1.) An answer for countless viewers who have remarked that I certainly painted a lot of different subjects. Now I had a way to tie many of them together.
2.) A better understanding of my artistic hard-wiring, which
a.) I can use on occasion to find what I want to paint faster and more easily
b.) In a purely narcissistic way—a fascinating (to me) fact about myself, of which, after all these decades I had been unaware.
Every piece I do does not feature white on a color field, but now when it happens, I smile to myself and recognize it as another chapter in my love affair with this combination.
If you feel there may be a hidden theme in your work, or some unrecognized essence, or you wonder how all your painting threads connect, I have a suggestion: block out some time for a lunch with a savvy artist friend and leisurely peruse each other’s portfolios. A fresh eye and a frank discussion may uncover a powerful current flowing just under the surface of your paintings.
Style
What is FINE art?
Keith Bond, fine landscape painter at www.keithbond.com, has raised several interesting questions for artists in his recent post regarding “Fine Art v. Illustration.”
The question that Keith raises, though, “What is Fine Art, Anyway?” is an important question for all artists to answer, I believe, because all artists who are working seriously—and seriously working—very much want to produce art that is truly “fine.” The dictionary defines “Fine Art” as that which is “produced for beauty rather than utility.” Wow, if we take that definition as gospel, that definitely undersells some of the most magnificent illustrations from the course of human history that have been created for books, churches, posters, hymnals, and advertisements. Just to mention a few, consider those “fine” illustrations from the body of work of such greats as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Gustave Doré, and Rick Griffin (The Bible ) N.C. Wyeth ( Last of the Mohicans, Treasure Island), Howard Pyle (Robin Hood, King Arthur), Rockwell Kent (Moby Dick), Norman Rockwell (“The Four Freedoms,” “The Problem We All Live With”). Even my favorite artists, who probably created the first profession known to man, the cave artists (Lascaux, Altamira, the Magdalenians) might have been creating their art for utility—hunting and animal worship—or not. Perhaps it was the beauty of the forms themselves that captured their imagination, which in turn inspired them to capture that beauty in charcoal.
From the enduring quality of these artworks, it would appear that all those artists mentioned above—whose works were “illustrations” for definite purposes of dissemination—were intent on creating beauty within and emanating from those artworks, which then became “useful” (having a broad impact and appeal) as much as they were truly “beautiful.” How could those artists have captured the beauty of human form, its costume, the elegant turn of a whale’s fin, the power of a bison’s charge, unless they, too, had—as is very evident in Keith Bond’s work—“a reverence for the world in which we live”—and a spirit of both “exploration and veneration.” In my own work, I am also hoping that that same spirit of reverence for creation and its Creator is both alive and evident.
Fine artists learn the foundational skills of effective design, composition, color choice and more because they know that those artistic choices, when effectively employed, will create symbolism, evoke emotion, and convey meaning. It is the constant honing of their craft that will produce “fine” works of art that will inspire and impact an audience, whether the channel for that art is a painting, a book, a sculpture, or an advertisement. “Fine” art is simply that which is finely expressed and executed.
Thanks, Keith, for your post. It helped me to answer some of my own questions about what I am doing , and further clarify in my own mind why the arts and dedicated artists—“fine,” illustrators, or otherwise—are all invaluable to our culture, and to our civilization.
The Technique of Honesty
As artists we all long to convey with truth what we observe before us, what catches our breath and our attention. I’ve always believed that painting is an outward expression and visual record of what we are paying attention to in life. It can be as grand as a complex inspiration that comes forth from our imagination or as simple as an observational response to color, light and form. It can be capturing the essence of a person or place you love or an introspective feeling within yourself.
I find painting from life to be a balance of analytical observation and intuitive response. Establishing the essential structural forms, maintaining a hierarchy of elements and harmonizing that which is being emotionally conveyed in the moment.
Being attentive to the subtle honesty of emotion resonating from the person being painted and the response that we bring as the artists, all the while harnessing our tools at hand in the form of pigments and brushstrokes, is what makes painting from life so enthralling. Even when painting a landscape we are dealing with life caught in a moment, a moment that will never be the same again and that too has palpable honest emotion that we hope to imbue the painting with.
It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.
– Henry David Thoreau
When teaching, aside from value and color, one of the most important aspects that I am constantly reminding students of is to be aware of what they are holding in their minds during the process of painting. We all know to keep our palettes clean and avoid muddy color, but oftentimes the challenge lies in avoiding muddy thoughts while painting. Thoughts like, “I hope I don’t mess this up”, “I’m frustrated” or “I can’t get this right”, etc.
We all, as artists, go through a gambit of emotions while painting; if those thoughts and beliefs about what you are doing (or attempting to do) are muddy with negativity, your painting will reflect that.
As Robert Henri said in the book The Art Spirit:
The brush stroke at the moment of contact carries inevitably the exact state of being of the artist at that exact moment into the work, and there it is, to be seen and read by those who can read such signs, and to be read later by the artist himself, with perhaps some surprise, as a revelation of himself. For an artist to be interesting to us he must have been interesting to himself. He must have been capable of intense feeling, and capable of profound concentration. He who has contemplated has met himself, is in a state to see into the realities beyond the surface of his subject. Nature reveals to him, and seeing and feeling intensely, he paints, and whether he wills it or not each brush stroke is an exact record of such as he was at the exact moment the stroke was made.
I’ve realized now, that as important as the fundamentals of painting are and while they must be practiced regularly with vigor and attentiveness, the strongest technique is honesty in all veins. Honesty to what is being observed, looking for truth in shapes and color temperatures and how they relate, but also being honest to how I am responding to what I’m seeing and bringing to the moment myself as the artist. As I explained once to a class of portrait painters, you cannot paint a portrait of someone with a soft ethereal expression on their face by angrily painting with a furrowed brow yourself. What you are choosing to embody will always show up onto the canvas… you must embody that which you wish to convey.
This quote hangs in my studio as a reminder:
Seek patience and passion in equal amounts. Patience alone will not build the temple. Passion alone will destroy its walls.
– Maya Angelou
I remind students in my workshops, “there is no one in history who has the same exact sensitivities as you… what are you bringing to the painting session? How do YOU see? Let that honesty be your strongest ‘technique.'” Learn the ABC’s of painting — drawing value, composition, color and edges — but then write your novel with paint.
Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?
~ Mary Oliver (American Poet)
Personalities and Temperaments in Art
Do Artists’ Personalities and Temperaments dictate the Styles and Subjects they choose to express themselves?
I usually do not think about things like this question on a daily basis, unless it comes up in a discussion. I am not a big fan of over analyzing and over thinking reasons for painting certain things. I usually prefer to react to the subject and be as honest as I possibly can and let it be what it will be. When I was asked to contribute to this blog, I tossed around a few thoughts and came up with a question that has come up before, and some of this I have skirted around on my own blog.
I have had this conversation with artist friends and particularly students in classes and workshops many times in the past, as well as very recently. I truly believe that painters, like me, who paint an array of subject matter, and work in a particular manner, do so because of a personality, or temperament need to do so. I also find it interesting that some artists are drawn to a varied , and very eclectic subject matter, while others are perfectly content to explore only one subject…..different temperaments and personalities…..I believe.
I personally choose to paint as directly as I possibly can, because I believe my temperament/personality dictates it. I am by my definition, somewhat impatient….. I guess. I feel as though I want to see things happen very quickly in the beginning of a painting. Then, there seems to be a time to slow it up a bit….. unless I plan to complete the painting in one session…..but always being deliberate and doing my best to avoid time consuming errors, which seem to inevitably occur. Some artists work on a painting over a long period of time. They glaze and layer paint. They do not mind a slower process….. and some even relish this method of working. This is a choice based on temperament or personality. There is no one best way to paint a painting. Beautiful paintings result from a multitude of styles and approaches. Over the years, I have tried many, and possibly all methods of applying paint to surfaces, and I still remain open to the possibilities in this never ending learning process called painting. I know artists who have painted in a particular way that was easy, or seemed natural for them, and were apparently never happy painting in that manner. They are now making changes, and pursuing a different path with their work. This is in my opinion, a temperament/personality decision. Many artists from my generation, including myself, made their living in the early years as illustrators painting things and solving other’s problems that might not have necessarily been their personal choice of things to paint. Sometimes one does what they have to do at that point in time. Sometimes pressures, be they economics, providing for family, etc., forces one to make concessions and one is forced off of their desired path in art.
This style or manner of working discussion is also important in regards to what is taught in workshops, painting classes, etc. Many workshops and classes on painting teach, or try to teach a style, technique, or manner rather than stressing good principals. I think this might be, in my opinion, a disservice to the student. One size does not fit all in painting. Everyone wants to be an individual, and should. I believe one’s own style evolves out of practicing good solid principals of painting. Again, addressing the topic issue, one chooses a method that suits one’s own temperament, not that of an instructor. The instructor’s responsibility is to open up the possibilities with choices…..in my opinion.
The eclectic subjects some artists, like myself, choose as opposed to those who paint only one subject and are known for that subject alone is a choice based on ones temperament/personality. I love painting certain subjects possibly more so than others….for instance, I probably would choose the figure over a still life, but I would not want to be limited to just figurative paintings. That is in my opinion, a personality/temperament choice. Eclectic subject can possibly have a consequence. Not sticking with one subject, that an audience can identify an artist with, can make it more difficult to become known broadly for painting that one subject. I personally would find it maddening to have to get up every day and paint the same thing or subject. I can only speak for myself when it comes to this or any matter that has to do with painting. Many artists probably do not feel that way….and that is wonderful. It certainly would be less interesting if everyone had the same attitude towards everything. This again speaks to the topic issue, temperament/personality.
The aspects of an artist’s life that are effected by this issue are far reaching….. another example is how some artists have tidy, neat, everything in it’s place organized studio spaces, while others like me, are borderline slobs, and seem to be able to function, and are reasonably comfortable in messy studios spaces that might not be acceptable to some. I had an artist friend back in the illustration days who would not come past the doorway of my studio. The mess of reference books and files spread across the studio floor that I functioned in was disturbing to his sensibility toward neatness and organization. This is a personality trait of this particular artist. I was perfectly content being on the messy side of it.
I think many artists paint what they are comfortable painting. Most do not go out of their comfort zone regularly. This is also a personality/temperament issue. I like to think that I take some risk, and wish I were even more adventurous, when it comes to trying new things. One of my favorite contemporary painters, Quang Ho OPAM, is a great example. He is a great painter, and also a fearless experimenter. He not only paints a varied subject, but he takes it further by continuing to experiment with his work, as it relates to paint application and things of that nature. He successfully does this while remaining a traditional, representational painter. I hope that I never lose that desire to shake it up every now and then….. even if it is just a little bit. That is my main reason for not painting only one subject. I think by being interested in a variety of subjects, it possibly keeps one fresh and keeps one from relying to much on tried and proven solutions. To some degree, one must do what they know will get the job done, but one does not want it to become familiar to the point of it being a formula.
Unfortunately, in many cases, the fine art market chooses what subjects some artists paint, and in some cases how they paint. To a great degree, it is subject driven. There will always be those who want to categorize artists by subjects they paint. I still believe and hope that good painting is appreciated by those who recognize it, no matter what the subject or style.
I am honored to have had the opportunity to participate in this Oil Painters of America Blog. This post is my own personal observation of an aspect of painting that I find interesting, and does not reflect that of the OPA, or any universal opinion or idea about this subject. Thanks for reading this blog post and feel free to comment or express your views.
Best regards to all, and paint what you want, not what someone else wants!
How deep is your space?
At one of my always stimulating dinners with my late friend Zyg Jankowski, he said to me that the first decision a painter has to make about his work is a spacial one: how “deep” do you want to make the picture? John Carlson felt that every foot into nature counted; Ed Whiney had no interest in such realistic depth and recommended a student plan the composition on-site but walk around a corner to paint it. Over the years, I’ve been schizophrenic about the question. Under Emile Gruppe’s tutelage, I naturally followed Carlson’s path. Later, I experimented with a flatter approach , one which, carried to an extreme, can make the subject disappear in a series of flat planes.
Note: for a further discussion of these points, check out YouTube: