Art Blog by Lydia Prentiss

Today I'm supposed to spend some hours in the print studio. Dale's home for a few hours- he'll come back tonight. I'd like to tell him that these hours without him were productive. But before I get dressed and drive to campus- in the quiet time alone- I want to write about "subject"- because I've been thinking about this for weeks (ok, months even years), but have been having trouble getting it down.

I'm not really turned-on by most non-representational art. I think abstract expressionism was cool and wild and groundbreaking in its time, but that was a long time ago. That's not my time. Non-representational art is not the challenge it used to be. Most educated people are familiar with the background of art in the last century. These days, non-representational art is easy. It doesn't ask tough questions because it's not about anything real. It poses no challenge to the viewer. It has become decoration- it's simple of the potential buyer asking if it coordinates with one's home decorating scheme.

I prefer art that has meaning. I prefer art that has recognizable subject matter. I like art that is personal or political. This doesn't mean that I'm not interested in aesthetics, but focusing on the materials, color and form to the point of excluding subjectmatter all together is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As an artist, I'm keeping the baby.

"Baby" is a loaded subject. Like a gun or a skull or a face or a naked woman- it's something that catches our attention on a primal level. We fear and desire the power associated with a gun. We recognize the skull as a face- but it also brings up associations with mortality or criminality. The naked woman brings up feelings of desire, and beauty. Even that has a political context: as the Guerrilla Girls point out in their poster, "Do Women Have to be Naked to get into the Met", less than 5% of the artists in the modern art section are women, but 85% of the nudes are female. While photography and pornography fill a viewer's desire to see the nude human body in a stimulating way- it remains a popular and accepted subject in art.

When we see "baby" what associations do we hold? On a basic level, we're attracted to babies. Nature has hardwired most of us to protect the small and vulnerable of our species. If I'm working on a piece- with doll face on an anatomical model, or as a doll that's only half-formed, people have a strong negative reaction. People want babies to be perfect, protected and whole.

Is the "baby" a legitimate subject for art? As a female artist, is "making babies" too cliche? Artists aren't valued very highly by our capitalist society- neither are women, and neither are mothers. They just don't fit very nicely into the network of supply-and-demand. In that respect, making art about babies is a radical political choice.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the ways in which I represent the "baby" and what kind of latent content could be contributing to my choices- but I don't think it would be easy to come up with a clear explanation of that without rehashing my entire life story.

So yes, "baby" is a loaded subject which is both personal and universal. I've received the criticism from two respected mentors that "baby" has become a "device" in my art. This was presented me in a negative way- as if I were using it as a crutch. From what I understand this criticism, it comes from the idea that choosing to represent something with so many cultural associations is somehow "cheating" in art: resting on a subject that's guaranteed to pull the viewer's attention. I just don't understand how any subject in art is "cheating"--- I don't think anyone can really "cheat" at art. Or if you can, so many people have done it, and done it well, that there's enough precedence to justify just about anything in art. If I'm not doing it well- that's the fault of my technique. In that case, I welcome feedback on THAT rather than my choice of subject.

If artists avoided 'loaded' subject matter, we'd have no art about war, no art about love, no art about death or life. That's like the argument that art should be about nothing at all. I've already explained my view about that. The idea that art should be "about something" isn't radical or new, or something that I'm alone in holding.

Of course art isn't only about the "subject" - a greater part of it involves aesthetics, technique and craft. Right now I'm coming from a background in drawing and painting and moving into new fields of screenprinting and metal casting. I'm spending a lot of my time developing my technique in these new mediums. Having found a "subject" to rest on- "babies" allows me to explore new skills and techniques.

I'm learning that it's easier to control the printing in small prints than larger ones. I'm learning the optimal mix of transparancy base to printing ink. I'm experimenting with different kinds of photo emulsion and drying times. I'm learning new ways to sculpt wax to bring a desired finish in my metal casts. I'm learning to make molds that won't fall apart when we pour the iron. I'm making mistakes, and wasting time and money, and learning through trial and error. This is frustrating, in part, because I'm feeling like at this point in my life, at 35-years old, with a full time non-art job, that my time might be better spent heightening my more highly developed skills in drawing and painting. On the other hand, I think that the development of new skills could open up more opportunities, and expanding my skills as an artist isn't the worst thing to do.

All the while, I'm also thinking about my subject and its development. "Babies" can be presented in a variety of ways. They can be multiples or singletons. They can be clothed or naked. They can be robots or cadavers. They can have different skin tones, and come in all sizes. People will have opinions about that- because, as I said earlier- this is a loaded subject.