Working towards the essential
Posted by William Reese at 4/7/2008 8:10 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
It seems to me the goals of most beginning painters center more on absolute reality than on the poetic essential. Probably because that is what seems the most difficult and maybe at one time it was and people always admire what looks difficult. The looser styles look easy to the entrained eye so I suppose it is only natural that they would be drawn to the tighter work because that is what they would try to paint if they could paint. The other reason is more likely because of our left brained educational systen leaving us only to recognize absolute reality. Back in the days when there were no computers and cameras, it would seem that this would be very difficult and there fore admirable. In those days grid frames placed between the model and the artist with their complicated string grid lines as well as the Camera Lucida among other tools were used to capture this heightened sense of realism. Three to five hundred years ago art had a different function especially painting is was really more a craft with a more utilitarian function, portraiture and storytelling to be exact.
Today we have so many tools at hand that exact likenesses are much easier in fact so much easier that most of the artists that I know aren't really interested in it. To reach the level that the old masters, achieved is still dificult don't get me wrong, but to reach the level that is called realism today is very easy and can be mastered in short order. Witness the flood of 25 and 30 year old "geniuses" we see in the magazines that paint so tight that you can almost see the dandruff on the collar. Then ask your self why the more mature artists are painting in a looser fashion. Often times they may look tight but look closer and you will see most of the detail is implied and not painted at all.
What is difficult and will take a life time to perfect is a painting or sculpture that rings like a bell or sings like a song. To make art that is more like music we need to start thinking of ways to capture more of the essence of what we see. Taking a hair census or capturing the glimmering highlight of a million seed beads on a pair of moccasins does not seem essential to me. The old saying, "can't see the forest for the trees", furnishes a clue if you can't see the forest for the trees; you are not seeing the essential. The forest is essential the trees incidental. The forest is the shape of form and the trees are only the variegation or sub shapes within the form and the leaves are the texture. The pattern the beads are making is the essential the beads are the incidental, or texture if you will. Now this represents a relationship you can paint as loose or as tight as you wish but this relationship must remain, from the dominance of the essential to the sub dominance of the incidental to the sub ordinance of the texture. No matter to what degree you carry the detail it should always be secondary to the pattern. The form is what is important not the story.
It only makes sense to me that the art should have enough integrity to allow the medium used do what it does best In other words using oil to be a second rate photograph or oil paint to be used to replicate a mediocre watercolor serves no purpose other than to be seen as a gimmick.
I do however feel every painter should be able to paint tight if for no other reason than to know in their own mind that what they are leaving out is by choice and not because it is expediant.
Wm. F. Reese
Today we have so many tools at hand that exact likenesses are much easier in fact so much easier that most of the artists that I know aren't really interested in it. To reach the level that the old masters, achieved is still dificult don't get me wrong, but to reach the level that is called realism today is very easy and can be mastered in short order. Witness the flood of 25 and 30 year old "geniuses" we see in the magazines that paint so tight that you can almost see the dandruff on the collar. Then ask your self why the more mature artists are painting in a looser fashion. Often times they may look tight but look closer and you will see most of the detail is implied and not painted at all.
What is difficult and will take a life time to perfect is a painting or sculpture that rings like a bell or sings like a song. To make art that is more like music we need to start thinking of ways to capture more of the essence of what we see. Taking a hair census or capturing the glimmering highlight of a million seed beads on a pair of moccasins does not seem essential to me. The old saying, "can't see the forest for the trees", furnishes a clue if you can't see the forest for the trees; you are not seeing the essential. The forest is essential the trees incidental. The forest is the shape of form and the trees are only the variegation or sub shapes within the form and the leaves are the texture. The pattern the beads are making is the essential the beads are the incidental, or texture if you will. Now this represents a relationship you can paint as loose or as tight as you wish but this relationship must remain, from the dominance of the essential to the sub dominance of the incidental to the sub ordinance of the texture. No matter to what degree you carry the detail it should always be secondary to the pattern. The form is what is important not the story.
It only makes sense to me that the art should have enough integrity to allow the medium used do what it does best In other words using oil to be a second rate photograph or oil paint to be used to replicate a mediocre watercolor serves no purpose other than to be seen as a gimmick.
I do however feel every painter should be able to paint tight if for no other reason than to know in their own mind that what they are leaving out is by choice and not because it is expediant.
Wm. F. Reese
At the beginning I thought I was cheating if I didn't paint exactly what I SAW - only much later was I able to free myself from "camera-mode" and paint what I FELT...thanks for reminding us about the truthfulness of our inner eye again. Ron in Canada.
Reply to this
Ron
I think we all need a reminder every now and again. It's too easy to get caught up by the Xerox chromosone in our creative gene. Remember though that there are demons lying in the shadows when you work too much from memory, so everything in moderation.
Thank you Ron. By the way I'm going to go up and paint your Rockies next week. there should still be plenty of snow.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Dear Mr. Reese,
A short time ago I sent a comment about
left-brain/right-brain (meaning tight/loose. You made some suggestions and I've taken it to heart! Thank you for your article of "Working Toward the Essetial". Everywhere I look, I see "THE PATH". Thank you for drawing the map--i.e.--encouragement to use our Very-Own unique talent!
Carol in Walla Walla
Reply to this
Carol
I didn't mean to imply that the right brain has to do with painting loose. The right brain has to do with spatial concepts. I mentioned some exercizes for the right brain are you doing them? I also mentioned the book on "Drawing on the right side of the brain" have you read it? You can become right brained and still paint loose or tight. The loosness will come as you develop better editing skills and faster ways of making a statement. The more you practice the better you will get.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Bill:
I have a book on Michaelangelo's sculpture and the thing that I noticed was the change in some of his work later in his life, with what I thought was his most powerful piece (his last) which just seem to crawl or emerge from the stone, it could have been in any modern museum today. Could this be a process for us all, that we focus on the basics long enough that we no longer need to be aware of those details and instead begin to seek some more....the essence.
Reply to this
I only wish I could begin to tell you what was going on in Michaelangelo's mind on his first much less his final piece.
Have you ever heard the expression that all there is to sculpting is chipping away everything that's not elephant? Well I believe there comes a time that as you are doing this you learn to see the piece as a whole. With each change you make you check to see how you have affected the piece as a whole and the unchanged portion takes on a beauty of it's own. With each strike of the chisel you reveal more and more of the elephant. As the elephant becomes more and more apparent you feel less and less the need to reveal any more and soon you find you've said quite enough. You compare the carved with the uncarved portion and soon it is all a part of the same composition.
Myself, I enjoy seeing the evidence of the evolution of a piece of art. Construction lines, the first attempts at drawing a line before you get it right, traces of the color that is not quite right, and the native portion of the stone that the image is carved from. This is all beautiful to me to a point. Like anything else I don't want to see too many missed drawn lines and too much poorly mixed color it can become laborious looking, and nobody wants to see you sweat.
An image that seems to be squeezed or emerge from the stone is almost like a birthing which is kind of like it should be.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Bill,
As usual you hit the nail right on the head! Sometimes it looks as though certain artists are more inspired by the photograph they are "copying" than the subject in the Photo. Seems odd to me.
Matt Smith
Reply to this
Matt
This is true and the saddest part is working from photographs is almost liking working from rumors that have been passed around by a bunch of liars. I mean just how disapointing is it to look at your photographs after you've been outside painting for a week. I just came back from painting the Canadian Rockies, the light was so clean and the color so beautiful and this morning I compared the photos and my field sketches and they are like night and day. You have to wonder how a person could ever get inspired by a photo. The value separation is nearly nonexistent and the temperature relationship is well.....forget about it.
Painting in the field is like listening to music live and painting from photographs is more like reading sheet music. The photos give the wrong values, misleading lineal perspective, limited and faulty aerial perspective, and poor drawing. Painting from life though difficult at first is like taking an open book test, the answers are right in front of you. All we have to do is learn to see.
Matt it just accured to me I'm preaching to the choir. This is no news to you. Great to hear from you.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Hi Bill (& Fran)! I was glad to hear you were writing these musing... though I see your thoughts as much more than mere musings.
I have been active as a docent for the Phoenix Art Museum since last I saw you. I am constantly engaged by the reaction of the public to works of art. As you stated, the untrained eye is drawn to and amzed by the tightest of work and detail. Indeed, this is a skill all unto its own but the poetic expression of a painter truely skilled in loose painting can stop any viewer in their tracks. I often think the lack of appreciation for the looser painters comes from too much hype for the unskilled painters that slap paint all over the canvas without much thought for key elements like design, edges, values, temperature. etc. The concept that one can mash paint around without thought and call it high art is shameful. Even the best of abstract artists give consideration to these factors. Glad you are getting others to think deeper about their commitment to the voice of the canvas.
Reply to this
Kim
You've said it all too well. The public has had very little training in the arts and zero exposure to the appreciation of the arts. So I suppose it is to be expected that they would think the goal of the artist is to out wit the camera. In short they admire what they would do if they only had the time or inclinationto paint. They have no idea that the less said the better. Or as Mark Twain once said, "I apologize for the length of this letter, I would have written a shorter one but I didn't have the time."
The thing that amazes me the most in this regard is the fact that most people read Consumer Report and everything else before they buy a tv, computer, car, or anything else. They will go to their friends that they consider an expert on the item they are considering. Not one time in 50 years has any of the people I know ever ask for my opinion on the art they buy, and I assure you they have made some big mistakes. I can only conclude they consider themselves to be experts on the subject of art. The art they buy after not looking for expertise is usually tighter than the bark on a tree, and the first words out of their mouth when they show it to me. "Doesn't it look just like pitcher?" "You couldn't do better with a camera." Now, they expect me to have something to say.
I remember one time I was in the room when someone was showing Sergei Bongart their collection. They had just moments before purchased one of hispaintings. The gentleman asked Sergei what he thought of the collection. He looked around the room and then pointed to his own painting and said, "So someday you'll have more like this and the rest will go to garbage." I've never had the nerve but what a great answer although it was a bit of a conversation buster. So it might be a good idea to get your coat back before you say this, since you may be asked to leave shortly.
We also live in a world of vanity press where the art magazine editorial content is influenced by the advertising department of the magazine. You advertise enough and you get editorial coverage which is wrong and dangerous because the art critic was supposed to keep us on the straight and narrow. The weak artists will pay and the more talented will not, so do the math, guess who is going to appear in the mags. I'm not saying that all the articles are based on advertising but it doesn't take too much you know what, to ruin the whisky. By the way I have never paid for an article but I do know this goes on because I turned down an offer to do this just eight hours ago. Now I know they have to make a living too but it is a corruption of the system to allow the advertising to dictate any part of the editorial because it muddies the water. Now how is the public ever supposed to know the difference.
Somehow we need to get it across that we are paid for our vision not our time and the degree of difficulty only counts in ice skating and diving. As it is now with this runaway popularity of unnecessary detail which is like stacking B B's it may be difficult but so what.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this