Keith Negley Response

Wednesday night was graced with the presence of renowned editorial illustrator Keith Negley. From his works with New York Times, Business week and many others Negley has come to be known a one of the leading digital artists in his field.

            As Negley explained in his talk much of his inspiration comes from the articles he is commissioned to design for. Working almost exclusively in metaphorical images Negley pokes at issues of politics and economics. Though all of Negley’s work is digital he often draws inspiration from his roots as a screen printer, utilizing textures and effects in his work that form a more organic feel to the images. Rather than drawing from his environment or life experiences as with the artists in Art City Negley works predominantly from necessity and restrictions imposed by his clients. Keith works in a field that is less about self-expression and more about communicating an idea successfully and in a creative way.

            Often forced to work in a limited color pallet Negley explained that he thrived off of muted colors as well as tints and shades that reflected on his love of vintage posters. His color palate also drew from his interest in pushing his own limits of creativity, by using only two or three colors he told us, he was able to force his designs to work through unique avenues: utilizing form, line and negative space in non-traditional ways.

            All in all Negley’s presentation was highly inspiration, lending advise to aspiring artists and showing us a glimpse into an elite field of artists who have to push the boundaries of creativity every day they work. 

Response to Art & Fear

No one said being an artist was going to be easy. They tell you its all about perseverance, practice and following your vision, but rarely do people mention how much uncertainty and fear goes into the art making process. This point was no better driven home after reading David Bayles and Ted Orland's article titled Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking.

In the article one specific line caught my attention and hit a particularly tender note with me. The line in question explained how X-rays taken of famous paintings show a remarkable number of mistakes and mess-ups which are never seen in the finished piece. The point of this information is that even famous artists make mistakes and have to constantly experiment through the actual process of making art. This was important to me because I have a serious issue with revising and changing my work on the fly. When I make a mistake I often times throw away the entire project because I feel there can be no salvaging what I just created. The article puts into perspective the idea that screw-ups are something to be learned from and show up even in the most skilled of artists. Ultimately I now understand that learning from the process of the piece can be far more beneficial that creating a finished piece in one thought and one "wave." Art needs to be an experiment of constant change and manipulation and in the end this exploration of our own ability to fix mistakes is one of the most important principles we can learn.