The painting that illustrates this post shouldn't work, but it does, not unlike many Japanese prints which are a jumble of patterns and colors which somehow align or coalesce into a coherent, satisfying whole. Partly it's due to the artist knowing what he's doing and having the corresponding skills, rather than flailing about or winging it hoping to get lucky. Partly it's coming from and being part of something--a culture, a tradition, a sensibility. And partly it's talent or aptitude or fitness for the job, which must always start with an innate quality which cannot be acquired, only developed.
It's really a fine piece. Darby was such a great composer. I'm encouraging anyone who can to acquire these paintings from the 2000s and 2010s before they're more widely discovered.
On your Artblog once upon a time, Bannard asserted, with certain, shall we say, language, something to the effect that a painting is only about itself. It reminded me of Whistler's Ten O'Clocks wherein he espoused "Art fort Art's Sake". I don't agree, but Bannard was so adamant that, as much as I enjoyed his contributions to our yacks, pursuing it would likely have led to an impasse. We don't agree, what the hell? In a recent conversation with a photographer who maintained that depiction is the point, I replied that the arrangement is what stays with the viewer. Pick a subject, theme, whatever. The treatment of the subject, theme, whatever, results in an arrangement of line form, color, pattern, texture, etc.. That's what the viewer takes away. Throw a bunch of flowers in a coffee can. Then arrange them in a vase. Which will you remember? Examples relying on the arrangement way more than on the depiction: Lascaux caves. Puossin, Massacre of the Innocents. Delacroix, Liberty Leading The People. De Kooning, the Woman paintings. Actually, all great art. Teaching: Get out of their way. Be available for questions because they see you as an available source. Can art be taught, or learned? Just now, the latter. Mentorship and apprenticeship are now appropriate and useful. Making art: I was over at my next door neighbors' home, and one of their boys, about 4 years old, took me upstairs to play with his cars. He started moving things around and you could see that whatever he did told him what he might do next. Help it be rather than make it be, or at least as much as make it be. Trying to per se make it be is vanity. Watch and let it tell you. Once, on a bicycle ride with his mother, she asked about inspiration. I replied, what if the light bulb never came on? She asked, then where do ideas come from? I, remembering my time with her son, replied, "Getting busy." Just doing things starts the fountain flowing. Then, the challenge is to keep up with the flow, and I never can come anywhere close to doing so.
The painting that illustrates this post shouldn't work, but it does, not unlike many Japanese prints which are a jumble of patterns and colors which somehow align or coalesce into a coherent, satisfying whole. Partly it's due to the artist knowing what he's doing and having the corresponding skills, rather than flailing about or winging it hoping to get lucky. Partly it's coming from and being part of something--a culture, a tradition, a sensibility. And partly it's talent or aptitude or fitness for the job, which must always start with an innate quality which cannot be acquired, only developed.
It's really a fine piece. Darby was such a great composer. I'm encouraging anyone who can to acquire these paintings from the 2000s and 2010s before they're more widely discovered.
On your Artblog once upon a time, Bannard asserted, with certain, shall we say, language, something to the effect that a painting is only about itself. It reminded me of Whistler's Ten O'Clocks wherein he espoused "Art fort Art's Sake". I don't agree, but Bannard was so adamant that, as much as I enjoyed his contributions to our yacks, pursuing it would likely have led to an impasse. We don't agree, what the hell? In a recent conversation with a photographer who maintained that depiction is the point, I replied that the arrangement is what stays with the viewer. Pick a subject, theme, whatever. The treatment of the subject, theme, whatever, results in an arrangement of line form, color, pattern, texture, etc.. That's what the viewer takes away. Throw a bunch of flowers in a coffee can. Then arrange them in a vase. Which will you remember? Examples relying on the arrangement way more than on the depiction: Lascaux caves. Puossin, Massacre of the Innocents. Delacroix, Liberty Leading The People. De Kooning, the Woman paintings. Actually, all great art. Teaching: Get out of their way. Be available for questions because they see you as an available source. Can art be taught, or learned? Just now, the latter. Mentorship and apprenticeship are now appropriate and useful. Making art: I was over at my next door neighbors' home, and one of their boys, about 4 years old, took me upstairs to play with his cars. He started moving things around and you could see that whatever he did told him what he might do next. Help it be rather than make it be, or at least as much as make it be. Trying to per se make it be is vanity. Watch and let it tell you. Once, on a bicycle ride with his mother, she asked about inspiration. I replied, what if the light bulb never came on? She asked, then where do ideas come from? I, remembering my time with her son, replied, "Getting busy." Just doing things starts the fountain flowing. Then, the challenge is to keep up with the flow, and I never can come anywhere close to doing so.
Ooh goody! Looking (Listening?) forward to this...