« On Painting

April, 2009

Clarification

Originally posted on May, 26, 2007

I am receiving some e-mails with comments and questions seeking clarification. I am very much encouraged by them. These people have a unique quality that is all too rare these days. It is not many people who think below the surface of things.

The words we use are important even though, at the same time, they erect barriers and limitations to the clarity of our thought. The word culture did not even appear until the year 1510. This was the early beginning of the modern attempt to separate content from form. Most people today are concerned with art only in terms of its content. They put works of art in the box and label it accordingly to it supposed purpose. Where did the magic go ? Mankind’s earlier experiences of art most certainly where magical.

Now, today, it has become quite problematical to speak or write on these matters. We can today only question our way of justifying art. Beyond that it has become like a never-never do-do land.

One more thing before I stop ranting. Art critics have now found a clever way to circumvent the entire problem. They do not talk about art at all. They simply psychoanalyse the artist. What better way to make art opaque and manageable ? Is this the intellect triumphant or a clear avoidance of deeper thinking?

It is not easy to “overcome” our race mind thinking. To approach what we call the artistic and creative side of life demands much effort. The concepts we use in this effort are crutches. Just crutches.

Denis

Published in french as Clarification

Outside the Box Thinking

Originally posted on May, 17, 2007

", La Loue à Montgesoye", oil on canvas maroufled on panel, 27cm x 22cm, May 2007.

Can we reflect and reason without ego constructed thoughts forms? I believe that there is a form of thinking which is not ego based. First can we agree that there is a border between reflection and experience? Is there a relationship between the two? I am not thinking of reflection as thinking subject and experience as the experienced object. That is dualism. But is there an essential relationship? This question is at the heart of the most intelligent discourse on art over the last century.

Last week I spoke of Herman Hesse. He understood the artist as well as the mystic because he was both. There was no conflict between his intuition and his intellect. Instinct and thinking were at peace with each other.

In my creative life I’ve been attempting to resolve this conflict in my work. It is through the work that we approach this borderland between reflection and experience. This is where we can step outside the box.

In art and life,
Denis

Published in french as Penser hors du cadre

Global Change

Originally posted on May, 10, 2007

The change from painting in oil to painting in watercolor is a global change. It is difficult to imagine something bigger in those terms.

John Singer Sargent was right. Painting in watercolor is an emergency. Degas was probably thinking of watercolor when he likened a successful painting to the perpetration of a crime. It takes much cunning to do a good watercolor.

Oil, on the other hand, affords the freedom of contemplation. It is such a flexible and forgiving medium that comparatively it is like a breath of fresh air. You can go to a quieter place and plan your next move.

What do these mediums have in common? Besides the obvious fact that we are placing pigments on a flat surface, they take place in time. Time is the common element. Watercolor is the contemporary medium par excellence because it is fast and spontaneous. Oil is contemplative. It unfolds under a much longer period. It is kind of like the difference between a fine wine and “pepsi”.

Hermann Hesse said that the artist and the mystic where attempting to do the same thing: annihilate time, the artist through hyperactivity and the mystic through inactivity. This distinction, I think, is poorly understood today. We do not slow down enough to understand the contemplative side of things. Be that as it may.

Denis

Published in french as Changement global

Learning to paint watercolor

Originally posted on Mai, 3, 2007

"Winter Tree", watercolor, 19cm x 25cm,<br /> 100%cotton paper, 2005

The first rule of watercolor is that there are no rules. This may not be helpful but that is the way it is. It is part of what makes watercolour difficult. On the positive side, it is also what makes watercolour so much fun. (There are many people who once they begin painting in watercolour forsake all the other mediums.)

I hesitate to give specific instructions on technique. There are plenty of books written on this. It would be good to study everything you can get your hands on. It is only through much trial and error that you can determine the things you need to master. You need to prepare yourself for the fact that this could take a great deal of time. How long? The answer depends upon how involved you want to get. Keep it simple. Buy good materials and keep it simple. You do not need a large palette. A warm and cold version of the primary colors is sufficient. A green such as viridian, and a cadmium orange could prove useful. It is necessary to study the characteristics of pigments. It is only through doing this that you will begin to understand what fits your needs.

Some, if not most people, will think this advice not direct enough, or practical for the task at hand of learning to paint watercolors. This is dependant on the result you want. If you want to, in the shortest possible period of time, learn to do a “pretty” picture follow one of the formulas from “the paint by the numbers” school. I’m being a bit harsh. Please forgive me. I put it this way because I’m sick to death with mediocrity. If you are going to do something we owe it to ourselves to do it well! It is essential that we enjoy the process of learning. Painting our first painting is not that important.

Let me say that I have much respect for anyone engaged in the creative process.

Bon courage,
Denis
Published in french as Apprendre à peindre à l’aquarelle

« On Painting