Monday, May 6, 2013

Don’t Judge An Artist By His Paintings



Intended Publication: Harper's

The morning I met David Elhart, I overslept.
While digging through my closet, I called to tell him I was running late. “Oh, don’t worry about it, Paula. You sound just like our granddaughter- she’s always staying up late and reading. Well, we’re sitting in the middle here, so when you come inside, just look confused and we’ll flag you down.”
Frantic with the realization that I had no clean clothes, I didn’t think to ask David who the “we” was.
I settled on a dress that smelled like the restaurant where I had worn it last. I thought it was too short to be considered professional, but funky enough to wear when meeting an artist. 
Artists like funky clothes, right?
Well, David would, I assumed. With the bold colors and loud shapes of his paintings, I figured he was all about funky.
I had some sense of his political views, too. During our first phone call, he warned, “Just don’t get me started on George Bush, ok?”
As I ran inside Water Street, the place I had first seen David’s artwork, I realized I didn’t know who I was supposed to be looking for. I must have looked confused enough though because I was immediately flagged down.
The “we” was David and Rose, a married couple in their late sixties. David was dressed in a tee shirt, jeans, and a baseball cap. His full beard and glasses reminded me of my own grandpa. Rose has short curly hair and a kind, open face. She wore a bright blue windbreaker with a button of her granddaughter’s track picture right next to her heart. 
Despite my lateness, they still asked if I wanted anything to eat before we got started. After politely rejecting their offer, we decided to move to a more quiet space in the other room. We situated ourselves in a row, sitting in three leather armchairs. The back room featured a different artist’s work, which David admired. He said, “Whoever painted these is good. Just look at those glasses!”
I sat facing David. He angled himself slightly forward, while Rose sat far away enough to look over both of us. I began by asking when David first became interested in art.
He says, “ Before I got a real job, before I got married...45 years ago.”
“46”, Rose says, correcting David, “46 years ago.”  
 Rose was a reliable source for all the details David didn’t remember.
“When’d we move here?” David asks.
Rose pauses from texting her granddaughter to answer, “October of ’77.”
With her ability to retain dates, it makes sense Rose is in charge of the administrative part of David’s art. When joking about her what her job entails, she says, “I keep him in line”.
David and Rose first lived in Milwaukee, where David received his Associate’s Degree from Milwaukee Technical College and his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Wisconsin. They moved to Iowa in ’74—thanks to the G.I. Bill, David could simultaneously work and study at the University of Iowa.
“I worked in the research field for 40 years. I’ve been painting since I retired 3 years ago.”
“4”, Rose says without looking up from texting, “It’s been 4 years.”
Rose apologizes for being on her phone. Their family is going through a hard time right now—their son is getting a divorce, and him and his daughter are staying at their house. Even with the distraction, however, she doesn’t miss a beat when David or I ask her questions.
She tells me, “He doesn’t stop painting.”
After working in pharmacological research for 40 years, David has his own studio in their basement. Yet, as he explained earlier, his interest in art is an old one. He had taken a few art classes at the University of Iowa and received training at the Layton School of Art in Milwaukee. Before securing a research job, he did government contract work and illustrated engine parts. His art had to wait out of necessity, however. It was a pragmatic decision that came down to having to pay the bills. “I needed to eat, and being an artist wasn’t going to get it.”
Rose chimes in, “We had a baby.”
David doesn’t want to talk about his work in research, but he shares that he was an animal welfare specialist, and he taught and wrote for twenty years.
“You did a great job teaching,” Rose says. “Didn’t Steve just thank you the other day at breakfast?”
“He sure did. That was very nice of him.”
Through his work, David got to travel to Japan in 1991 for one month, and took Rose with him when he went again in 2001 and 2006. He mainly went to learn the methods they use in their research. He describes Japan as “one large extended family. They’re very community oriented.”
Although both David and Rose speak fondly of Japan, they would never move there because all their family is in Michigan. David says, “Japan is so clean...the people are so courteous.” Rose reminds David of the time they got lost, and a man walked them the two miles back to their hotel. “I can only speak a little Japanese, but we had the card with the name of the hotel on it,” David explains.
David also talks about the Hiroshima Peace Park. He describes two theatres that “show footage you would never see in this country.” David is consistent and honest with his political views. Yet, although they are an important part of him, he only subtly incorporates them in his paintings. “I don’t set out to be political. I set out to create another place. Unless you read the titles, you might not even know.” For example, his painting, titled “To Joe From Harry”, is about the message Harry Truman wanted to send Joseph Stalin with the bombing of Hiroshima. David says, “The message was to the Russians about who was going to be in charge of the world after the Second World War.” Admittedly, when David’s artwork initially caught my eye, I hadn’t noticed the political undertones of his paintings.
In continuing to talk about his art, he repeats the theme that it’s not from a deep, philosophical message. He says the endpoint is to have fun. “I kind of paint blindly”—he explains that nothing about his art is pre-planned, and it’s more of a sum of his thoughts.
Without me bringing it up, he also speaks about his age, “People who don’t know me anticipate a younger person.” It’s true—when I first saw David’s paintings, I pictured the artist as young and hip: apparently my mind can't wrap itself around an older man creating vivid pop art that pays homage to the likes of Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock. I comment on David’s distinct style and he agrees, “I think it’s different—different enough to be something new. I’m creating something nice while supposedly breaking rules—like you’re not supposed to use a ruler.”
David’s work is an intriguing balance of technical art and the fine arts—he attributes the mix to his past work, which involved him being very precise. He thinks his technicality adds to the story telling capability of his artwork. David’s favorite types of stories to tell are about things that reflect memory. He asks me if I know of a very old and deserted paper mill in Vicksburg. With a sense of awe in his voice, he describes staring at the building and wanting to ask it, “Please, tell me what went on here...even though the building can’t talk. The older [the building] the better.”
Or on a trip to Ellis Island, he became wrapped up in the emotional experiences preserved in the location. He speaks quickly as he thinks about the memories it holds. He sees the memories as alive and still going on because they’re “trapped in the walls of the building”. His face lights up during his recollection like a little kid who just discovered a secret shortcut.
Rose senses that David is getting caught up in his reminiscence and reminds him to tell me about his work in Saugatuck. “Right, right” he says, “I work down there at the Artist Collective. I hang paintings. There are about 25 artists who work there, and pay rent so they have a space to do their work.” Because it’s hard to get that type of thing organized, he’s only been able to volunteer once. But now that the ball is rolling, he plans on getting more involved.
I sense that David is done talking about himself so I put my notebook away. He begins to give me advice on my future travels because I had told him I was interested in joining the Peace Corps at the beginning of the interview. He warns me that Americans love themselves to death and love to talk. In a lowered voice he says, “When they go abroad Americans needs to learn to shut the fuck up.”
“Oh, David. I’m sorry about that Paula,” Rose says.
I giggle upon hearing David cuss and assure both of them it’s fine and that I agree. I promise David I won’t be that obnoxious American when I travel.
He repeats himself about Americans loving to talk too much and Rose jokes, “Yeah, exactly like what you’re doing right now. Let’s go honey.”
David and Rose walk out of Water Street together, holding hands, and I hear Rose tell David about the text messages she had been receiving. I wait to see them get into their car before I finally order myself a coffee. As I stood in line, I look at David’s paintings and try to picture him creating them. At that moment, something David had said about his art stood out in my mind, “I enjoy doing what I’m doing so much because I’m discovering.”
I sit down with my cup of coffee and take one last look at his art before I immerse myself in my book. The paintings all seem to be speaking to me in David’s voice, and I smile to myself, knowing exactly what he was talking about.



Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Reading Response Week 5


From our reading, I most related to Isabel Wilkerson’s “Interviewing: Accelerated Intimacy”. I had my first interview with the person I want to do my profile on, and the way it went seemed to align with what Wilkerson talks about in her article. I didn’t bring a recorder with me because I wanted to test out what it’s like to conduct an interview by hand. Because I was taking notes, I felt like I sacrificed eye contact and might have missed out on a few body language cues. For my next interview, I plan on using a recorder so I’ll be able to compare both methods of note taking.
I did, however, feel like my subject and I had a guided conversation. As Wilkerson said, “The overall interaction is more important than the particular questions”. I also experienced most of Wilkerson’s seven phases, especially Phase Six: Deceleration. As soon as I put my notebook away, the source opened up even more. He began telling me the stories behind his paintings and giving me life advice.  Lastly, I connected with Wilkerson’s point that “Empathy is the balance to power”. Although I notice it in every day interactions, during my interview I became acutely aware of how much more comfortable my subject became once I engaged in eye contact and was fully involved in his stories. He no longer felt like a source I was gleaning information from, but a person whose story held importance and meaning.
            In “Frank Sinatra Has A Cold”, I was particularly struck by the fluency of the article. Talese masterfully wove in an immense amount of detail about Sinatra’s life, yet at no point did I feel overwhelmed in reading it. Talese crafted a remarkable portrait of Sinatra—a man who was seemingly untouchable. He portrayed Sinatra’s harsh temper as well as his gentle philanthropic side. Talese successfully incorporated the contradictory elements of Sinatra’s personality, and in a manner that didn’t seem weighed down by personal judgment.
            Overall, my questions revolve around the subject of access. What comes first: access or the story? Do you write a story based on how accessible it is? Or do you look for an interesting story and then fight for the access? Does it depend on deadline?