I'm an artist living in Philadelphia, PA, and have studied art at City College of San Francisco,
University of California at Berkeley and Cornell University. I spent my early years as an abstract artist.
I loved the freedom of expression that abstraction offered. About 1990 however I became disillusioned with the
direction of the fine art world. I didn't really see a place for me in it as I predicted where it would go: mainly ideas,
verbiage, but little visual substance. I have nothing against ideas. I just don't think history shows that they've ever
been of any significance in art. Good art is not idea based. I turned to naturalistic work in 2006. In late 2011 I started
to meet with some sucess with this work. I was chosen for 'The Natural Eye', the 48th exhibit of the Society of Wildlife
Artists in London, UK. In early 2011 I was a finalist in the 'International Artist' category for BBC's Wildlife Artist of the Year.
My current work is naturalistic. Almost all of my work since late 2006 is based on birds that I've
seen. This is both an outgrowth of my longtime interest in birds and nature and a reaction against the
contemporary art world and its emphasis on verbiage and ideas. This is not to say that there aren't some very good
artists working, including friends of mine. It's just that most of the art that seemed to get the attention of the high-art
establishment over at least the last 20-30 years seemed vapid, intellectually both haughty and hollow. Work from nature
seemed, at least in potential, far more honest, felt and rewarding. Working from nature of course is a big IDEA in and of
itself. But it's one that seems anathema to the art world establishment. I hate to use the word 'establishment' because
it sounds too conspiratorial. I'd say rather that the art world, by which I mean museums, magazines and galleries, seems
stuck in an obsolete and atrophied paradigm. This paradigm is one of idea-based art. Art deserves and eventually gets
something better than stale paradigms.
For years I had had it in the back of my mind, especially as I spent more time outside both birding
and fishing, that I'd like to work with nature. I knew that this would be difficult but I also knew of
great artists like Durer, Courbet and Homer who had used nature as subject. In the high-art world there
was also the stigma of any type of nature-based, especially 'wildlife', art being a lower form of art.
As Robert Bateman said there was art based on nature and then there was 'Art with a capital A.' He said that
referring to the art world of his youth. But it still holds true today. Wildlife art is not considered to be
art with a capital A. And I found that I really didn't like much of the so-called 'wildlife art' that I saw.
Still much of it seemed more honest, more truthful to human experience than much of the trendy high-art that I was seeing.
Only at the beginning of 2011 did I read something by the sculptor Kent Ullberg that said what I thought about
wildife art: he felt about Great Blue Herons what Matisse must have felt about the female torso. In an age of
such strong concern about nature and the environment it should only be natural for ambitious artists to use nature
as their subject.
During the early 1990s I did very little artwork outside of detailed pen and ink drawings of local
insects that I'd found. I put them under a dissecting microscope to draw them in detail. Originally
this was for identification purposes. But it also led me away from abstraction and toward representation.
Eventualy I decided I would direct my attention to naturalistic art. This was a big jump for me. I decided
to start with birds, mainly because I spent so much time looking at them already. I also had lost the
large live-in studio that I'd used for my abstract work. That made large oils more difficult. But I did
have one room in my house that would certainly work for drawings. I also realized it would work for watercolors.
So I could continue to paint but it wouldn't need to be on such a large scale as my older abstract work.
This didn't bother me though. There seems less need to make naturalistic work large, John Constable not withstanding.
Though my first naturalistic work was more tentative than I'd like this tentativeness was most likely because
I felt a need to be true to birds, to not start taking stylistic shortcuts and liberties without really
understanding them. I didn't want them to be mannequins to hang paintings on. Since late 2009 I've felt
more comfortable both with birds and with watercolor. Watercolor was a new medium for me. As I've worked in it
over the last five plus years I've continually wanted to be more expressive with it as I used to be
with my abstract oils and acrylics. I think that finally started to occur in late 2009. I've also
spent more time with charcoal and pastel. I'm also more comfortable using those media expressively. In late 2010
I also took up relief printing especially linocut printing. In late 201l I returned to acrylic painting for the first time in
more than 25 years. It's hard to believe, five years after I started, the transformation I've made from an abstract artist
to a representational, naturalistic artist. In retrospect it seems both a bold and a smart step.
I'm happy with my development. And I'm particularly happy to be portraying what I love. I'd much rather be painting what I
love than trying to paint some convoluted idea.
Most works are for sale. Most of my recent naturalistic works are available at my online store. Some of my abstract drawings are also for sale there. For all other work please address all inquiries to me at Ken Januski. The links in left column lead you to more examples of my work. Sketches as well as my thoughts on art, birds, and nature can be found on my blog.