20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Work In Progress

Peri Craig

Blog #2 of 12

Previous

|

Next

November 20th, 2012 - 04:23 PM

Work In Progress

I've often thought fleetingly is a project one is working on should called "Work In Progress," or "Work In Process." The painting I'm currently tackling (and at times it FEELS like tackling, and sometimes like punting) would definitely make me thing Process was the correct word. I am wishing with this one that I'd begun the habit of penciling a start date on the back, or keeping an art-journal. I believe that I began it about the middle of October, but it seems longer because of being planned and plotted out for several weeks before that when the idea of it kept niggling at me. Asked to describe it, I would have to say it is Post-Impressionism combined with Fauvist. There is color, yes, and the colors and shapes are of the mind, not from a photo or picture postcard somewhere (not by a long-shot), but there is detail, much detail, that would differentiate it from the Fauvists ... like the level of detail of Cezanne or Robert Pinchon ... nowhere near as skillfully, of course, and with much texture, which seems to be my one definite defining feature in canvas works. Maybe Anna boch Falaise would be a nearer similarity. Yes, I identify with her Impressionism, and clearly that is now POST Impressionism, and the vivid, vibrant color and departure from reality of the Fauvists.

My canvas work is largely Impasto:
In English, the borrowed Italian word impasto most commonly refers to a technique used in painting, where paint is laid on an area of the surface (or the entire canvas) very thickly, usually thickly enough that the brush or painting-knife strokes are visible. Paint can also be mixed right on the canvas. When dry, impasto provides texture, the paint appears to be coming out of the canvas. Impasto can push a painting into a three dimensional sculptural rendering. Auerbach's certainly did this, and were often difficult to hang because of their very weight! Mine does not have that to contend, but the technique does have its critics. This technique has not always been considered positively, with the Manchester Guardian newspaper commenting in 1956 that: '"The technique is so fantastically obtrusive that it is some time before one penetrates to the intentions that should justify this grotesque method." This intensity of approach and handling has also not always sat well with the art world that developed in Britain from the late 1980s onwards, with one critic at that time, Stuart Morgan, denouncing Auerbach for espousing 'conservatism as if it were a religion' on the basis that he applies paint without a sense of irony. I am aware of the irony, and my paintings do not cause plaster or drywall disasters.

As to the ELEMENTS of Impressionism, they are thus:

1. Short, thick strokes of paint quickly capture the essence of the subject, rather than its details. The paint is often applied impasto.

2. Colours are applied side-by-side with as little mixing as possible, creating a vibrant surface. The optical mixing of colours occurs in the eye of the viewer.

3. Grays and dark tones are produced by mixing complementary colours. Pure impressionism avoids the use of black paint.

4. Wet paint is placed into wet paint without waiting for successive applications to dry, producing softer edges and intermingling of colour.

5. Painters often worked in the evening to produce effets de soir—the shadowy effects of evening or twilight.

6. Impressionist paintings do not exploit the transparency of thin paint films (glazes), which earlier artists manipulated carefully to produce effects. The impressionist painting surface is typically opaque.

7. The play of natural light is emphasized. Close attention is paid to the reflection of colours from object to object.

8. In paintings made en plein air (outdoors), shadows are boldly painted with the blue of the sky as it is reflected onto surfaces, giving a sense of freshness previously not represented in painting. (Blue shadows on snow inspired the technique.)

YES! Guilty on all counts, though to perhaps greater or lesser degrees in this:

I do not always paint "bold shadows." I think that when colors and movement are very bold, it is wiser to use a soften hand with the shadows. This does not detract from the vividness of the work, but sets it somewhat apart, and tricks the mind to look deeper, look longer, see the incongruity.

I certainly DO paint wet to wet, and quite often. However I also will often dry-brush color for a stippled textural effect. Quite often these two techniques are applied in the same painting.

Not ALL of my strokes are thin or short. When working on the jungle-like painting I'm working, for instance, I have some finishing strokes that are the length of a leaf, and almost immeasurably thin. As I have said, there is detail, some delicacy is the chaos of my Fauvism!

So ... why would the term "process" be as applicable as "progress" in this case? There is a very definite, inescapable 3-dimension effect. I literally am painting this canvas one layer at a time. My far background and near background were painted first, and allowed to dry. Then I began the process of painstakingly working the next space forward, and the next and the next. Some things are covered as this happens. A palm that my husband and I really liked was on the far right. It was mostly obscured by a stand of bamboo. Did I panic or mourn? Only briefly. Two rows up from that a far better one stands on the left. Why so much extra work? Why so much extra paint? This feels right for this piece. There is an honesty in dealing with nature as it occurs, and the eye will know the difference.

So you see, I forward both the progress toward completion, and the process by which it is being achieved, each layer its own.

Comments

Post a Comment

There are no comments on this blog.   Click here to post the first comment.