being able to "make it" in the New York art world. I also saw the compromises he made by trying to be a responsible family man and an artist at the same time. In the end he was thwarted by both.
A thorough and fascinating dive into how artists become "great." While Wallace Stevens could hold down a full time job as an insurance executive, many of his colleagues never fully aware even that he was one of the great poets of the 20th century, Dali transformed his house and every facet of his life into an extension of his artistic expression. Pynchon dropped fully out of the public eye. Flannery O'Connor returned to her childhood home and her beloved peacocks.... In other words, only the artist can fully sense what they need to do in order to tap into the part of themselves that allows them to make art that matters. And non-artists love to cast judgment on the biographical realities of artists, to somehow knock them down a notch or two by pointing out their many flaws as human beings. The flaws surely aren't necessary to make great art, but neither should they be used as ways to denigrate the art itself. Hemingway is a classic example of this. For all of his misogyny and toxic masculinity as an ordinary human being, his female characters are consistently strong, complex, dynamic--read "Hills Like White Elephants" as just one example.
This was really enjoyable to read. Thank you for the "brief, broad-based biography" and the pictures from your books. This post is a good, full experience. I was in his story. I was hearing your expression. I was finding my own story in Gauguin's. I was grateful for your thoughts which maintained a certain levity and balance. What I can learn from Gaugin is that I can always go deeper and let go of all these mental/societal constructs a little more. I see the lengths he was willing to go for this transformative Art to manifest fully. I also wonder what his art might have been like if he invited his wife and their children into the process somehow, rather than sacrificing them.
Good question!
A little conflicted about this one because I feel like we automatically give a pass to anyone claiming to be an artist, regardless of their contribution to society or posterity. And this gives any and every asshole license (reward, even) to be narcissistic, irresponsible, ridiculous, debauched, or whatever. Are these things essential to making good art? I don't think so. I doubt they're even helpful. (And I'd argue a lot of this art is dogshit, but hey, opinions are subjective.)
Artists are perfectly capable of making art while also maintaining some semblance of self-control. Indeed, it's the only way anything worthwhile gets done! It's the myth that art (or genius) and chaos/darkness coincide that we perpetuate that removes whatever moral and practical constraints would normally keep pricks like this in check. He was perfectly capable of holding down a job and keeping up his obligations to his family until he started hanging out with other artist reprobates, and like a plague, the contagion of artistic assholery spread to him and he became a boil on the ass of society like the rest. If a rock star doesn't trash a hotel room, bang a bunch of groupies, or get high before the show, is the music somehow diminished? or is it all baked into the image artists project to us and to each other to prove their "creative" bona fides? At the very least, it's a lesson in what happens when the wider society removes its social constraints from already morally weak individuals.
Tell me what you REALLY think 🤣🤣🤣. No--I respect your opinion. I totally get where you’re coming from. I largely disagree though. I don’t think a rock band thrashing a hotel room is a good/fair comparison to a passionate artist who ultimately died for his art. Love him or hate him, I find Gauguin fascinating. The point I was aiming for isn’t that you have to be fucked up to be an artist, it’s that many of our best artists happen to be so. I don’t think you HAVE to be fucked up to do great art...but so many artists (to varying degrees) are. And it makes a lot of sense. Those who become artists are often the rejects, the odd ones, the different beings who march to the beat of their own cosmic inner drum. I agree with you that G made a lot of terrible, narcissistic choices. But that’s my point: At the end I judge the man as subpar best. But as an artist? There’s no denying his profound impact on art. Whether you like his art or not: He changed modern art; he was a crucial part of the conversation. You may not like him or his art. You’re totally free to feel that way, of course. But his art, in my and tens of millions of others’ eyes around the globe, is deeply meaningful. What happens if we all condemn each other for our terrible choices? What about forgiveness? What about empathy? What about Redemption? Many people throughout artistic history have done horrible things. Yet we read them. We look at their work. We admire them. Again: Separation of art from the artist.
Thanks for the read and comment, as always 🙏🙏
Michael, why do you say Gauguin "ultimately died for his art." I don't see it that way at all. He didn't want any social or cultural restrictions on his being. He didn't want the restriction of marriage and fatherhood, he didn't want restrictions on sex, on what to wear and how to make money. He died because he was sick (you say probably syphilis) and maybe other diseases from living as a native. Let's put that aside and not attribute his great innovative art to his sickness. I would attribute it to his willingness to flout the social mores and paint what he needed to paint in a way that was uniquely his style. What do you say? (and interesting substack!)
Don't I always? haha. Guess I've just known too many asshole artists ;-) I'm not saying people shouldn't like his art because he was a bad person. His life should be irrelevant to how one appreciates his art. I'm just saying I don't think these flights of fancy or descents into darkness are a prerequisite for making great art, and are probably even counterproductive to it--and society--at some point. But it's interesting to consider where that tipping point might be....
Well said 🙌
What's that old saying?? learn to "separate the art from the artist" which seems quite applicable to Gauguin (who btw I had never heard of until now. Great read)
Exactly. And thank you 🙏!!
I enjoyed reading this.
Thanks Heather! 🔥🔥