Charles Jones

JUN 29 2012

Recently an artist on AW messaged me that my work had touched her deeply, and, of course, I was touched in return. This is a rare occurrence for me. I've gotten the distinct impression over time that my work has been falling on orbs with less 'vision' than mine. By that I mean by minds who look for their artistic guidance in the past or present only and who do not seem to realise that art evolves, even as we do---albeit both appear to be evolving presently at a rate that makes yearly glacial movement seem massive by comparision. :)

It has been said that true artists of any discipline live at the fringe of society and that from that outsider's viewpoint they see the world a little clearer, or maybe just differently, than the average Joe. I cannot speak for others, as my experiental data is of a personal nature only, but Plato wanted artists to rule in his Utopia and he may have been onto something. Though, in his day, artists were easily distinguishable from the farmers, merchants and soldiers. Today anyone can buy some paints, brushes and canvas and proclaim himself 'artist.' Or one can buy a computer program and bypass the canvas or paper altogether. But, sadly, most of the 'product' is derivative and does not progress art one nano-inch.

Many who have been successful in their lifetimes will be forgotten over time whereas some few working at the fringe, outside academia and the superficialities of 'the art world,' will someday be hailed as visionaries. I'm not at all sure I will be one of those, of course. I'm not even saying I'm in the running. But at least I am not an imitator or a duplicator. When you see one of my pieces, you see 'my' vision, 'my' creativity, 'my' striving for inner perfection---something I now know I will never achieve, but I'm a stubborn cuss so I persist. :)

Thanks for reading this through to the end. Hopefully someone will take the time to read this who is NOT be a spammer or a small degree thinker. A small degree thinker is one who looks upon things at 180 degrees or less, whereas the 360 degree thinker looks at a thing from all angles. ;)

JUN 10 2012

I am presently attempting to update my galleries; fill in the gaps as it were, in an attempt to give the viewer a better more expansive understanding of my (hopefully) artistic progression. :)

I will also be posting some additional paintings going back to the early part of the century. Sounds funny to say that, but it's true. I am well aware that this is not the venue to great monetary reward, but I would like it to be a comprehensive repository for some of my better images. Maybe in this way, some of my work might impact others in some small way.

Art IS a univeral language, right up there with mathematics, but it is unfortunate that so many know only a couple of verbs, a handful of nouns and maybe three adjectives. ;)

MAR 24 2012

All great artists are in some ways philosophers also. In fact, art can be interpreted as thought made visible. So, with this in mind, philosophy of thought should not fight philosophy of the visual, but rather should complement it. Unlike a writer who uses the symbology of words, the artist uses a visual language. Though this language may be more direct than a verbal one, it can contain elements that are unique to the artist. This is why Art is open to translation in much the same way different languages are. The language of visual art is more liquid and abstract than the verbal which goes a long way to explain why a work of art has almost as many 'translations' as it has viewers. Of course, as in any intellectual endeavor, the viewer gets as much out of it as he puts into it.

Is art life imitated or life re-imagined? Or is art the vehicle through which mankind progresses? It is certainly not through technology that man evolves, or we would have seen some calculable move away from devisiveness and bigotry which leads inevitably, it seems, to hatred and bloodshed. But if it IS art then we have most definitely not reached the 2nd Renaissance as yet. We are more closely aligned with the Dark Ages if one is to believe the headlines and the unconscious move toward lives spent in the pursuit of triviality over substance.

Yes, I've been thinking about 'life' and 'art' in somewhat the same context because, of course, there can be no art without life and, I hazard to say, life without art isn't much of a life. :)

APR 25 2011

I had someone ask me an interesting question yesterday at Easter festivities. I had mentioned I wanted to do more to get my art out there before the public and he asked,"Well, what kind of art is it? How would you describe it in marketing terms?"

I responded with something like 'interpretive art' because, I thought, my images are very open to personal interpretation by the viewer. BUT I find that what the world calls 'interpretive art' is something else entirely. I foolishly thought I'd just made up a 'classification' but I was wrong---again.

I've been labelling it 'abstract' here merely because it's not any of the other. So fellow artists, if you were to describe my art to someone who had never seen an example, how would you go about it? It does start out as automatic until some level of the conscious mind takes over and works it into 'something' I, the so-called artist, can be more or less happy with. But what is the end result and what can I call it without feeling the description either inadequate or overly pompous?

Ok, you think about it and I'll think about it and we'll see what we can dredge up. Thanks.

OCT 10 2008

I haven't been uploading much lately to Artwanted, not because I don't have anything to upload, but because my attention has been drawn elsewhere. Please pardon the pun. :)

I have been active over the last several months in resurrecting and recustomizing my music studio---in my home, of course---that used to give me a lot of pleasure going back to the mid-Eighties through the mid-Nineties. The vintage equipment that I mothballed for over a decade, plus the newer equipment is starting to come together. What was going to take up a small corner of the room has now eaten most of its space.

A lot of great affordable tools for creating music have been developed since I was actively dabbling in the sonic pool and there's almost too much to absorb. For you who are familar with MIDI, you probably know something of what I am referring to. My primary instrument is a Yamaha WX-11 wind controller. Think clarinet-looking instrument that connects to the computer and with which you control internal and/or external sounds (from synthesizers, etc.) But I am eyeing the much newer Akai EWI4000s as an upgrade in the coming year. It has a built-in synthesizer, unlike the WX-11, but can also control other synths as well.

Anyway, I thought my absence warranted some sort of explanation. I'm still filling notebooks with drawings in the meantime and I'm sure I will be uploading some new ones soon. ---Charles

FEB 26 2008

I have begun a new 'egg series' which I will be uploading to commemorate Easter soon. So far there are three potential that I may upload. In these I have used more colored pencil than gel ink, though a piece I was working on last evening incorporated both mediums equally.

Actually I've several 'egg' pics that I have done over the course of the last several years, so I may upload the best of these also and create a gallery special to them. Eggs and birds are a natural combination, so I suppose it is not in the least bit strange that I would have done some of both, even putting egg and bird together in the same drawing, as I did in 'Which Came First?'

I appreciate any input from viewers and hope that folks will take the time to slow down and look below the surface of my pieces.

FEB 17 2008

It seems there are not many who wish to view my private gallery. Or maybe they think if they send me a message requesting the code, I will sell their address to the nearest spammer. Whatever.

I'm shaking up myself a little bit these days, trying to shake my media up a little also. I'm still working on paper, but using more pencil than pen lately. I hate to get in ruts---any more than I am forced to. :)

My son, Nathan, is doing a self-portrait in his art class at his high school. I saw it friday night, and I must say, I was impressed. When he was younger he drew alot, but I haven't seen him at it in a long time. I hope he continues to develop his skills---I would hate to see it end with me. I would also like to see him surpass his dear old dad.

DEC 05 2007

I've been contemplating a private gallery, one less restrictive in subject and form, perhaps a bit more 'adult' in theme. If you'd be interested in viewing such a gallery, please e-mail me and I will upload images and send you a code so you can access it. Thanks, Chas

NOV 27 2007

Some have asked that I address the bird imagery that is so ubiquitous in much of my work. I will endeavor to do so, but, like my work itself, the end result will most likely be imperfect. For this I apologize beforehand.

When I was young I had a recurring dream of flying. Maybe we all do--I wouldn't doubt it. In my dreams I made some progress over time. In the earliest, I remember merely flapping my arms to no avail. I remained locked to the surface of my world. In later dreams, I was able to tuck my legs under me and fly just above the earth, sometimes scraping my toes as I flew. But I had one dream in which I flew high above the treeline. It was wondrous and I remember the viewpoint even now and the feeling of the wind in my face. But I had no sooner loosed the bonds of earth then I was downed by, of all things, an arrow. I plummeted downward and awoke. I do not recall having another dream about flying after this.

I think it runs deeper than or maybe just different from dream imagery though. Birds are symbolic of freedom, of innate intelligence. They are constantly with us but not of us. (I, for one, hope to hear birdsong on my dying day.) They are symbolic of the natural world though the two of us co-habitate even within burgeoning urban settings. They probably observe us in ways that would surprise.

I think also that I connote 'bird' with creativity, of rising above the mundane of everyday existence to see from a different viewpoint what is commonly referred to as existence. Maybe that dream of flying is still alive in me somewhere and this is how I deal with it. Who knows?

I told you my 'explanation' would be less than succinct. You have only yourself to blame for reading this blog. :)

NOV 02 2007

I read in the morning paper about a documentary that just came out about a four-year-old girl who paints abstract paintings and who, at the time the documentary was filmed, was getting thousands of dollars per painting. The little girl looked sweet in the photo with brush in hand, but looking at the agitated abstract in front of her that already appeared to be finished(Yeah, exactly how do you KNOW its finished? LOL)I couldn't see her in the act of painting it. One must imagine that little girl, posing demurely before the camera, like a four-year-old, really working up a sweat both physically and cognitively. I couldn't. Did I mention the would-be artist dad?

The article brought to mind a previous article some years back of the elephant who painted with its tail, and appeared to enjoy it, so said the article anyway. Now this Indian elephant had to have the colors applied to its tail by humans, humans had to stretch the canvas and humans had to back it up to the canvas. So much for the creative process. Its works sold for goodly sums also. Not in the thousands like the little girl---after all she is HUMAN, and, well, the elephant isn't, is it?

What am I getting at here? Well, let's see. It looks as though the little girl was a 'successful' artist because of her age, and the elephant because of its species. But why would intelligent humans spend good money for such piffle? (I always like to think of money as 'good.' After all it is inanimate and therefore incapable of being either GOOD or EVIL, correct?) Is it because the work speaks to them personally, or because of the oddity factor?

It always seems to be the abstractionists who get slammed with this type of thing, doesn't it? Obviously a little girl or an elephant isn't going to paint like a Rembrandt or even a Picasso. I say EVEN a Picasso, because he wasn't exactly a photorealist, was he?

I thought it interesting also that the article about the little girl mentioned the local gallery owner who at one point said that abstract art is a scam and then pointed out that the little girl is a genius. Both of those statements, in this context, can't be correct, can they?

BLOG • PAGE 7