![]() ![]() After the work is done, I study it and come to understand what ideas I have depicted. Other times I let loads of paint and oil sweep over the canvas and see what shapes appear, guiding it only by moving the whole canvas side to side, capturing shapes I like, eliminating those I don’t. Often I start out with a single brushstroke and see where it leads me, and usually very intricate shapes occur where line, mass, color and pattern play off of each other in an almost baroque fashion. I find nature is far more meaningful when filtered through that realm, and form and message come through in the most startling ways. I have learned that the unconscious mind carries immense creative momentum. Rather I use what impulses arise in me so that any ideas are then free to emerge on their own, to deliver themselves from my unconscious unfettered, unbiased and immediate. I do not plan or sketch out the piece, and use no external subject at all. ![]() The other approach is more improvisational. Both are alive to me, and the life of it, not the precision of every component, is what I aim to create. Reality does its own art perfectly, so why bother? My aim is to bring the internal to what I see, the feeling it gives me, the movement and psychology of it, whether it is a static object like a screwdriver, or a natural subject like a tree or the human body. My philosophy is: Why copy reality? Reality can speak for itself. ![]() However, I never try to apply the realistic approach, to duplicate what I see. I work two ways, the first being the most common approach to art: what I see is what I draw or paint. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |