Thursday, July 19, 2018

The subject of the painting

Painting an image of an object is, to my eyes, one of the more mundane acts a painter can do. Yes, I know the challenge of likeness and degree of "realism" is of extreme value, but the image stops at the recognition of the subject. There may be an implied narrative or psychological response to the image of an object but is that enough?
Painting a thing (an object stripped of its function or memory) is more interesting. The viewing experience engages more perceptual modes of the viewer; if the brain can't codify/recognize what you are looking at, it's going to keep trying to find a "meaning." This act alone can last for many seconds longer than looking at an image of an object (our brain are very adept at recognizing things). The delay in being able to name the thing might trigger thoughts about the colour, forms, paint, and other material/physical aspects of the painting.

Which is more interesting?


Credit unknown


Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Is an image of a thing enough

 . . . to stir us?
We sleepwalking autopilots.
What does stir us?
The extraordinary (I love that word; so ordinary it becomes special)
The present is extraordinary
How can art . . . how can painting reflect that?
Is it possible to create a deep, meaningful experience, a slow releasing connection in a world of surface, screens, and instant gratification?

I believe in the poetry of the hand.
The touch of the artist.
This, in some ways, is the connection.

The mark is the artist's hand made visible.

I want to convey the small, incremental moments of life/time.
Life is not all grand gestures and drama.
It is made from the slow build-up of moments.