Two days after viewing this film, I received my regular child and women’s health medical updates by email. They are  a summary of the latest research findings both in Australia and overseas and I find them very interesting to scan and drill down when a topic of interest appears. (You can subscribe for free at Talk Medical). The latest child’s newsletter included the findings that junk food is being served to babies by the majority of Australian parents, before they are one year of age. In a recent Perth study of 587 parents, some parents had already served fruit juice, ice cream and cake to their babies by the time they were 4 weeks of age and over 78% had eaten hot chips, 91% biscuits and cakes and 68% ice cream before their first birthday. This is despite the World Health Organisation recommending breast milk exclusively until babies are 6 months old and then healthy vegetable, cereal and fruit meals gradually added to their diet.

According to medical research by the CSIRO, children’s diet patterns in the first 2 years are almost identical to what you see when the child is 8, as tastes for salt, sugar and fat are formed very early. Therefore it should not seem surprising that they also found that 20% of Australian toddlers are now overweight or obese.

In direct contrast to this research, the Sydney Morning Herald had a feature story on Saturday entitled ” The parenting project” which asserted that today’s “parents may be going too far in their ambition to give their child the perfect upbringing” (Stevenson, Sept 18).  This article highlighted that more educated parents spend greater amounts of time with their children, than those less educated, and unlike their baby boomer parents, both Mums and Dad’s are very child and family focussed. They happily spend large amounts of their spare time and money running after their children as they participate in sport, music and other extra curricular activities.

Clearly, like our two speed economy (high speed for mining, low speed for tourism and housing construction) parents sit on a very long continuum. At one end, the overly concerned, too anxious or nervous parents, seeking to do everything by the book and hold their children’s hands though out the entire childhood process and at the other end the permissive, arguably negligent parent who set no boundaries with respect to diet, TV and video viewing, gaming and computer use and access to alcohol and drugs.  Most parents don’t sit at either extremes but there are quite a few inhabiting those spectrums.

As children become teenagers the differences in parenting is even more apparent. In some homes, there is complicit acceptance of teenagers early participation in drinking and sex and even experimentation with drugs, with the attitude that “if it is done in the home, at least they will be safe”. What these parents don’t seem to get is that if it is being done at home with a quasi blessing by Mum and Dad, then it is more than likely to be happening elsewhere as well. And it completely ignores all the research about healthy brain development, alcohol and drug dependency and the need for parents to set clear rules and boundaries, not just seek to be popular and “cool”.

After the cancellation of Justin Bieber’s appearance at the now infamous Sydney Harbourside concert for Ch 7′s Sunrise programme, one of the reported concerns were the number of young girls (12-14 yr olds) who were dropped off, by their parents, in the middle of the night, with no planned supervision. It was also reported that of the few parents who did hang around, they were mostly narcissistic Mum’s who were even more into the whole “Bieber” scene than their daughters.

Were styles, values and methods of parenting ever so different across the broader Australian community as they are now? Is this divide now about as wide as it can get?

I work with oil paints. This means that my pictures often take many weeks and months to finish as you slowly build up layer after layer of paint and texture and allow each layer to dry in between. This particular painting was one of my very best. One of those rare works where from the start it is all working really well. The composition is spot on, colours are perfect and the overall look is striking.

So when he told me and then showed me the splintered frame on one side and torn canvas, where the boat trailer had hit the painting as he reversed the boat and trailer through the garage (my current studio), I was literally heart broken. I don’t know what the neighbours thought was happening – it was just lucky my boys were at school, because the air was blue with expletives and I couldn’t help crying.

I know he felt absolutely terrible (and still does) about it. It was one of his favourites too. But as the maker and creator of this work, it felt like someone had ripped my heart out and stomped all over it.I just knew the weeks and weeks of work that led to that point.

One week later, I am a lot calmer and have dealt with the grief. Today, I took the painting to a friend who makes stretchers and he is going to replace the broken timber and crop the image so that the damage is at the side of the frame, not the front. It will mean losing about 40mm -50mm off the front of the picture on one side, so I am not sure if the balance will look right any more. But I couldn’t bear to do nothing about it.

I haven’t cried like I did last week in years and it made me more aware of how much of yourself goes into an original work of art – how much thought, time, heart and soul. And how when you really are feeling like the magic is working, how proud and happy it makes you feel. I haven’t been back to my studio in the garage in the last week. I have other paintings I am working on…but that special magic wasn’t quite there with them, so I am a bit unsure of what to do.

I think the answer is to start some new paintings – and keep working the others as well. But to have some fresh canvases I can begin again with. I don’t think you can paint the same painting twice and if you try you will end up disappointed.

So that’s where I will head. New fresh canvases and new fresh ideas. But in the meantime, I really hope my repaired painting can retain some of the magic, once it is cropped.

Have you ever lost something you were working on and how did it make you feel?

Postscript to this story (2 weeks later):

My painting has been repaired and once I do some work to it, you will never know. The composition is still really strong and I like it – a lot! I know that objects, in the end are not that important, but even so, something you make is not the same as something you buy.

One of the hardest things for an artist is to decide when a artwork is finished, or if a sense of it not being quite there exists, to work out what it needs to bring it across the line? Another challenge is whether or not to go back to a work that you were pretty happy with and make changes? Or to know when to paint over an existing good work and start fresh.

I am dealing with many of these issues at the moment.

As a trained artist who has had to listen to criticism and feedback from teachers and peers on a regular basis, I think you develop a keen sense of when a painting or sculpture etc is absolutely firing. But what to do about the ones that are good, possibly very good – but just not grabbing you in the gut in the same way, is really difficult. Is it OK to have absolute favourites and other’s that you just like, or does this mean that the other work is not good enough and you need to keep going? Is it really possible and indeed achievable that you will love everything that you do?

I have painted over several pretty good paintings this year, and I think some of the new works that resulted are my best ever. But other paintings that I thought in the planning would be rippers are just not hitting the mark as I had hoped they would. And I am struggling with knowing where to take them, or if I should just start again. I have also gone back to a few artworks that I once really liked and have made changes. Again, knowing whether this is the right thing to do or not is proving quite challenging.

I read about a local artist recently who said that she always hangs her new work in her house after she has finished. If after a few weeks she feels she loves it, then it can be sold, if not, it goes back out to the studio for more work. I think this is good advice because considered reflection often provides the answer for many of our dilemmas. I think it was ex Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating who suggested that all leaders needed to build time in their diary – at least one day a week, to reflect on issues and challenge your thinking. History is showing him to have been one of most visionary and accomplished of our leaders. Since his departure, the cult of busy-ness seems to have taken over our society, with major decisions often apparently taken on the run. Think of Julia Gillard’s disastrous decision to appoint a peoples assembly to find a consensus on climate change action. Less rush and more consideration could not surely have resulted in that decision being made.

So back to the art. What do you think? If I am not 100% happy with a painting I am working on, should I keep going? Especially knowing that overworking it can often create more issues than you had to begin with. Is it crazy to expect to love all your work equally? Do some artists never love what they produce? is it reasonable to expect that all works in a series are fully resolved to your satisfaction, or is it normal and quite acceptable that you will think that some are good, others very good and not all great? And as the artist are you really the best judge of that?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences. As I continue plugging away with the challenging pieces, I’ll show you where I got to. And see whether you think I made the right decision.

Fiona Hall’s art deals with society and culture and increasingly how we as humans are impacting upon the natural world. Her work is often extremely detailed and her ideas and thinking multi-faceted and complex.

Fiona Hall, Medicine Bundle for the non-born Child, 1993-1994

Medicine Bundle for the non-born Child, is a baby’s layette made from knitting coca-cola cans.

This artwork investigates the history of coca leaves from South America and cola nuts from Africa; both important medicinal plants in their original settings. I know from my own travels in Peru and Bolivia, that Coca Tea is the key tonic to prevent and minimise the effects of altitude sickness in these countries. Coca-Cola, which originally used both herbs, is a major symbol of capitalism and globalisation, as well as the world’s biggest soft drink brand. So this work combines examination of the desire for consumer goods with appropriation of knowledge from Third World countries whilst also questioning the future for the world’s children.

Another work that I really like is her sculptural collection entitled Tender (2003-2005). Much of Fiona Hall’s work mimics the style of a scientific exhibit such as you would find in a Museum of Natural History or Science. This particular artwork is also displayed in glass fronted cabinets and consists of many birds’ nests of all shapes and sizes, constructed from dozens of American one-dollar notes, each bearing the official declaration: “This note is legal tender”. The American dollar is the most widely used currency in international trade and the most desired currency in Third World countries. Her birds nests of greenback’s provide a shelter for those desperate for it, like birds scavenging for material to build their nests, at the same time as the advance of capitalism is also leading to deforestation and lack of natural habitat for both birds, animals and people.

Fiona Hall, Tender, US Dollars, 2003 - 2005.

Fiona Hall, detail - Tender, US Dollars, 2003 - 2005

If you would like to see more of this intriguing artists work, there is a very comprehensive education pack available as a PDF from the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney. I think it is refreshing to see a major Australian contemporary artist who does more than just navel gazing and self analysis and who engages us both  intellectually and aesthetically. If I had to nominate someone who would be my role model in terms of artistic practise, Fiona Hall would be the one.

In the art world, it appears that those who are unencumbered by demands of family and are able to be completely self-absorbed about their art and creativity are seen as the most passionate and committed of artists and therefore most worthy of success.

Judith Pugh’s revealing biography about life with artist Clifton Pugh, Unstill Life,  provides another example of the heroic, extremely talented but egocentric artist who is able to devote his time to pursuing his “higher calling” as he has a wife/partner to look after all the necessities of daily life, including maintaining friendships, managing the finances, acting as a muse and providing nourishment in the form of both food and praise.

This is not just an art world phenomenon. Numerous studies have shown that men who are married earn more money and have more professional success than those who don’t. Again, it is about being able to fully focus on your job, career and ambition as your number one priority, above all else, without having to deal with those time consuming or irritating distractions such as raising children, tradesmen’s visits, grocery shopping and cooking. If you are an entrepreneur, CEO, lawyer or sportsman, time on the job is critical to your success and it is often the most selfish and those who demand the same of their staff or team, who achieve the highest acclaim.

But being so self absorbed and driven can also have adverse consequences. Your children can grow up as virtual strangers and with little regard for you. Your partner is quite likely to find it tiresome and lonely and find happiness elsewhere. It can lead to a “god” complex, where you believe the world truly does revolve around you and you behave accordingly. Think of Tiger Woods completely selfish and immature behaviour  – and then consider his innocent children and the likely impact his behaviour will have on their lives and their relationship with him.

So whilst being selfish can seem like the key to success, it is only one definition of success – primarily about status and money, not a broader interpretation of the concept. If we were choose how we would like to see our children live their lives, it is unlikely we would wish for them such a one dimensional life.

And could you not also argue that by being artists as well as involved parents, partners and community members, we are able to make art that is more balanced, interesting and informed. Instead of fixating solely on ourselves, our art may be about bigger and bolder issues concerned with the human condition and society.

What do you think? Is the idea of the inspired genius who can behave badly in most other aspects of his/her life,  but produce fantastic art still the ideal or is it now outdated?

The high heels for babies, brought to mind the brilliant work by artist Julie Rrap, entitled Overstepping, 2001.

Julie Rrap, Overstepping, Digital Print, 2001.

This image is one of her most successful works, winning critical acclaim and it is quite disconcerting to look at. Of course, as modern women we all know that high heels were developed to lengthen a woman’s leg line, create the illusion of lovely calves, cause the bum to stick out in a sexually provocative way and in the process restrict the woman wearing them to move with small, “feminine” steps. Rrap’s seamless morphing of this process onto human flesh is both clever and disturbing.

But what I find so upsetting is that as time moves on, more and more young women just don’t seem to get it! They have been so brainwashed by the Sex in the City stereotypes that they believe that all that matters in life is shopping, high heels and looking sexy. I thought as a society we were supposed to evolve, not regress. Isn’t that the theory?

Barbara Kruger delivered her ground breaking anti-consumerist and pro- feminist work in the 1980′s.  One of her most well known pieces: I Shop Therefore I Am, (1987) uses her graphic design skills to question the idea of spending as a form of self identity.

Barbara Kruger, I Shop Therefore I am, Poster print, 1987.

But where have we moved to since then? Or is this an example of Art having negligible effect against the forces of capitalism and consumerism? When we, as Mum’s and Dad’s, pay for baby high heels and baby credit cards, what hope does the planet have?

If a key answer to tackling climate change  – “our greatest moral challenge”,  is to change our ways, reduce production of useless and stupid things that just use our resources and get added to landfill, we have a hell of a long way to go. And if we plan to raise our babies and young girls with the message that spending is great and looking sexy is the most important thing they should worry about, I don’t know how that is going to happen.

Is there any hope for us? What do you think?

For once, the “feminine” traits of consultation and  cooperation are seen as her most valuable assets, after 2 1/2 year of Prime Minister Rudd running the country seemingly without the input of his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues. This is quite a turning point, really.

So, with State Premiers in NSW and Queensland, a female Governor General, and now a female Prime Minister running the country, things must be pretty good for women in Australia, right? Well not really, no.

Let’s look at some facts:

• The overall pay gap between female and male full time workers, has risen to 17%.
• If you are a male graduate entering the workforce, you are paid an average $2000 more than your female peers.
• In 2008, there were four female CEO’s of the top ASX200 companies – that is 2%, and down from 3% in 2006.
• If you did get to be a female CEO, you were paid two thirds of what your male equivalent was paid. Female CFO’s earn half of what male CFO’s are paid.
• And even in politics,where we now have 2 women Premiers and a Prime minister,  women make up only 27% of lower house MP’s and 35% of Senators, which puts us on par with Afghanistan, that other bastion of women’s rights.
• (Source: Souter, F, May 1, 2010, SMH Good Weekend, The Only Way is Up, Fairfax Media)

It is a similar story in the art world. I recently wandered through the National Gallery of Victoria’s Contemporary Art collection and was dismayed to see only a couple of female artists work on show, compared to about 95% being the work of male artists. And frankly, a lot of the stuff wasn’t that great. My family and I all agreed that the best work was that of Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama with her stunning piece, Tender is the stairs to Heaven (2004). This sculpture is made of illuminated fibre -optic cable and is a ladder that reaches from the floor to the ceiling, but due to the placement inside a black room and mirrors positioned at the floor and the ceiling it creates the illusion of never ending.

Yayoi Kusama, Tender are the stairs to Heaven, Mixed media, 2004.

The Guerrilla Girls, the anonymous collective of female artists in New York City, won fame and notoriety when they established themselves in 1985, protesting against the shocking under representation of women artists in public galleries and museums. One of the earliest poster is shown below:

Museums Poster, by Guerrilla Girls, 1985.

The Guerrilla Girls had to name and shame the public trustees of these institutions in order to raise awareness of these and other related issues. Due largely to their tireless work and dedication over 25 years, improvements have been made. But there is still a long way to go before the art world gets over the myth of the male, superstar art genius. Prices paid for female artists work is still enormously less than for male artists and Australian galleries still seem preoccupied with the “blockbuster” exhibitions of previous art generations, which are male dominated.

Ideas and creativity are not gender biased.  Next time you go to a major gallery, I’d love to hear your stats on the gender representation.And, maybe new PM Julia can add this to her list of things to do.

There are a few issues being raised with this revelation, not the least of which, that the subject is hardly an Australian landscape. But there seems to be no regrets on behalf of the judges of the prize – remember these guys also hung a drawing in the Archibald – which is a painting prize, after all. Their policy seems to be, if it creates controversy and obtains publicity, then it has done it’s job.

But Leach did not just reproduce this painting with only minor changes, he also chose not to reference his debt to Pynacker in the title.  And surely that is just plain cheating.

Ever since artists like Andy Warhol and Stuart Davies put the everyday into art, there has been a school of thought that in Art anything goes. If a screen print of the Campbell’s Soup Can packaging, can be Art – then anything can. Following on from this breakthrough, Post Modernism legitimised appropriation of other artists work and ideas into other artists own work, as each new use gives the work new meaning. The theory is that in this image saturated world, there can be no such thing as an original idea, so stop being precious about who owns ideas, styles and themes.

There is some truth to this idea – we are all a product of our times. But should you really call yourself an artist if you steal other peoples ideas and pass them off as originals? It is one thing to appropriate, say, the style of consumer marketing campaigns in your artwork and subvert them for political or humorous means. It seems entirely different to just copy another painting. If you are that short of ideas, then go get a job in a bank. Don’t call yourself an artist…unless you put the word con in front of it.  And if you are an art industry insider, stop promoting the con. It does no one any justice.

What do you think?

Sandy