My good friend Dick Schellens asked me to clarify one of the ideas I wrote about on 10/22/2010. Yesterday I was unable to get into the studio, so I will take this moment to show three paintings which will help describe one of the major problems a painter encounters. At this point in my career solving the flat surface is ingrained and therefore innate. However, there are paintings in museums which fail this test, and one of them is a highly regarded painting by John Singer Sargent in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. I mentioned one of my teachers, James Weeks, in my blog post of 10/22/2010; Weeks chided me for loving Rembrandt. Weeks believed Rembrandt did not pay enough attention to a painting's surface as an insistent flat plane. Week's spoke often of Henri Matisse, using Matisse's work as the quintessential solution to this problem of the flat surface. Today I will show you three interiors: Sargent's "Daughters of Edward Darley Bolt," Rembrandt's "The Painter in His Studio," and Matisse's "Interior with Red Fish." By the way, the Rembrandt and the Sargent can both be seen in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. James Weeks said you could "drive a truck through" the black hole in Sargent's painting. By this Weeks meant there is loss of comprehension of surface in the Sargent. When one views this painting the composition is disturbing because it cannot be fully read. One can read every element in the Matisse. Cezanne and Matisse instruct painters on how shape and paint texture animate surface and therefore composition. Van Gogh used paint texture marvelously to do the same (it is one aspect of Van Gogh's best work which elevate's it to greatness). Sargent fakes depth with his black hole, disregarding the reality of the painting's flatness.
Now to the Rembrandt: There are NO black holes in any of Rembrandt's paintings. Rembrandt is known for his use of chiaroscuro, his movement from light to darkness. Rembrandt's darkest areas can be read; he is also very conscious of shapes (look at the canvas on the easel moving the viewer into the perspective depth of the painting). Rembrandt's use of paint texture also marvelously animates his surfaces. Again, please view works of art in person. Reproduction is unable to translate the sophistication seen in viewing great works of art. Uncertainty is an important part of the dictionary definition of quandary; uncertainty clearly describes the beginning of every work of art. Accepting uncertainty is the origin of art of substance. As I write this I know my language is impossibly vague. I am a painter because I believe visual art speaks in a language of complexity far deeper than words. My job is to come to terms with the visual translation of reality. But what is reality? It is not only visual, but emotional, intellectual, and sensorially heard and felt. Can a painting or drawing make us know reality? OK, enough. I am writing this because I am at a heartfelt juncture. Every day I step up to the uncertainty of a white piece of paper or canvas. I have chosen to deal with my uncertainty by making marks on seas of white. As I flounder I have also chosen to write this confessional blog. This brings me to the two drawings I made yesterday. Are they good art? I don't know. I don't care. These drawings are stabs at finding reality by marking marks on a flat surface.
Yes, this is the painting "Window." You can see pentimento, particularly in the upper right hand corner. I like the upper right hand corner, but I am not comfortable with the man on the left. At this point I don't think I should say much more about the images found in this painting, so I'll write about process. Yesterday I entered the studio with the discomfort I wrote about in yesterday's post. I made a warm-up drawing, wondering how I could assuage my discomfort. This is the drawing... This drawing removed the maudlin couple and the man on the right. It felt much better, despite the exaggerated stare of the man (that would never get into the painting). The rest is history. The painting is far from complete. The man on the left of "Window" is not correct. In pondering this problem I finished the day with the following drawing (I am thinking about replacing the man on the left with a man on the edge of the painting, looking out).
Version 3 of the painting "Window" is fully painted. Every square inch has paint on canvas. It makes me very uncomfortable. This painting says nothing interesting. These is no depth of revelation. I have been here before. It is time for me to step back, contemplate, and ask the eternal questions, "What needs to be withdrawn? What needs to be revealed?" I feel physical discomfort when I look at this painting. "Window" is untrustworthy in its current state. Before further comment you need to see it. This week's drawings have gone places more interesting than currently described in "Window." Through their spontaneity my drawings often lead the way in revelation. As I meditate on "Window" I will also consider my recent drawings. In addition I will continue to make drawings. Contemplation is active. It is necessary for me to be inactive in painting "Window" until my knowing catches up. The required alterations will be revealed. Yesterday's drawings did some of this.
Yesterday was a big day on Wall Street, as everything purchasable was bought. Yesterday was a big day in my studio, as new directions were taken. The UP prices on Wall Street will not last, but my ADVANCES in art-making will. Let me show you the three plus one drawings (one revision) made yesterday. AND, there was progress on the painting, "The Window," as well. The drawings showcase a new direction. I am beginning to explore wider themes, ones which will include a more comprehensive world. The change in the second drawing's revision reveals my finding the two people in a museum. The need to place figures in a larger context is occurring. Saul Steinberg's domain was bigger-than-life and has always fascinated me (at the end of today's post I'll show an example of Steinberg's work).
The painting "Window" now includes a woman (from now on I will simply reduce this painting's title to "Window," as the simpler title better articulates the light being found within the painting and the emotional lives of these people). The change from a man to a woman makes sense to me, although major changes will continue to occur before this painting finds its final disposition. I'll get right to it and show you a photo of the first impulse sketch for my new painting, "The Window." The canvas is 50 X 60 inches, so the heads are larger than life-size. Yes, that is a trumpet. I am not going to explain imagery because I am not sure myself. At this stage in a painting I am allowing my instincts to run without question. As you have seen, in previous postings of my paintings in development, the give and take of finding truth in images is a slow and contemplated process. It is more internal than external; perhaps the correct word is intuitive. It will be weeks before I know if the trumpet has legitimacy within this painting, but this will be true for every element in this new painting. I do know the window is important; the painting will evolve around the light flowing into the interior through the window.
Before I show you the two drawings made yesterday let me comment on my experience making them. The first occurred before I painted and took a few hours. The good chunk of time spent on this drawing indicates an engagement with the imagery, so this drawing is a note to myself for future reference. Most likely I will return to similar imagery and more fully develop it in future work, probably in a painting. The second drawing occurred after I had painted on "The Window." It was a very quick drawing, 15 minutes at the most. This sort of drawing focuses on one aspect of my interests; in this case I believe it is surface light: the light that flows across the face delineating the facial features. The second drawing is me brainstorming, examining a possible approach to making forms in "The Window." It is time for me to start a new one. Over the past couple of months I have dedicated myself to two paintings ("Pond" and "Four People"), which have been solved, but are incomplete. I will continue to work on each of these, but as a minor part of my days. After the drawings of this past week I have a need to explore several people interacting at a table. One of my favorite paintings by Rembrandt is "The Conspiration of the Bataves." Here is a reproduction: On 10/27/2010 I mentioned another painting which greatly impresses me, Georges de la Tour's "The Fortune Teller." Here it is: La Tour's painting is closer to "Four People." I propose to tackle the complexity of the interaction, and consequent emotions, of several people around a table. I did this many years ago, while a student. Matisse said something like this: "When confused, return to your fist impulses." I do not feel confused; to the contrary, I feel great clarity. I am ready and eager to do this, so let me show you yesterday's drawings. The second drawing is a study for the new painting I am about to begin.
Yesterday the drawing process was more an attack than a careful consideration of process. I find the process going more directly, more quickly. As I become more facile making my images is becoming more closely attached to my emotions and self-knowledge. The drawings made yesterday felt quick, easy, and direct. This is not a comment on quality. I have to contemplate these drawings and their worth: are they really what I am? I'll show them after one more comment.
You probably will not see a post from me tomorrow. I am still working out the financial transaction I alluded to in my post of 10/27/2010. With luck I will be past the work and worry by the end of today, but it will absorb most, if not all, of today. Here's the drawings... |
To read my profile go to MEHRBACH.com.
At MEHRBACH.com you may view many of my paintings and drawings, past and present, and see details about my life and work. Archives
May 2024
|