The images
are a selection from the paintings and drawings done mostly between 1980
and 1996 when the artist, unable to cope with aspects of life in
a modern city, became so irrational as to turn to art as a
means of escaping to the countryside. It was a bad choice in that
respect. The return per hour is tiny and even with a very industrious
partner doing craft work, the income was below the level of welfare
benefits in this country ( New Zealand). There is however a
certain rightness about a life concentrated on essentials!
Looking back, the artist can see - what he didn't entirely recognise at
the time - that the paintings were an expression of
a belief, almost a faith, in a view of life, and the world, as something
special and basically mysterious ... pointing to something beyond.
Admittedly some were done just because of the liking of a subject which
was then 'improved' as a work of art, but then, what is it about something
that attracts you in the first place - is it not something you can't
quite define?
It was startling to realise recently that the essence of the thing
I then thought most real and valuable in
experience, simply does not exist in the language. Truly.
It is ..... what it is. You either experience
this nameless subtlety in some moment or not. Perhaps
all that art (or music or writing ) could ever express is something of
a persons ideas and attitude towards it. My feeling is that each
person may experience this unknown in a slightly different flavour.
I should add that there is for me, some connection between
the unkown and the way light transforms the things of the world.
Sunlight is 'alive', and it's play is often part of the paintings.
There is a way of valuing human ability purely for it's own sake. The 'wow' factor. Such as when you admire the seemingly impossible performance of some acrobat or musician etc... Though you know it all must have been much practised, it still seems to defy explanation. The same is true of ability in art, and this artist wishes to make it quite plain that he does not have much of this skill! At a young age, interest led to making many drawings of aircraft, and it gave some understanding of shapes in 3 dimensions. The only connection between aesthetics and art was through some of the line drawings in children's books. Some seemed very evocative - or nostalgic? Certainly attractive and fascinating. There was, much later, a couple of experimental colour pencil drawings and a brief time with a group of people, silently copying a simple object placed in front of one. In short the artist had little knowledge of art, and relied purely on some given (or unconsciously absorbed) cultural instinct. The paintings were the ( usually) painstaking struggles of a simple artist trying to express glimpses of the inexpressible, or just trying to make a reasonably interesting final effect. If they succeed it is largely through sheer perseverance.
The 'letters' in
the language of painting are shape (or form) and colour, and
a physical style in applying the medium, all blended together
as, so to speak, a word. It is possible for artists to concern
themselves with artistic subtleties of this sort in the expression
of some idea or mood, and it is of interest and value to those who
can appreciate what is involved. This is regardless
of the meaning of the intended 'word' itself, you follow.
It is possible to enjoy and praise to the heavens, amazing
and genuine skill in work that is nonetheless, lost in 'artiness' or
irrelevancy. Yes or no?
Again, learned critics
may talk of values being purely subjective, but inevitably,
by their interest in the clever, the original and most artistically
advanced, they imply that these works are 'better'. Or
the intellect, which likes to compare and analyse, will place art in a
stream of 'influences' or supposed relevance to a greater
picture. Ideas and facts about art or artists can be
rehashed, brandished before others or made the subject of examination and
qualification, till they become more important than the heart which
was behind the art in the first place. It is the way of the
world;- ideas can be manipulated, used by the will, while the life
of the heart follows it's own rules.
So irrelevancy to one person is the heart of life to another - and who is going to judge? I suggest too, there is no such thing as pure 'art for art's sake' ... it always carries some overtone of meaning, a reflection of the artist's mind and heart at the time. The artist may think he is concerned only with some new mode of expression, but it will always show his soul as well. He or she should not be surprised or disgruntled if people judge them for more than just artistry. ( I found it very disconcerting when it was my own narrow soul on display! ) I think the above comments apply equally to music, literature etc.
I think that it is not just the masters who produce masterpieces. Nor do the famous always produce very worthwhile work. ( though it is usually skilful and clever) Many who have laboured with love have revealed what was in them, or touched a 'rightness' that, even in modest paintings, speaks to me more than some famous work. Think of the many millions upon millions ( upon billions more likely) of paintings that have now been done in the world. You will never see them . It would be good if they could be reproduced for the 'masses' in some way. And you should look for art everywhere, not just in galleries, but in magazines and advertising, craft, clothes, houses, cars, design - everywhere and in everything that humans do.
I am afraid that what I was bound by my nature to express may either
not be very apparent, or not mean much to anyone
else. I can say though, that the works were
at least a result of willingness to struggle, to give, without much
chance of reward, and there was a hope and faith as well.
I can say that quite freely, now that those elements
have
been largely replaced by a more or less permanent state of
shock.
By the way, I rarely enjoyed
painting. It was just what I did . There usually has
to be some moment, perhaps very strong, of inspiration and feeling at the
start, but this is mostly lost in the effort to finish . If it goes
well the final balance brings a sense of completion. (And then
you can no longer 'see' the painting properly anyway - though time
helps.) For the future, there is a box of sketches here, and
some ideas floating around in my head, which could be very worthwhile,
but I doubt that I will ever really want to paint again.
Vaguely technical notes ....
Chance effects are common during the process of creation and may completely
change the painting. It can be a time consuming struggle
( for me) to juggle together the elements of a painting into a balance
that seems 'right'. A single touch of colour here, or a dash
darkness or lightness there, or a thin wash over that part, may transform
or complete an otherwise deadly work.
The paintings
were acrylic on either gessoed hardboard or standard canvas on cardboard.
A colour sketch of some sort was usual first. Then, once one was
happy about the size (which does alter the effect) and colour
of the subject, a quick 'paint in' was done on
the final board using washes or whatever came naturally in the rush.
I sometimes wish now that I had tried to perfect some such quick style
of painting, which can be very attractive and effective in the right
hands. It would have enabled a larger output .. which
seems essential to artistic survival. ( I only ever did about 140
paintings and a few other bits) A liking for clearish or sunny
skies led to much effort when trying to persuade quick drying acrylic paint
to blend smoothly from dark to light or from deeper blue to a more
grey horizon colour. Multiple coats seemed to be the
best answer.
And a note for artists,- why are decent frames for pictures so fantastically expensive? And why are so many so unpleasant to look at? One is tempted to paint ' virtual' frames around the edge. A wide, flat painted, surround and narrow (cheap) frame seemed to work sometimes.
David W Lawrence. July 2000
Link back to home ( index) page 