A truly excellent artist, who I am
proud to say is a good friend of mine, told me a story of a scientist who asked
to study him as he painted. The scientist patiently sat, watched and said
nothing. After a couple of hours the scientist who was probably attempting to
make some sense out of the artistic process, stood up and asked to be excused.
Upon questioning, the scientist remarked that he could make no pattern or sense
out of the painting process. There appeared to be no great plan in either the
selection of colours, the picking of brushes or even where to apply the
pigments. The end result was certainly a fine piece of art but how it got to
that point from bare canvas was a complete mystery to him – a random stroke
generator better explained how the painting evolved – perhaps even chaos
theory. Maybe art defies explanation. Does art need an explanation?
This story came back to me today as
I was painting on the “50 Years of Our Flag” Project. I was applying a bold
dash of colour. I immediately knew it was a good stroke. It felt right. When I
stepped back, it even looked “right”. But how did I know? For every good stroke
there can be many “bad” strokes. They feel bad. They look bad. They have to be
fixed. The best easel days have more good strokes than bad…
It
seemed to me that when an artist is in “the zone” the creative process is more
like subconscious chaos. The “zoned in” artist is still immediately in touch
with what is good, what is bad and what is ugly. Maybe it is best not to ask how or why – just be
content that the painting might be successful. There is still lots of work to do :>)
1 comment:
Very interesting observations and thoughts Phil. The process of art can be right but the result is not. Or the process can be bad and the result great. Or I suppose you can have right/right and wrong/wrong. I suppose if the artist feels a work shows poor process and result, it will never the see the light of day anyway. Your words will make me look at art in a new way.
Regards, Barry
Post a Comment