Aug 17, 2011
Southport El Platform
Returning to the studio after some period of neglect is just like an athlete returning to training after being sedentary. Gestural strokes are hard: my forearm is weak and my endurance for more than 2 or 3 hours at the studio is pathetic. But, I just have to work through that and get myself back in shape. My brain knows how to do things but the coordination and muscle memory are a little slow to cooperate. Even though I can not paint every day (as I would like) I do find that I am always looking at the world as a painter and that store of information becomes a resource when I am back behind the easel. Light, shadow, color, shapes – how these things can be built up in paint is always on my mind.
Maybe that’s why being a web designer is generally unsatisfying to me - there is nothing real, it is all flat. Art may be an “illusion” but design I find very analytical – and, probably most significantly, design is always created for a particular audience. It has to be tailored to their needs and expectations. With painting, it only matters what I think (and the artist must be completely honest with themselves because we will often try to be lazy and get by on what comes more easily).
The difference between painting and design is not that one is work – they are both “work”. I don’t paint for fun or leisure or to “express” myself. Self-expression without intent is meaningless (witness the plethora of personal blogs, hobbists encouraged by friends/family to exhibit in cafes, to write poetry and create photo-albums on Flickr). Good and thoughtful design is an essential part of painting. It is the structure that allows for the communication of the Big Idea. But, design by itself is not necessarily “art”.
I know all creative activities are supposed to be “art” these days: cooking (culinary artist), crafting, design and architecture (which now have their own exhibit halls in art museums). But, they just aren’t. Art is a spiritual thing – it is more than the sum of its parts. It is not always efficient or useful – but it is always moving, thought-provoking and very real.
Sep 03, 2011 @ 06:09:53
What’s up with the 4 Southports? Girl on (my) left has blue streak in later images…But #4 looks like final for guy with glasses, but not for lady to his right…?
Sep 03, 2011 @ 10:09:40
These are all photos from an in-progress painting – the two figures on far right are complete in the most recent one. Maybe I’ll make this a slideshow again.
Sep 03, 2011 @ 06:12:22
“Art is a spiritual thing – it is more than the sum of its parts. It is not always efficient or useful – but it is always moving, thought-provoking and very real.” This was the upshot of the major painting esthetisists (actually good) at my college art/esthetcs/philosophy class. However, I subsequntly wrote a paper saying that there was no difference between a (some) child’s drawing and one by Paul Klee…..!
Sep 03, 2011 @ 10:14:21
What was your argument? There are similarities in the process – the trust in the imagination – BUT for me the difference is always the intent of the artist. Whatever style the artist might adopt, whether seemingly childlike or simple like Joan Miro, Paul Klee and, of course, Jackson Pollack – it took them a long time to get there. Finding simplicity is actually very hard, you have to be able to think critically, to take away leaving only the essentials. I believe that children would keep drawing on the same piece of paper but they learn to stop because the teacher or adult edits for them – takes the paper away and praises their “complete” work.