Vision -> Concept -> Visuals -> Paintable Image

[FriendCarol]

As I've said probably a hundred times at various times and places on WC!, I'm a verbal person, not very visual. As a writer I know exactly how to get from vision to concept to a specific finished work. (I can even articulate parts of the process, which makes me a sort of meta-writer -- not all writers are articulate about writing!)

This thread is for meta-painters, artists who are interested in the questions WHAT to paint, or WHY paint, rather than HOW TO paint (to quote Mr. Coffin). Here's one question we might attempt to address: What is the nature of a visual idea?

For some months now I've been accumulating explanatory or insightful notes and guidance about the nature of the titular process. As a painter, I feel I've reached an acceptable (for now) level of technical competence (mastery of materials), but the rest still feels maddeningly out of reach. I can have a vision, and even develop a concept -- but when it comes to developing visuals and then combining them, I discover over and over again I've fallen back into 'narrative structure.'

What I'm calling 'visuals' are potential elements of final paintings. Since I don't imagine and combine visuals appropriately, I have not developed a single satisfactory 'paintable image' yet.

If I weren't working in w/c (and only interested in w/c), this wouldn't be an insurmountable problem: Many abstract painters 'work things out' on the canvas. We can't do that with transparent watercolor, because the 'paintable image' must be in the mind's eye (or be a thumbnail sketch, or a digi/manip) before the painting can progress very far.

So: Do you sometimes get, or have, a vision? Does it lead you to a concept? How do you get visuals (if you know how you do it)? How do you assemble visuals, or store them? (A sketchbook? Remove the pages and refile them by subject? Collect magazine images? Scan them and cross-file?) How do you combine visuals to create a meaning that expresses your vision?

The question is somewhat like this: How did Picasso get from his outrage at the atrocities of deliberate targeting of civilians by aircraft bombers to Guernica? (Not that I really like Picasso so much, but that's a clear example of the process I'm seeking to explore.)

[CharM]

Wow, Carol... this is really deep... you've presented us with many questions... there were a couple of threads, recently, that touched on the very topics you're exploring...

As something of a realist, I don't tend to look much beyond my intent for a composition... BUT... I do need to *feel* the light... the *life*... the colour, of what I paint...

I haven't given this much thought and will come back to your thread... because, I tend to *see* a final composition in my garden and photographs of my garden...

I can tell you this much before I sign off for the night... I paint, primarily, from my own images... Occasionally, I'll use a photograph that someone has shared in the Wash... anyway... I file those according to subject matter on my computer hard drive...

I have combined references, but not to my satisfaction...

[Don Berendsen]

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

This thread is for meta-painters, artists who are interested in the questions WHAT to paint, or WHY paint, rather than HOW TO paint (to quote Mr. Coffin)

For me the what is often a simple abstract concept, the why is to express and communicate that concept. But there is a level to 'HOW' which goes far beyond any technical skill. It's a communication skill, developing a visual language which will communicate strongly and clearly and the ability to express with it. To me that is a critical part of the artistic process. Of course one must have something worthwhile to communicate if one is to create worthwhile art.

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

So: Do you sometimes get, or have, a vision? Does it lead you to a concept? How do you get visuals (if you know how you do it)?

For me the impetus is usually visual, but it may have associated with it a very subtle abstract concept. Something far more subtle than words or symbols.

Getting to the visuals can be quite a struggle and I think keeps me from creating worthwhile art. However my approach is the typical creative process of gathering information, clarifying the goal, having the clear, strong intent to 'know', and being open. Not thinking, not trying to figure out. Just being open.

The intent makes this is an active openness, not a passive one. When things come up they have to be dealt with so experimenting, investigating, making notes, communicating, developing additional skills, etc. all come into play.

Whether it's not having something truly worthwhile or not being able to develop the necessary visual language I haven't gotten anywhere near the goal so what I can say is a rather limited.

In the thread below there's a lot about the process. Note that it took three versions and a lot of reflection about what I was trying to communicate, how to do it, and just getting the materials and developing the skills. If you look closely at the first w/c version and the last you'll see many subtle yet significant changes to the drawing. They weren't to make it more 'accurate', but to say 'Life' and 'Love'. How does one portray such things? How does one know what line to change and how much? I don't know, but that my intent was clear and I was open to where ever what came up took me.


one that worked

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

The question is somewhat like this: How did Picasso get from his outrage at the atrocities of deliberate targeting of civilians by aircraft bombers to Guernica? (Not that I really like Picasso so much, but that's a clear example of the process I'm seeking to explore.)

Don't know about Picasso, but a creative process roughly along the lines of what I've described has been commonly used to come up with very creative ideas for a long time.

FWIW,

db

[vhere]

an interesting question Carol.

Have you done the personality tests that give you your personality type? (Tickle.com has zillions including Meyers Briggs as I'm sure you know)

I come out as a Visual Linguist and on right/left brain am horrendously right brained - which explains why I can see the big picture but never work out the steps to explain step-by-step how to get there! I've always struggled with step by step organisation in advance, as I work totally instinctively, considering and changing as I go - the intellectual, conceptual thoughts are there but flowing and changing, not totally pre-planned.

This means I never pre-visualise a finished piece, I think I'd actually be bored if I did, I know what I want to express - a sense of place, weather, light, time, a rough composition etc but the finished piece evolves as I go and may change direction in response to the painting itself as it evolves.

This is difficult in watercolour, which is why I use mixed media with watercolour - I use oil pastels as a resist (Sennelier only as they are the BEST!), coloured pencil, ink, chinagraph pencil, tippex pen - all sorts! oh and sometimes chalk pastels or pastel pencil - oh and white gouache, which I can mix with the watercolours to regain lost lights if I need to.

These mean I can change things, enhance, introduce line or texture, with colour showing through - all the expressive painterly marks I enjoy.

I realise chalk pastels may be out for you - but oil pastels? and white gouache would they be ok? I love the way that watercolour goes over oil pastel marks.



a very very quick demo done to show a student in class



and another

I only have a very limited range of colours - mainly the darks and very lights. I couldn't do without the white and I have a lovely metallic pale turquoisy blue that I love.

I think you'd enjoy using mixed media with watercolour with your enquiring mind

Vivien

[Neeman]

Friend Carol,

Let go of the mind.
Let go of an end result.

Use the painting as a vehical to emote.
There is only the process.
The result is irrelevant.

How did P.. get from his outrage at... to .....?
He started with his outrage.
Then he drew....


Big pieces of cheap paper...
Lots of them....
Process not result.....

Start with the feelings of the color.
Load your palette with your cheapest paints.
Wet all your paints in the palette so they are juicy and can be lifted from the palette..
Then..
Wet on wet with big brushes.

Use Indian Ink then colors.

Wax Crayons then color.

State your feeling as you work.

Spontaneous.

Too fast for the head to think!!

I am clear this is not an answer to your question.
But it might be an answer.

Neeman.

[FriendCarol]

Hi, Vivien -- the Myers-Briggs is based on the 4 Jungian poles (or axes), and I've read Jung. Sorta remember my classifications (mostly I remember that only 2% of the population is 'my' type, and most of US are NOT articulate!). I'm definitely introspective and intuitive (yes, I know I probably don't sound intuitive, but I am!), I flip-flop often on judging/perceiving... and just now I've forgotten the other axis.

I'm quite well-balanced between analysis and synthesis; can do a thing intuitively, then (introspectively) figure out how I did it (often) and explain it step by step. One of my graduate school professors often used to stop me midstream, after I'd made some leap (which to me didn't seem to be a leap) to ask how that followed from what I'd just said. I finally realized I had been leaving out intermediate steps all my life (probably because I was a social isolate throughout almost my entire childhood and adolescence.) As a practicing technical writer, I got to be much better at NEVER leaving out a step, and seeing things from the reader's POV, but I don't always translate those skills to non-professional fields.

I recognize the people like you, the 'visual' people, and I'm trying to pick your brains in this thread! Thanks for the examples of things you try to express:

a sense of place, weather, light, time

I love your abstract work.

Hi, Don -- I love your work, too, but I also know what you mean when you say it's not expressing what you aspire to express:

keeps me from creating worthwhile art

Of course your art is worthwhile -- Sue threading the bobbin is a delight! Yet I also know what you mean by that. I recognize you also as being closer to my more verbal type.

Indeed, those attitudes of 'being prepared' by continually thinking about the problem, being open to seeing solutions, are very familiar. In fact, there's an article I used to teach in a university course, called something like "The Case of the Floppy-Eared Rabbit: Serependity gained and lost," which lists precisely those factors (and a couple others), and how they apply to significant scientific discoveries.

They weren't to make [the painting] more 'accurate', but to say 'Life' and 'Love'.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean here. I even feel somewhat able myself to look at an existing visual scene (particularly a landscape, which is easiest for me still) and 'shape' it to emphasize delicacy or strength, etc., to some extent.

What Don & Vivien seem to have in common is starting from a visual stimulus, or as Don says:

For me the impetus is usually visual, but it may have associated with it a very subtle abstract concept. Something far more subtle than words or symbols.

Probably not coincidentally, the most 'successful' abstract I've yet painted also 'started' as an actual visual stimulus. Well, sort of!

Just before WC! went down for 4 days, someone asked a question in the w/c Technical subforum about coloring a green tomato. I responded to the question -- both in attempting to provide a factual answer, but I must also have been somewhat inspired by the sense of wonder or delight expressed in the question.

Anyway, that night, as I wondered what to paint, I decided to try to illustrate my answer to the question 'what colors should I use to paint a green tomato.' Only, of course, the reference photo was unavailable, since WC! went down. So I painted around it: There was a huge, almost invisible green tomato in the middle of my quarter-sheet of paper, with smaller abstract doodles around it! And throughout the next 4 days, every time I sat in the kneeling chair at my painting table, I still didn't have an actual ref pic, and I just kept adding to the abstract bits that were there:

Since this was supposed to just be an illustration of color, I had actually used the back side of a quarter-sheet of Curry's 200# paper. This turns out not to be sized, compared with the felt side. So I couldn't fix this much.

Anyway, I can see how working with an existing visual can lead to abstract expression. What I can't see is how to get from the concept -- thing to be expressed -- to the visuals!

To get back to my original example, obviously Picasso read about Guernica (the town), he didn't go there and sketch anything. When I first saw this piece, btw, I was stunned to realize it was b&w, because of what I'd read about its impact as a piece of art. At the same time, I could see it practically had to be b&w: The content is so raw it is expressed largely by abstracting the figurative elements, as well as the jagged angularity of the lines.

Playwrights often distance their concept using time (Arthur Miller's The Crucible, for example, and many of Shakespeare's histories) or place, too. We know (whether analytically or intuitively) that if we write a play about (for example) fetal abortion, the audience will not take it in -- everyone already has a very strong pre-existing attitude. So we distance what we have to say, by setting it in a far off time or place, so the audience will be drawn in and actually think through and feel with the action. Anyway, I think that's what Picasso was doing when he removed hue from his painting, in order to convey the horror more effectively.

So, in Picasso's case, apparently he simply chose figurative elements that were all too easy to imagine, which obviously expressed the concept. Then he refined the presentation of his visual elements in such a way that the audience would have to look to really see it.

Perhaps I should focus on simple visuals, such as a petal, or perhaps bees and flowers relating to one another, and see where that leads me.

Neeman, there is another tool (besides Myers-Briggs) I have used for spiritual direction, and so I know that I myself am someone who thinks/feels: My type cannot think without feeling, and cannot feel without thinking. Those are one thing for me.

I know it is tempting to tell me to 'not think,' but believe me, that is not possible for me -- unless I am engaged in some purely physical activity. (And these days, unless I somehow get to a pool, I cannot be engaged in purely physical activities!) Anyway, I have tried slashing at paper with color to express something of what I wanted to express about rain, but it definitely did not work!

[vhere]

that is lovely - except WHY did you put the literal tree in that beautifully fluid abstract painting???? IMO it needs to be loosened up to 'go' with the fluid marks around it. Only my opinion - and I'm sure there'll be contrary opinions, and who's to say who is right

I think that loose abstraction is something you should continue to explore - possibly including marks in oil pastel/other media? Only a little oil pastel and each mark made with it needs to really count as it will shine through the watercolours and won't be covered up, so 'less is more'.

It's fascinating what different characters we have. One friend, a very talented painter, is a Kinetic something or other. Visual doesn't feature to my surprise - but when I thought about it then it was absolutely her, she can't keep still, constantly active and moving. You can see this in her work too (Maggie on click here for link

I'll have to persuade other friends to do the tests and see how it links with their work

[FriendCarol]

WHY did you put the literal tree in that beautifully fluid abstract painting

No, you're absolutely right, the tree does not belong (and btw, when I posted this in Abs/Con forum, half said exactly what you just said, while the other half loved the tree!).

The reason I put the tree there (of course I did have a reason! ) is that I thought I would be shadowing/foreshadowing that missing tomato!!! (Both round, both green... I don't know, maybe it would have worked!) Of course, since the tomato never did show up... WC! took 4 full days to return, and by then I'd finished this except perhaps for the tomato... But the tomato was among those few images/posts that had not been backed up, so it never returned. So it was impossible for me to put it in, anyway. That's why this abstract is now called "Ghost of a Green Tomato." (You can actually see the 'ghost' if you have a decent monitor, btw,with brightness not set too high; otherwise, it looks as if nothing's there!)

This does clearly illustrate, btw, that one should avoid a definite inconsistency in style of visual elements. (Probably a rule that can be broken by those who know what they're doing, but I don't!) This inconsistency can destroy a painting; I've done that more than once already!

Fortunately, one man who was in the 'loved the tree' camp liked it well enough to 'trade art' for it, so this image now resides with an abstract artist in England. (Actually, since he liked the tree but thought it should have companions, I added a couple smaller ones, overlapping behind it, before I posted it off! )

[vhere]

[FriendCarol]

Today the first book I ever ordered online arrived: David Pye's The Nature and Art of Workmanship (1968). I've just read about half, and this is a great book. Definitely written by a meta-artist, and giving me some useful concepts which I'll try to share once I've digested it a bit more.

He distinguishes between marks that are free and regulated, to varying degrees. Another thing he discusses is 'equivocality' as a negative factor (often an indicator for poor workmanship); this turns out to be the flip side of a concept I address positively as 'cues for intentionality.' My 'shadowing' of what he would call 'free' shapes/lines is one old habit to indicate intentionality.

He also points out that regulated marks on rough workmanship is often equivocal, unless they are clearly dissociated. Sometimes I like to start an abstract wet-in-wet (rough workmanship) and then begin to make 'free' marks with strong cues for intentionality.

It's so nice to begin discovering a vocabulary! He specifically makes the case for language, illustrated with a story about Confucius (p. 49). Here is his point: "...on questions of art, communication is seldom... effective. There is an immense amount of noise and little else. Definitions are the only possible basis for communication and we must have them. If they cannot yet be made final we must have provisional ones."

P.S. Don, I remember discussing with you some months ago that geometric elements can be incorporated into a design with more organic or figurative abstract elements. I think this would be an example of 'regulated' marks with 'free' elements. Have you read this book, btw? After I've read it, we could start posting it around the world to other interested artists!

[FriendCarol]

Just dumping some more concepts into this thread from Pye's book (then I MUST get some sleep ):

Workmanship of certainty vs. workmanship of risk (productive); good/bad -- good [art] has qualities of soundness, comeliness; work can be rough/precise; workmanship of risk normally entails diversity. He also developed (to some extent) the approach I incorporated from fractal/complexity: work needs to speak from across the room, at normal distance, and close up (though his approach is more continuous than discrete).

Okay, more thinking, and painting, tomorrow.

[FriendCarol]

When I was more naive about visual art than I am now, I assumed artists had developed theories that guided them as they worked. (Go ahead and laugh. ) One result of reading David Pye's 1968 book was my discovery that visual arts don't have a well-developed body of theory, or even a rich concept language, associated with them.

The introduction to the newer edition made that point really well. In fact, it credits Pye's book with singlehandedly reversing the trend towards the death of good craftsmanship (need better word, there) that was evident at the time he wrote it! Pye's pointing out the necessity for workmanship of risk, and how to evaluate it, helped new craftworkers to recreate standards for quality work, or to apply them confidently.

Watercolor and visual arts don't need rescuing (I hope, and despite the digital revolution!), but I need an appropriate language for myself. If I'm reinventing the wheel at any point (spoke?), please point out where useful concepts already exist!

Starting with visual element and visual idea... I am familiar with the 'elements and principles of design'; I need more:

A 'visual element' seems to be a shape (perhaps, for others, a line?) together with its qualities. Thus, it is a particular colored, textured, modeled (i.e., inclusive of values), sized shape. Another of its qualities is its state of possible membership in what I call a composite shape. (I defined 'composite shape' long months ago in some thread in Composition forum. PM me if you don't know & do care what it means -- consensus seemed to be that the term was already in general use to mean roughly what I mean by it.)

I don't seem ready, quite, to define 'visual idea' as precisely as 'visual element.' The implementation of a 'visual idea' may, or may not, result in a visual element... Creating membership (of existing or new visual elements) within a composite shape is certainly one class of 'visual idea.'

Examples: Glazing is one way to accomplish this alteration of membership in composite shape in w/c, as in the recent 'Quick & Dirty Orchids' thread. Also, I once gradated a light horizontal area (with black) to link two sets of shapes into one larger composite shape; this gradation wasn't a proper 'visual element' itself (all its edges were soft, so it wasn't really much of a shape).

But 'visual idea' is larger than merely altering shape class-membership; it's a concept concerning which I'm still groping for greater clarity. Transitions are other phenomena which should fall under 'visual ideas,' for example.

Of course, a transition in visual art is still largely addressed within the 'narrative structure' paradigm, for me. This is one major reason I need a better understanding of 'visual ideas!'

Guess that's as far as I can get today.

P.S. Forgot to note that a very important class of 'visual idea' for me is to 'increase intentionality.' (This I often accomplish by intensifying color; elaborating backruns; 'shadowing;' increasing value; or repetition, usually with variation.) This increase of apparent intentionality corresponds quite closely to what David Pye calls 'equivocality,' except that his concept is really 'indications of lack of intentionality,' so it's negative.

Most w/c artists who work somewhat loosely are very familiar with 'increasing intentionality' -- they look for figures in random areas (which w/c is so good at producing!), then 'bring out' those figures that seem to be somewhat present. Example: If one sees something that could be developed into a leaf and makes it a leaf, one is 'increasing the intentionality' of that random almost-shape.

This concept, in part, gets at how we persuade the viewer to continue looking at the art long enough to see what we've put into it: If the viewer sees the work as essentially random or without much quality, the viewer usually does not pay attention.

(I have a theory about appreciation -- or lack thereof -- for abstract art: Artists appreciate it more than the general public because artists habitually pay more attention to visual art. Thus, they may be picking up cues, and meaning or intentionality in the art, missed by the more casual viewer.)

[wtfarrar]

As to thinking about art: I think people come with different cognitive styles. The stereotype is the left- vs. right- brain style. For me, I am very verbal due to my training. However, I think my dominant and natural style is more non-verbal, pattern/association oriented.

For me thinking about art is kind of like how I do cooking with a wok. I spend a lot of time thinking (i.e., cutting vegetables, preparing the sauce and the like) and just let the cooking happen fast once oil and food touch heat. If the work is complex, I'll wait until I'm tired, stop and contemplate again. If the work is more simple, I'm usually done with it in the sitting.

What I like doing in thinking about things like techniques is thinking how they are deployed. For example (and I apologize that my medium is oil/acrylic and this is a watercolor thread, but hopefully the principles will hold in this case).

I think a great example for meta-thinking about technique is your nice observation on glazing

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

I don't seem ready, quite, to define 'visual idea' as precisely as 'visual element.' The implementation of a 'visual idea' may, or may not, result in a visual element... Creating membership (of existing or new visual elements) within a composite shape is certainly one class of 'visual idea.'

Examples: Glazing is one way to accomplish this alteration of membership in composite shape in w/c, as in the recent 'Quick & Dirty Orchids' thread. Also, I once gradated a light horizontal area (with black) to link two sets of shapes into one larger composite shape; this gradation wasn't a proper 'visual element' itself (all its edges were soft, so it wasn't really much of a shape).

But 'visual idea' is larger than merely altering shape class-membership; it's a concept concerning which I'm still groping for greater clarity. Transitions are other phenomena which should fall under 'visual ideas,' for example.

Here's the difficult part, I think. "Visual ideas" feel more like technical tools (i.e., overlapping of color masses, scumbling, glazing, wet-in-wet mixing).
I think these visual tools are not fixed, but rather are determined by the objectives of the painting process.

For example,
One reason I use glazing, which I only use infrequently (I scumble more, but I am using alkyds to glaze in the piece I am currently working on) is that it can be used as a powerful tool for rendering dimensionality. Many people would agree that a glaze of pthalo blue can push boundary into the distance. It also can be used- as in the quote above- to reduce the distinction between two forms. And, of course, it can provide both services at once as well as many others.

The difficulty here, as I see it, is we need to know what we aim to express (the idea in the imagination) -> Pick the tools and techniques we aim to use (subject to modification once we begin) -> render the imagination into an artistic production using our tools.

If this relation is accepted for just the moment (and yes, I know it is problematic!), the role of any tool like glazing (i.e., a particular semantic component of painting, like a noun in language) is then put in a context with other tools according to the techniques of organization we have been trained in (i.e., the visual semantics are inserted into a visual syntax) work together to point toward artistic "intention".

Here's the problem, "visual ideas", if I correctly understand them as tools of expression like glazing, may not have the status of "ideas" (i.e., expressing a thought) until they are embedded in the work themselves.

This is not to say that a tool lacks all meaning. Rather, it remains inherently ambiguous- as most semantics are- until deployed in a context (for example "stand" in "ice-cream stand" vs. "last stand" vs. "standing ovation")

I think the problem with terminology, which we both struggle with is one of making the distinctions at the right point of the artistic process.
Thus, is the difficulty here in thinking of things as "glazing" as ia "visual idea"? Or am I misunderstanding?

[FriendCarol]

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

For me thinking about art is kind of like how I do cooking with a wok. I spend a lot of time thinking (i.e., cutting vegetables, preparing the sauce and the like) and just let the cooking happen fast once oil and food touch heat. If the work is complex, I'll wait until I'm tired, stop and contemplate again. If the work is more simple, I'm usually done with it in the sitting.

This is a perfect analogy for watercolor! (I, too, cook -- when it's not so hot! -- in a wok.) Yes, the prep is almost all of it. If tofu has to be marinated first, forethought and advanced prep time is required. The elements must be carefully prepared and organized.

Once the water hits the paper, in some cases at least, everything must be in place, already thought out, either mentally rehearsed or nearly habitual through long experience. Actually, because I am somewhat disabled (and only a couple of weeks ago developed a setup allowing me to paint on the bed), my style has evolved in the direction of a set of techniques that can be performed in stages: I can sit 45 minutes (maximum) in a kneeling chair, so I would mix colors and paint, then wait for everything to dry before the next session. But now I can abandon those restrictions, as long as I can set up everything I will need for more extended work using my bedtray tools.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

What I like doing in thinking about things like techniques is thinking how they are deployed. For example (and I apologize that my medium is oil/acrylic and this is a watercolor thread, but hopefully the principles will hold in this case).

I think a great example for meta-thinking about technique is your nice observation on glazing

Yes, I think we're going to need 'technique' as an item-class in our visual vocabulary, as well as rendering, visual element (and the sub- and super- concepts that go with that), object, etc. Also, material -- in w/c, far more than in other media, the qualities of a specific pigment are very important to the planning and rendering processes. But even in oil, I know you have transparent and opaque pigments, etc.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

Here's the difficult part, I think. "Visual ideas" feel more like technical tools (i.e., overlapping of color masses, scumbling, glazing, wet-in-wet mixing).
I think these visual tools are not fixed, but rather are determined b the objectives of the painting process.

Okay, that's a good observation -- sometimes the visual idea is a technique! Yet, others are visual elements.

A 'visual idea' could be defined (at least at times) as the solution to a problem of visual expression. Within this definition: Sometimes this solution will be a technique, and other times, a visual element. It could also be a style of rendering (using Pye's terms, we may choose a point along the continuum of precise to rough rendering). It could also be a sub-class of visual element: one of the elements of design, such as a certain color, a certain size, a certain shape.

Yet a visual idea is not always or only the solution to a problem: Other times, a more visual person (even me, once or twice!) may see something in the world, and something about that experience may become what is to be expressed. In that case, we might want to say the 'visual idea' is the stimulus for the painting.

Btw, I already have a word for that germ of the painting, analogous to my use of 'crystal' for the germ of a poem. In painting, I call that experience or observation the 'moment.' So a fuller conception of our entire process might be
experience -> moment ->
either (vision) or (visual idea) ->
concept -> visual elements (arranged?) -> paintable image -> painting (or more generally, 'object').

I think a full theory ought to distinguish between 'experience' and 'moment' because one issue that can be addressed is how a painter can come to recognize a moment within experience -- paying attention. Artists who've written about finding a painting everywhere one turns are focussing on this part of the process.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

One reason I use glazing, which I only use infrequently (I scumble more, but I am using alkyds to glaze in the piece I am currently working on) is that it can be used as a powerful tool for rendering dimensionality. Many people would agree that a glaze of pthalo blue can push boundary into the distance. It also can be used- as in the quote above- to reduce the distinction between two forms. And, of course, it can provide both services at once as well as many others.

Yes, and the reason glazing works this way (to render dimension or distance) is that it adjusts (correctly, in most cases) the value (design element) of a form (visual element).

So this single technique, glazing, lends itself to several uses as a visual idea.

The process is, perhaps, we are painting and see that something is too bold or close or noticeable, so we need a solution to distance that visual element. One solution is the visual idea of the technique of glazing. Now compare this with the completely different solution (but usually NOT for w/c!) of placing a new visual element in front of the problematic visual element.

Does this example explain why I think I need the concept "visual idea?" If the organization of the problem is 'create more distance,' there is more than one solution. Furthermore, the solutions are of different types. So I would like to call a potential solution a 'visual idea.' (Although 'visual idea' is not identical with solution, since it can also be a germ.)

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

The difficulty here, as I see it, is we need to know what we aim to express (the idea in the imagination) -> Pick the tools and techniques we aim to use (subject to modification once we begin) -> render the imagination into an artistic production using our tools.

I agree we ought to start with the moment. (Not all painters do, though -- if you hang out awhile in the Abs/Con forum, you soon notice that many abstract painters start with the paint. Some of them do this because they are formally "Abstract Expressionists" who believe that if they simply paint, whatever is in their subconscious will be expressed, if they do it right. But, at the same time, it's okay with them if what gets expressed is nothing more than particular relationships among colors, shapes, etc. That's not okay with me. )

I don't quite agree that we then pick the tools and techniques we aim to use. That may work for you, but as an abstract painter, I suffer a short-circuit here! The invisible step is some preliminary arrangement (roughly!) of the visual elements. In my case, I seldom have the visual elements, let along an arrangement of them.

Since I needed to master w/c materials & techniques, and because my rendering skills needed a lot of work, I spent many months here participating in the WDE and otherwise working in a representational way. So I entirely understand why my 'invisible step' is invisible: Even though I will alter the placement of the tree, the colors of the grass, etc., I am already working with the visual elements of the paintable image when I am not working on an abstract painting.

My problem may be better defined as: I attempt to arrange inappropriately figurative (or precisely rendered?) visual elements, in trying to express a highly abstract moment.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

If this relation is accepted for just the moment (and yes, I know it is problematic!), the role of any tool like glazing (i.e., a particular semantic component of painting, like a noun in language) is then put in a context with other tools according to the techniques of organization we have been trained in (i.e., the visual semantics are inserted into a visual syntax) work together to point toward artistic "intention".

I am not quite ready to discuss HOW we reach intention AFTER the selection of the visual elements. This, I think, is where Don Berendsen has quite a bit of interest in the process, though -- which is still intuitive and hard to talk about (partly since we need a vocabulary of rendering?).

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

Here's the problem, "visual ideas", if I correctly understand them as tools of expression like glazing, may not have the status of "ideas" (i.e., expressing a thought) until they are embedded in the work themselves.

I absolutely agree that embeddedness is central to 'visual idea,' which is one reason a definition as 'solution to problem' works so well, part of the time.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

This is not to say that a tool lacks all meaning. Rather, it remains inherently ambiguous- as most semantics are- until deployed in a context (for example "stand" in "ice-cream stand" vs. "last stand" vs. "standing ovation")

Yes.

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

I think the problem with terminology, which we both struggle with is one of making the distinctions at the right point of the artistic process.

If we just define the process fully, that would be a big step in the right direction! The rest of the development is little more than getting the class memberships (or Venn diagram!) right.

Then, finally, we would be ready to identify semantic components and speak in a generative way -- creatively, saying things not said previously. (I'm assuming you are famliar with the ideas behind Chomsky's Transformational Grammar. )

Originally Posted by wtfarrar

Thus, is the difficulty here in thinking of things as "glazing" as ia "visual idea"? Or am I misunderstanding?

You tell me.

[FriendCarol]

Yes, and the reason glazing works this way (to render dimension or distance) is that it adjusts (correctly, in most cases) the value (design element) of a form (visual element).

Reduced to quoting myself again. Why am I formally identifying these classes? Because to do so is useful -- leads to other possibilities!

In this example, if we merely agree 'you glaze to render dimensionality' we are overlooking all the other ways to render dimensionality, as well as all the other ways to use glazing. Cezanne and the Fauves (I'm told) used hue changes for dimensionality, for example. A different design element (hue not value) of the same visual element (form) is altered. We could also have altered other design elements (size -- as in cubism or other forms of radical 'perspective-like' transformations?) to change the perceived dimensionality!

I'm not really saying this to WT here, but to readers generally: The reason to bother with identifying what we're saying formally is that it can lead us to greater creativity. This happens because we can substitute other 'elements of design' (or other 'visual elements' etc.) for the ones we have been using, once we realize we are using one element of design and that there are many.

By analogy, we are more creative in English if we recognize we are overusing a particular adjective ("that's interesting," we say, over and over, until we learn we could use, as alternatives to that adjective, "that's fascinating," "that's intriguing," "that's puzzling" etc.) We are substituting adjectives.