A Van Gogh exhibit brought this to mind...should unfinished work be considered private, or fair game? Does the cultural significance of the artist change your answer?
When I reflect on this question, I think about Beethoven and his unfinished 9th symphony. This piece of art is still performed and identified as such. When we do the work on our artwork pieces, we are expressing who we are. Is there anyone out there who is already perfect or are you still growing too?
It’s such a thoughtful question about displaying unfinished work after an artist’s passing. I’ve always felt that even incomplete pieces carry a part of the artist’s story and soul, almost like a glimpse into their creative journey that wasn’t meant to be hidden. It’s powerful to think about how those unfinished moments can still connect us to the person behind the art.
The way Margie shares Chris’s dedication and his passion for teaching really highlights the beautiful legacy artists leave through their process and community connections! Keeping those rough sketches is such a wonderful way to honor his journey and inspire future artists.
What's that quote? Art is never finished, only abandoned? I think it's great to show the process, but people should know that the artist thought the piece wasn't ready yet.
I believe it is acceptable. The first artists that come to mind are Leonardo and Michelangelo. Being able to see their creation process is a great blessing, not to mention educational.
I agree that it should be first left up to the artist, and secondly to the family to whom the body of work was willed. I do think there is great value in seeing and learning from the process of an artist, and unfinished work might hopefully be presented as us "A Process Piece." To me, knowing an artist's process, including sketchbooks and journals as well as rough drafts and artist notes, provide an authentic history and glimpse into the heart and journey of an artist, which can be really fascinating both to us artists, but also those who want to understand how such creativity is born from an individual.
If I’m dead I don’t care whether my paintings done or not. I’m sure if it comes down to financial gain for whomever is in charge of my estate they will choose money . People in the United States are consumed with greed and money
I share my process on Facebook and Instagram. I have posted the art piece I am working on and planning today to post painting completed and share now I am living with it so I can observe if anything else is needed. I think viewers and collectors like seeing the process of a painting that they enjoy and hearing the story from the artist.
It’s up to the artist. But I think it’s a great way for all of us to share bits of our process without giving away the store so to speak. I feel like being willing to share only endears you more to your followers.
Yes, I think so. It's a great way for students to learn about the processes. The artist used. Personally, I love learning about the techniques and processes an artist used.
I think it would be interesting if an artist had a well-defined process. I think in my case, someone may mistakenly present something as unfinished that I believed to be completed or that i had run aground (just couldn't quite capture what I intended). If art is to draw discussion and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I do not think it would hurt. The artist is dead and has no opinion.
I think unfinished work is important. We have examples of great paintings hanging in museums to view, objective aspects of each - the colors, brush strokes, design, materials, and even a little text about the historic period, and the artists intent. But the artist is more than the painting and more than the museum shows.
An artist needs to practice their craft not many can create a master piece first time they pick up their tools. If we are lucky enough to see how they came to create the painting, we can learn more about the artist. We can learn more about the craft.
I went to an R. Crumb exhibit in LA area of California in the early 70's. I really loved his cartoons. I was trying to be a cartoonist at the time. When I did, the exhibit had a lot of his work that were not cartoons. He had some pen and inks that were amazing, and very traditional in style. He had drawings, and paintings that were beautiful. I saw that a cartoonist didn't just happened. It took a lot of work, and in Crumbs case, drawing and painting traditionally were the foundation.
A few years ago, in DC at one of the Smithsonian Museums, I was fortunate to see the Edvard Munch exhibit. The body of work that was shown, was not just the popular culture pieces. It showed studies and old work. There was a period of learning his trade, then a period when self expression came about in color choice and subject. I've read about some of his paintings, The Cry, in particular, and how that came about. I find it really helps me understand my craft better if I see another painter's body of work.
The body of work an artist has, shows me the journey of creative thought, and the hand eye coordination needed draw it out and make it materialize. I started reading about the work and that adds another layer of knowing about it. So when I read Taylor Snople's contribution to this community, about Van Gogh, I just had to comment.
When I was studing graphic art in Philadelphia, i would walk to the Phila. Museum of Art. They have a great collection of impressionists, Annenberg (Spelled wrong) collection. I would skip classes and spend hours walking from one painting to another to stare at it. the brush strokes, the colors. The content. I was in love with Van Gogh's night scenes and the one with the pool table. He just saw lights like i did. i made a note of his pallet-what i remembered. I never could copy what he did. i wanted immediate master piece. I learned from making messes, to stumbling into things that worked and didn't. I like to see that other painters did too.
Later I was introduced to Van Gogh's letters to his brother. This was another perspective on his creative journey. i wonder what his work would have ooked like if he lived longer and had some commercial success.
In conclusion, when an artist dies young, people may wonder what they would have been doing if they lived longer. To find work that was undone, is like finding a rare jewel in the city dump. it can give yet another view into what he was about. I am so glad Mrs Van Gogh, Vincent's sister in law, valued his paintings enough so that they are still in existence. What a horrible tragedy to think they could have all been thrown out. Makes me wonder what lost treasures have been lost due to an historical opinion on economics and aesthetics.
That's another topic.
The question of displaying unfinished work is one every artist's estate faces. Honoring both the creative process and the artist's intent is what separates a meaningful legacy from exploitation.
The way I look at it, we wouldn’t know Vincent Van Gough if it hadn’t happened. A person’s unfinished or undisplayed art is very telling of who the artist truly was.
The unfinished work is often more revealing than the finished piece. You can see the decisions being made in real time. But that only matters if the artist would have been OK with people seeing behind the curtain. Cultural significance should not override personal wishes.
I certainly do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this question.
Or maybe it's just that you have to ask a lot more questions to answer this question.
Who is displaying it?
Is it the artist's family? A close friend?
Basically someone who is likely to know what the artist wanted?
Why and where are they displaying it?
It's a big difference if someone was really excited about working on a piece and you know they wanted it to be shown when it was finished and then something happened to the artist before it could be finished, versus someone who knows that the artist didn't like a piece they were working on and that has something to do with why they never finished it.
And if the artist passed away and they were really dedicated to a certain cause and maybe this piece could be auctioned to benefit that cause? Maybe it was even on that theme?
There's a lot of factors that like I said no one size fits all answer absolutely no way there's a one size fits all answer to this question.
I think, seeing work in progress from an artist like Van Gogh or Michelangelo or Caravaggio can help us understand their process and learn from them. It is amount in time, a moment in their life that has been frozen for us.
With music it is more difficult, I think. But maybe that is only because I do not know anything about creating music.
I am writing on behalf of my husband Chris McClelland, Wildprints who draws in great detail. He does a rough sketch of his montage drawings so he can see how the placement works and whether he should move things along or up and down so it looks okay. He then starts on a drawing and it can take up to 300 hours to complete. I have all his roughs of his African animals which he does the same process. I have kept all of his rough sketches thinking they might prove valuable in years to come. He teaches students at the local school the art of drawing. He has visitors into the Gallery asking about his techniques and he willingly helps them.
The question of whether an artist’s unfinished work should be displayed after their death is complicated, but I believe it should not. An unfinished piece is not simply “in progress” — it is a private moment in the artist’s evolution, something they never chose to release or define as part of their legacy. When we look at the great masters of the past, we value their completed works because those are the pieces they intentionally shaped, refined, and deemed worthy of the world. We’re not teaching a class or offering a behind‑the‑scenes lesson in process; we’re presenting a body of work meant to stand on its own. For that reason, an artist’s legacy should be built on what they finished, what they approved, and what they consciously offered — not on fragments that were never meant to speak for them.
i agree, the kernel of an artist's work is in the approach. And should that piece be below par for the artist, then it demonstrates their earned prowess in other work. Hopefully finished work is also shown.
Cultural significance is important, but if the gallery wants to exhibit and the Artist’s estate approves, why not? All art is far game.
I agree that after the artist is gone his art process or technical mastery could bee shown. Also it gives a sense of how the artist felt in their life at the time. Who knows what they were thinking about.
It may show a mood at the time that all other finneshed works didn't.
I think it should be up to the family or other folks who represent the artist. Selfishly I think it would be great.
There have been many musicians who's unfinished work became some of the best. (Jimmy Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn come to mind). I think this is a decision left to the artist themselves - and many times that comes down to a legal issue. Did the artist "gift" their collection, finished and unfinished to a person in their estate plan? Did the artist have a personal feeling about this that was expressed somewhere (preferably in writing)?
Having removed all of legal issues from consideration, how does the family feel? Is this something they feel would further the artists goals?
I am not Van Gogh by any stretch of the imagination but if my family wants to display anything I have finished or unfinished and it brings them comfort - go for it. I won't be here to object. 😀
Good answer it’s up to the family or to whomever the artist decides. In NYC I saw such unfinished works and it didn’t bother me. But my opinion from an artist viewpoint is that I wouldn’t want someone who had no authority to display my unfinished works.
Absolutely agree.