In the entrance exam to my high school’s art program, there was a question that I didn’t know how to answer:
How do I know when an art piece is finished?
I had never considered that question before. So I came up with a quick answer: a piece is finished when I feel there’s nothing more that needs to be added and fulfills the vision I have in my head. I wrote this down in the exam and quickly moved on to the next question. Not a bad answer for a high school student and I’m sure many would say something similar.
But that question has always stuck with me through the years and recently I’ve begun to reconsider it. In my college years studying filmmaking, I came across this quote by George Lucas:
“A film is never finished, only abandoned.”
And of which, I have just discovered after Googling, is a variation of a quote by Leonardo Da Vinci saying the same thing about art. This begs the question, does art have to be finished in order for it to be complete? By this I mean, must a work of art have to look or be deemed finished by the artist for it to be a complete work of art and for it to have value?
I’m reminded most of the painter Cézanne, in which, many of his paintings are unfinished — negative space still available with shapes and forms not entirely or fully rendered.
Whether this was intentional or not is uncertain. But I’d like to think that Cézanne purposely finished them in this state. Note I say finished, instead of abandoned or left. These paintings teach us that, many times, it is about the process rather than a fully rendered finished piece. It is about the act of painting or making art rather than the content. It need not look finished in order for it to be completed and displayed to the public.
My Instagram project at @cellestialstudios is an art piece that is always in process. It is meant to be seen as a single continuous piece (from the viewpoint when looking at my overall profile). Nicknamed the Infinite Painting, there is no definite end to the piece. It is only ever a representation of the now — a constant state of being in process.
Some people ask me how I create it and if it’s already planned out as one long piece. The answer is no — it is not planned ahead nor is there a definitive ending. I add to it incrementally each week. It functions much like a social media newsfeed: you pull down for more updates and Facebook, Instagram, etc. will update your feed with what is the latest. In the same vein, it is an endless painting, with continuous updates.
For the question of why: I had wanted to create an art piece specifically meant for Instagram. Instead of posting photos of an art piece existing elsewhere, I wanted to post the artwork itself — where the experience can only be gotten from visiting Instagram. I set out to make Instagram the gallery to see the work instead of an intermediary platform. The screen is both the canvas and the gallery.
Content and Aesthetics
The content of the piece acts as a visual diary. The point is to create art as a stream, like a newsfeed. But while the newsfeed in focused on the external (news updates in the world and social networks), this is focused on the internal (stream of conscious diary). In this way, there is no limit to what is to be communicated or expressed because, like a diary, there is always something to be said and written down. The expression comes as fragments of words, images, symbols, references from culture and current news — stream of conscious meant to reflect the visual landscape of a state of mind.
But aesthetically, I aspire to pay homage to one of my biggest inspirations, the painter Jean-Michel Basquiat. What strikes me most about his work is his collage-like compositions combining appropriated imagery, symbols, and phrases from the environment around himself.
The Process vs Progress
Note that I have been saying process instead of progress. I think process is more fitting because progress denotes an end point, an intangible goal and apex that must be reached. That it is at its best once it reaches that imaginary peak. Whereas process focuses on just that — the development of the piece rather than a final finished object. Using progress gives off the impression that it isn’t finished yet. Yet in my opinion, there is more value and beauty in the doing and in the unfinished rather than static finished pieces. When a piece is dynamic, it is alive and breathing. We as humans are never finished in our development and growth as individuals, societies, and as a species — art should reflect this as well.
Many digital things today can be described as being in a continual state of process. Software updates are perpetual improvements, never to be finished — in the sense that developers will not cease to update the software. In the same way, the newsfeed is a perpetual update. What defines the newsfeed is that it is in a constant state of change — a reflection of the current 24/7 news cycle.
This art piece functions like that — only ever a representation of the now and of transient moments much in the way that the Impressionists worked. In this way, I reveal my process. The piece becomes much like Cézanne’s work. Work that is not finished but is nevertheless displayed because it is complete.
Abandoned Art
I think frequently about what George Lucas said. There is a sense of regret and irony in his statement. He wishes to finish his films but understands that a film is never finished. It is only abandoned because of deadlines and the need for the artist to release it to the audience.
In the new digital landscape, pieces do not need to abandoned. Pieces can exist in multiple variations. Due to the ease of distribution online and the digitality of things, both artist and audience can hold copies. The artist does not need to abandon and give up their work necessarily (this of course differs from medium to medium).
If deadlines didn’t exist, I’m sure many artists, George Lucas included as well as Cézanne would forever be working and re-working a piece (whether this is a curse or not is up for debate). The great thing about today is that one can continually be re-working a piece and also be able to share it. Rather than being constrained by distribution and thus being forced to abandon, the artist can continue his/her work and have each iteration, though unfinished, seen as complete. The artist need not abandon due to logistics out of his or her control.
I think there’s an interest now in the process and seeing inside artists process. Artists and audiences are much more transparent nowadays and curious. On Youtube, Patreon, and the like, artists are showing their process, the behind the scenes — there is an understanding that these pieces are illusions.
Finished Art
Back to the original question: when do I know when a piece is finished? Not every piece need be ever in process and in a state of constant change/flux. Some pieces are best left alone and there is a point when a piece is overworked. Like unnecessary software updates that are just changing for the sake of change instead of improving, some pieces may reach this point. Yet, if I were to take that art exam again, I would now answer that a piece is finished once it expresses and communicates what I want it to communicate.
But if the point of the piece is to constantly communicate, then there is no end to the piece. Since the piece acts as a visual diary for myself, there is endless expression, because there is something new everyday in the now. And thus it is constantly in process, growing and evolving.
The infinite painting is an exercise in meditation. It relieves the pressure of having to have the piece just right. Because it’s not about the piece per se but the act of doing it, of the process. In that way, it is an unfinished yet complete piece — much like Cézanne’s unfinished yet complete work.
