The author Simon Leys states that "There is something more important than a finished work of art: it is the spiritual process that preceded it and guided its execution". This quote is the opening line in a paragrah about the Power of Emptiness. To Leys the work of art is of secondary importance and is only an artifact of the artists journey. It is the journey that is primary. Here I think he is referring to the true work of art as a symbol of some spiritual insight. It is the insight that is the source of a forever painitng and not just a painted copy. It is what the subject feels like rather than what it may look like. Herein lies the quest to feel beyond mere surface appearences and render the essence of the subject matter. It results in a painting that comes from within and not without. Watercolor is particulary suited for this process as it is more spontaneous than other mediums. What comes from 'within' is rendered 'without' in one stroke and cannot be overworked by the logical but mundane part of our mind. The best paintings are those that occur when the artist has 'let go' and is not concerned or in fear of failure. This ability to let go comes from the confidence and motivation supplied by the spiritual processs referred to by Ley's.
There are levels of commercial design strategies that make sense in the development of art that is forever. Meaning, quality, aesthetics and funtion all make up some of the concepts that need to be considered when developing a piece of art that is intended to last for perpetuity. To focus only on one of these is to miss the point. They make up an integrated whole without which he art goes 'wanting'. Blind spots in many paintings are the result of a lack of understandind of this key aspect.
According to Simon Leys the Chinese esthetic requires not imitation but rather creation or a summoning of nature.
"Painting is thus, in a literal sense, an activty of creation and not imitation."
This is what he says gives pictorial art its sacred character. This runs contrary to the illusionist nature portrayed in most classical western art. It again points toward the capture of the essence of the subject and not all of the detail. It points away from techinque aimed to decieve the seer to one aimed at giving the seer a deeper insight into the true nature of the subject. It therefore requires a different point of view, a diffrent starting and ending point. The viewer of an illusionsit painting may be awed or decieved at first; but once the veil of the illusion is lifted the painting loses its power. The Chinese esthetic, however, is less objective and therefore has more staying power. As a strategy to create a 'forever painting' it seems to suggest a more powerful approach. This is the direction my new Buring Tree series seeks to follow.
This is the first of a series of blogs that I will writing based on thoughts contained in Simon Leys book, The Buring Forest. The book addresses his understanding of Chinese Culture and its impact on the arts and politics. The following is a quote,
" The ideal painting is achieved not on paper, but in the mind of the spectator; for the painter the whole skill consists in selecting those minimal visual clues that will alow the painting to reach its full and invisible blossoming in the viewer's imagination."
How is this to be achieved? I think it is best achieved by the power of suggestion that can be contained in a whole rather than in the parts. In other words the construction of a design that is aimed at essence and not at detail. I have seen some painitngs that are stopped short but were not designed to stop short. They do not 'read well' because the artist did not prepare the initial design. If this is not accomplished at the beginning of the process then the artist continues to render until the whole story is told and nothing is left to the imagination. To pusure this idea I am working on a new series of 'Burning Forest' Painintgs that will explore the idea of minimal visual clues. These will contain only the essesnce of the idea. I will be writing on further quotes from this book as the process of creating the paintings unfolds.
I look forward to your comments as the new paintings hit the site!
I have recently(past year) been moving toward a more spontaneous process with my watercolors. I have stopped creating detailed sketches that I would then paint. Moving away from painted sketches into actual paintings has been a great experience. Since I was pretty good at sketching this was a difficult move to make but it has made all the difference. Rather than having a 'tight' drawing to follow, I now follow the painting itself and it seems to lead me to a more painterly conclusion. I now start all of my paintings loosely painting wet into wet. As the painting begins to dry I begin to add the darker and more detailed passages. This process creates more 'flow' and spontaneity and I would recommend it for anyone who feels 'stuck' in terms of progress. I do create some thumbnails to work out the values and composition for larger paintings but may sometimes just 'let it happen'. Either way I end up with a much more rewarding and convincing performance. It has helped me move one step closer to my goal of creating 'forever paintings'.
Historically space art has been focused on the lesser of the contents of space. It has almost exclsuively focused on the material aspects of the universe. The ironic thing is that these material aspcets only make up 4% of the visible universe. Why haven't we focused on the other 96%? Because the 4% is more obvious. It is easier to create a representation of material objects than suggest what may be the contents of the other 96%. This leads me to another supposition. If it is true that man is a physical metaphor for the universe then 96% of us may be non material. In both cases I think it is this other 96% that the artist and poet tries to suggest. They suggest that there is 'something more' and it is a lot more! Most of us intutitively feel this to be true. Perhaps it is the artists job to remind us and suggest the way to a partial understanding of the other 96%.
I personally have turned the corner and will begin to explore the other 96% in both my space paintings and those of terrestrial focus. I think this is a better way toward progress and the possible creation of forever paintings.
To over describe with a painting is to lose the potential connection with the viewer. The objectve is to develop a field of energy exchange with the viewer that leads to companionship. This cannont be achieved on a long term basis if all there is to say and do has been layed out before the viewer and does not attract the viewers participation. It is as if the artist is trying to create a long term conversation with the viewer. This requres that some degree of mystery and lack of defintiion exist in the work. It is like the Mona Lisa smile. One always wonders what thought is behind that smile. In my paintings I try to create it with the involvement of the people in the paintings. Can you tell who they are? What is their relationship to each other and the other objects in the painting? Where are they going and where did they come from? These are some of the questions that I think need to be deposited in the painting if it is to create any type of long term relationship with the public. What is unsaid is to me more important than what is said in a painting. It is the magnet that creates that special relationship and attraction. This is more difficult with representational art than non representational. There is always that desire to 'complete it' and leave no questions to be asked. So while many see the representational as less sophisticated and simple than non representational I see it as a greater challenge and of far greater complexity.
Reading a recent book by Ervin Laszlo I came across a passage that he used to describe how he creates inspired as opposed to indifferent interpretations of music. The key for him is to remove conscious effort from the process. First he practices and learns(through conscious effort) and then spontaneously plays and performs the piece without such effort. I have found this to be true with my art. The better pieces had less consicous effort and in fact the best started with no underlying sketched structure. The best 'emerge' under production and are not intellectual efforts. Sometimes to get our logical brain out of the way and quiet it down allows the more spontaneous and original work to happen.
I was watching a recent program on early Greek art. The narrator pointed out that the Greeks like the Egyptians idealized all forms. One area that was most idealized was the smile on the faces of the statues and busts. Interestingly enought that same idealized smile appeared to be the same as the smile on the Mona Lisa.
The idea of coherence relates to an instant tuning together of all of the parts of a painting. Nature as we know is not automatically coherent. It is chaotic at the visual level. It is therefore one of the key objectives of the watercolor artist to use the concept of coherence to create a 'whole' unified painting. Therefore to create a 'forever painting' the idea of choerence must necessarily play a dominant role. Many paintings seem coherent on one level but fail to meet that standard on all levels. It is not enough to merely use technique to force coherence at the painting stage. It must be built in at the design, story and painting levels. These to me represent the three most important areas for a watercolor painter to use. It is much like the design build concepts used in the construction industry. First we design and then we build or render. To have too little thought on the front end(design/ story leaves too much to chance. While chance plays an important and much recognized role in watercolor painting it should not be the principle design strategy in an intentional painting. In a non intentional spontaneous painting one could lauch forth with 'chance' as the key strategy but in the end the artist must bring coherence into play if the painting is to succeed.
Blog 
