The Affect of Change...

Georgia O’Keefe, like Monet painted landscapes and captured the beauty of still lifes. Though her style is unlike that of Monet, she developed a stark individualism through her artwork. She once said, “I know now that most people are so closely concerned with themselves that they are not aware of their own individuality, I can see myself, and it has helped me to say what I want to say in paint.” While O’Keefe’s work contrasted that of the abstract expressionists of her time period, many loved her simple ideas and often feminist approach. Although some believe that one should look strictly at an artists’ work, it is also necessary to look at their lives to see their inspiration.

In an article from the New York Times, Jed Perl addresses an author’s biography on O’Keefe by arguing that a student should concentrate strictly on the meaning of an artists’ painting. Yet one can certainly see that once O’Keefe moved to New Mexico, her paintings reflected her love of the land there. We see in O’Keefe’s early works still-lifes of the cities and places she lived. It is quite obvious O’Keefe drew inspiration from her surroundings and beliefs. Her strong feminist opinions are certainly reflected in her flower paintings like Petunia, Pansy, Iris, and Iris, which are for what she is most known. She began her “flower phase” the winter after she pressed into marrying Stieglitz. “As Hunter Drohojowska-Philp makes clear in her biography, O'Keeffe was exceedingly sensitive to her shifting critical fortunes” (Perl, 1). Perl’s thesis seems to be that Drohojowska-Philp gets bogged down in the personal accounts and affairs of O’Keefe’s life and never really seems to focus directly on her artwork (Perl, 1). While I have not read Philp’s account of O’Keefe’s life, I can say that it is my opinion that an artist’s life and background plays a major part in assessing their artwork. Although, Perl may be correct in his review of this particular book and Philp’s account may be horrible, Perl comes across as believing an artist’s experiences (affairs, marriage, life after the death of a spouse), did not affect the paintings of Georgia O’Keefe.

“Artistic invention and psychological self-invention were so tightly lashed together that the biographer who attempts to separate them runs the risk of diminishing the artist” (Perl, 2). It is obvious that Perl thinks O’Keefe’s imagery came from within herself and “psychological self-invention,” that her experiences never altered her state of psyche. Most people interpret her paintings as a portrayal of women’s sexuality. “Yet O'Keeffe clearly understood that her studies of growth and decay -- the luxuriant flowers, the parched bones, the canyons with their geological layerings and wind- and water-shaped rocks -- were reflections of her own evolution” (Perl, 2). To assess O’Keefe’s feelings while she painted each textured piece of art seems unfair, but since art is left up to one’s own interpretation it is only fair that we take into account the entirety of people’s assessments. It is obvious to me that O’Keefe’s husbands’ affair with a younger, well-to-do women, Dorothy Norman, could have been the spawn of her professed and expressed feminism, appearing in her paintings of flora; however, we do not know for sure. We can also see that when O’Keefe moved to New Mexico after her husband’s death her inspiration was shifted to the New Mexican landscapes (Ranchos Church, Ramshead with Hollyhock, and View from My Studio). “The work is mythologized autobiography, and a biographer like Drohojowska-Philp, who examines the life behind the fantasy, can leave us feeling that the artist has been sadly diminished” (Perl, 3). To say that exploring inspiration for artwork by looking at an artist’s life is diminishing seems a bit harsh. We have to explore all the possibilities of an artists’ inspiration to become fully aware of who they are and why they are painting.

The beauty of art lies in interpretation, but sometimes we delve so far into an artists work that we miss the true beauty. We, as observers, will never fully grasp the entire meaning of a painting, but we do try. It is for certain, in my opinion, that an artists’ life is a strong basis for their work. While Perl believed it “diminished” who the artist was, I believe it helps us understand. Either way, O’Keefe’s artwork is some of my favorite and her real idealism captures the world in which she lived through paintings with beautiful chromatic technique.

Works Cited:

Perl, Jed. "Flower Power." The New York Times 26 Sep. 2004: 1-3. The New York Times Previous Papers. Meredith Cook. Retrieval 9 Apr. 2007 .