LarrySeiler
01-31-2005, 03:42 PM
I am always attempting to be sensitive to how the making of art mirrors or metaphors life. For one, I cannot separate who I am as an artist from who I am as a spiritual being, nor vice versa.
I've been long working on a book putting down thoughts that correlate the two, tenatively calling it, "As If It Mattered" ....and just as an artist values the good paintings of another in their efforts to grow as a painter, a writer and thinking person enjoys a good book of another who seems to be on to something.
I walked into one of those old rugged looking buildings that has a used book sign on it in the old town of Marquette, Michigan this past summer and found an old book by writer Peter Rogers, born about 1933...writing in the 80's. Called, "A Painter's Quest"...
In a section of a chapter he writes about the importance we as artists know as concerns the individual parts that will comprise a composition...and how if we do not keep sight on the purpose or objective that will culminate in a finished "whole"..then an individual part could be perfected while yet the whole fails to work. Very insightful...for then we see comparisons if we reflect as that which concerns life as well. I'd like to share a section of Rogers...but took liberty to edit as it made sense to me in a way perhaps I myself might state it. Most his words...
A Painters Quest
Bertrand Russell in his writing, "Wisdom of the West" wrote- "The Real World consists in a balanced adjustment of opposing tendencies. Behind the strife between opposites there lies a hidden harmony or attunement which is the world."
Though not speaking of art specifically, what is a work of art whether a painting, poem, symphony, or architectual structure if not a "balanced adjustment of opposing tendencies"?
Painters, whether aware of it or not, in their attempt to balance lights and darks, warm or cool colors, or try to relate all the individual parts of the painting to work as a whole, are if successful painting their own version/vision of the world of "harmony or attunement."
When drawing the human figure we are relating the parts of the figure to itself, and when expanding the figure to a canvas for painting must also include its relationship to the space around the figure.
Every line, form, and area of color has to relate to every other line, form and area of color in order to arrive at a completed whole. Unity being the goal, but impossible to achieve unless an eye is kept on the whole of the composition all the time.
Rogers goes on, "Unfortunately, as most art students soon learn, it is all too easy to get stuck on a problem involving one small part of a painting and with a sort of tunnel vision...worrying continually, becoming blindto the rest of the picture in the process"
"Often I have worked all day on a certian part of a painting, and gone to bed confident that that particular part was just right, only to get up in the morning and see with a fresh eye that that part, perfect in itself, destroyed the unity of the whole."
"It is a question of focus, and focus on any one part of a painting at the expense of the rest leads to much waste of time, energy, and paint. Unless one's focus is on the whole apinting all the time, one cannot expect it to work. These facts are basic to the creative process and of course apply equally to all art forms."
"Now, whereas at art school we were told what to do and what not to do, if we wanted to paint a good picture, religion tells us what to do and what not to do if we want to live a good life. As I shall attempt to demonstrate in a moment, the two sets of instructions are remarkably similar, and this led me to the conclusion that the same laws that apply to art apply to the creative process we a call "life."
"The only difference is that at art school we attached no ethical connotations to what we were told to do; it was simply a question of what worked and what did not. Certainly, there were good ways and bad ways of trying to solve a problem, but we only considered them good or bad according to whether or not they solved it. People have been trying to solve their problems for thousands of years, but no sooner is one solved than a worse one seems to come along. Painters are familiar with this pattern. You change one part of the picture and seem to get it right, but in the process you make another part wrong and then you have to change that too, and so on, round and round. When that happens there can only be one reason: you have fallen into the trap; you have lost sight of the composition as a whole."
"All great religious teachers have done their best to correct our failure to see."
"Each part of a painting, each line of a poem, each bar of a symphony is important not only because the complete work of art cannot exist without it but because what you as painter, poet, or composer do to each part, line or bar is what you are doing to the whole. It is absurd to suppose that any artist is going to consider one part of a composition more important than the whole composition. But whereas the artist soon learns the necesity of keeping his focus on the work of art as a whole all the time, in everyday human experience our focus tends to be exclusively on the parts. We continue to struggle with the problems inherehnt in those parts, not realizing that by so doing we can never hope to achieve harmony or attunement.
To put it another way: It is true of art, as of life that we can never hope to solve our problems by participating in the strife between opposites. Provided he concentrates on the painting as a whole, the warring elements in the design are soon resolved. Likewise in life, by focusing on the Whole and loving the Whole with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, the warring elements in human reality are sooner or later resolved too. It is all a question of focus and of love."
I'll take a moment to work thru some of this with a paint outing of mine a couple summers ago.
I found this little beach tucked away along the shores of upper Michigan on Lake Superior. First the scene as it was when I began painting...then followed later when I had finished. Same scene different mood...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-scene_at_start.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-scene_later.jpg
The novice sees such a scene painting live and attempts to paint everything, but the mature painter discerns that there is a tangible particular essential element or perhaps two that account for why his/her aesthetic was moved and compelled to paint. Thus the mature uses discrimination mindful of what NOT to paint.
For the novice the "whole" is ALL that is seen, and as is. Call it the "what."
For the mature the "whole" has come to mean the what that is seen that leads to specifically the why?
The novice is not fully aware of why they are compelled, only and simply that they are, and so starts out in a frenzy; and as the mood of the day and light changes begins to forget what it ever was that so moved them to begin with.
The mature painter knows that in order for the painting to work it will have to be seen as a whole, and that the whole is not always or rarely is the obvious. Mindful of the parts, his eyes are ever at the work's ending, that all are to come together in a cooperative scheme. S/he is mindful too that incidentals and nonessentials are many that will distract the need of the whole. Whole good compositions come easier for those that learn to see and work as an orchestrator and director of the whole.
Some years ago, there were those typical arguments on another forum where abstract modernists were saying this and that about realist painters and paintings, and some realists were talking trash about the modernists.
I threw a wrench into the discussion by sharing these, "abstract" works and asking for their opinions?
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks2.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks1.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks3.jpg
The abstract modernists of course praised them as can be expected, and the realists touted them as child's play and lacking purpose. I was as you probably anticipate, baiting them to make a point.
Then, I uploaded and shared the larger painting from which these smaller closeups came from...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-finished_painting.jpg
Indeed...a painting to be seen and taken in as a working whole is made up of many smaller parts, and in the case of my painterly realism many abstract parts serve the purpose of creating that eventual unity.
No matter how realistic a painting, seen close enough you can discern abstract components.
I asked a question that was more spiritual in nature, (which was ignored or quickly dismissed) if it were not possible that their sense of place to paint abstractly or realistically could not both be respected and possibly by their existence to do just that couldn't be playing a small part of a larger whole.
In the same sense that we might have a half-dozen to a dozen or more tubes of color to call upon, keeping the amount of one color in check whereby giving way for another to be used more...are possibly not we?
The tubes of paint may argue the importance of their maintaining importance, overstating their being needed to one another, but really it is up to the artist to determine for his purposes what gets used where, when and how much.
By pulling back away from the abstract parts to a short distance we are able to take in the whole of my painting here. The parts lose significance in and of themselves, but gain in significance to the purpose of the whole.
If the world were a canvas and if a Master Artist were at work, and somehow we could back off far enough...we might see that those called to paint one way and refrain from another, those another way and so forth, feeling themselves to be independent parts may in fact show themselves to be fitted together to represent a greater existing whole!
I see many parallels for which Peters about art and life as speaking in humanity, in community as a living entity, in my own life....my own walk with God.
There is much too much to chew on I think here...and I hope some may wish to chew and digest along with me, and share what comes of mind.
Larry
I've been long working on a book putting down thoughts that correlate the two, tenatively calling it, "As If It Mattered" ....and just as an artist values the good paintings of another in their efforts to grow as a painter, a writer and thinking person enjoys a good book of another who seems to be on to something.
I walked into one of those old rugged looking buildings that has a used book sign on it in the old town of Marquette, Michigan this past summer and found an old book by writer Peter Rogers, born about 1933...writing in the 80's. Called, "A Painter's Quest"...
In a section of a chapter he writes about the importance we as artists know as concerns the individual parts that will comprise a composition...and how if we do not keep sight on the purpose or objective that will culminate in a finished "whole"..then an individual part could be perfected while yet the whole fails to work. Very insightful...for then we see comparisons if we reflect as that which concerns life as well. I'd like to share a section of Rogers...but took liberty to edit as it made sense to me in a way perhaps I myself might state it. Most his words...
A Painters Quest
Bertrand Russell in his writing, "Wisdom of the West" wrote- "The Real World consists in a balanced adjustment of opposing tendencies. Behind the strife between opposites there lies a hidden harmony or attunement which is the world."
Though not speaking of art specifically, what is a work of art whether a painting, poem, symphony, or architectual structure if not a "balanced adjustment of opposing tendencies"?
Painters, whether aware of it or not, in their attempt to balance lights and darks, warm or cool colors, or try to relate all the individual parts of the painting to work as a whole, are if successful painting their own version/vision of the world of "harmony or attunement."
When drawing the human figure we are relating the parts of the figure to itself, and when expanding the figure to a canvas for painting must also include its relationship to the space around the figure.
Every line, form, and area of color has to relate to every other line, form and area of color in order to arrive at a completed whole. Unity being the goal, but impossible to achieve unless an eye is kept on the whole of the composition all the time.
Rogers goes on, "Unfortunately, as most art students soon learn, it is all too easy to get stuck on a problem involving one small part of a painting and with a sort of tunnel vision...worrying continually, becoming blindto the rest of the picture in the process"
"Often I have worked all day on a certian part of a painting, and gone to bed confident that that particular part was just right, only to get up in the morning and see with a fresh eye that that part, perfect in itself, destroyed the unity of the whole."
"It is a question of focus, and focus on any one part of a painting at the expense of the rest leads to much waste of time, energy, and paint. Unless one's focus is on the whole apinting all the time, one cannot expect it to work. These facts are basic to the creative process and of course apply equally to all art forms."
"Now, whereas at art school we were told what to do and what not to do, if we wanted to paint a good picture, religion tells us what to do and what not to do if we want to live a good life. As I shall attempt to demonstrate in a moment, the two sets of instructions are remarkably similar, and this led me to the conclusion that the same laws that apply to art apply to the creative process we a call "life."
"The only difference is that at art school we attached no ethical connotations to what we were told to do; it was simply a question of what worked and what did not. Certainly, there were good ways and bad ways of trying to solve a problem, but we only considered them good or bad according to whether or not they solved it. People have been trying to solve their problems for thousands of years, but no sooner is one solved than a worse one seems to come along. Painters are familiar with this pattern. You change one part of the picture and seem to get it right, but in the process you make another part wrong and then you have to change that too, and so on, round and round. When that happens there can only be one reason: you have fallen into the trap; you have lost sight of the composition as a whole."
"All great religious teachers have done their best to correct our failure to see."
"Each part of a painting, each line of a poem, each bar of a symphony is important not only because the complete work of art cannot exist without it but because what you as painter, poet, or composer do to each part, line or bar is what you are doing to the whole. It is absurd to suppose that any artist is going to consider one part of a composition more important than the whole composition. But whereas the artist soon learns the necesity of keeping his focus on the work of art as a whole all the time, in everyday human experience our focus tends to be exclusively on the parts. We continue to struggle with the problems inherehnt in those parts, not realizing that by so doing we can never hope to achieve harmony or attunement.
To put it another way: It is true of art, as of life that we can never hope to solve our problems by participating in the strife between opposites. Provided he concentrates on the painting as a whole, the warring elements in the design are soon resolved. Likewise in life, by focusing on the Whole and loving the Whole with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, the warring elements in human reality are sooner or later resolved too. It is all a question of focus and of love."
I'll take a moment to work thru some of this with a paint outing of mine a couple summers ago.
I found this little beach tucked away along the shores of upper Michigan on Lake Superior. First the scene as it was when I began painting...then followed later when I had finished. Same scene different mood...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-scene_at_start.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-scene_later.jpg
The novice sees such a scene painting live and attempts to paint everything, but the mature painter discerns that there is a tangible particular essential element or perhaps two that account for why his/her aesthetic was moved and compelled to paint. Thus the mature uses discrimination mindful of what NOT to paint.
For the novice the "whole" is ALL that is seen, and as is. Call it the "what."
For the mature the "whole" has come to mean the what that is seen that leads to specifically the why?
The novice is not fully aware of why they are compelled, only and simply that they are, and so starts out in a frenzy; and as the mood of the day and light changes begins to forget what it ever was that so moved them to begin with.
The mature painter knows that in order for the painting to work it will have to be seen as a whole, and that the whole is not always or rarely is the obvious. Mindful of the parts, his eyes are ever at the work's ending, that all are to come together in a cooperative scheme. S/he is mindful too that incidentals and nonessentials are many that will distract the need of the whole. Whole good compositions come easier for those that learn to see and work as an orchestrator and director of the whole.
Some years ago, there were those typical arguments on another forum where abstract modernists were saying this and that about realist painters and paintings, and some realists were talking trash about the modernists.
I threw a wrench into the discussion by sharing these, "abstract" works and asking for their opinions?
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks2.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks1.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-closeup_darks3.jpg
The abstract modernists of course praised them as can be expected, and the realists touted them as child's play and lacking purpose. I was as you probably anticipate, baiting them to make a point.
Then, I uploaded and shared the larger painting from which these smaller closeups came from...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2005/532-finished_painting.jpg
Indeed...a painting to be seen and taken in as a working whole is made up of many smaller parts, and in the case of my painterly realism many abstract parts serve the purpose of creating that eventual unity.
No matter how realistic a painting, seen close enough you can discern abstract components.
I asked a question that was more spiritual in nature, (which was ignored or quickly dismissed) if it were not possible that their sense of place to paint abstractly or realistically could not both be respected and possibly by their existence to do just that couldn't be playing a small part of a larger whole.
In the same sense that we might have a half-dozen to a dozen or more tubes of color to call upon, keeping the amount of one color in check whereby giving way for another to be used more...are possibly not we?
The tubes of paint may argue the importance of their maintaining importance, overstating their being needed to one another, but really it is up to the artist to determine for his purposes what gets used where, when and how much.
By pulling back away from the abstract parts to a short distance we are able to take in the whole of my painting here. The parts lose significance in and of themselves, but gain in significance to the purpose of the whole.
If the world were a canvas and if a Master Artist were at work, and somehow we could back off far enough...we might see that those called to paint one way and refrain from another, those another way and so forth, feeling themselves to be independent parts may in fact show themselves to be fitted together to represent a greater existing whole!
I see many parallels for which Peters about art and life as speaking in humanity, in community as a living entity, in my own life....my own walk with God.
There is much too much to chew on I think here...and I hope some may wish to chew and digest along with me, and share what comes of mind.
Larry