Oil Paintings

so continuing on from the last post, bin keeping at oil paintings. Just doing my third at the mo, and having a break inbetween.

As I said before, what I'm enjoying most is the way you can mix oils on the canvas. I'venever enjoyed colour, its always been a finnicky point for me, but I spose that's because I never went near a theory book for it or tried to understand how. Using oils gives me the time to do this, by practicing it, and learning as I go along.

Anywho here's the second one I did, its of me nan.

Quite happy with this one, though not really as its not what I was going for.

What I want to do with oils, is have the paintings be really loosely defined at the edges, then all come together in the focal point (in this instance that'd be the face) What I'd change is have the outer edges of the painting - eg the shoulders - be really loose & abstract, all paint splodges coming together, like flower petals, rising up to make her face. I want all the splodges to feel like nature coming together to make something. The idea being that we are like waves; how waves rise up out the ocean and form for a minute and we point and say 'hey look its a wave', people are the same: We rise up out the Earth, form for a moment of time, 80 years or so, then fall back into it, like waves do.

This is the idea I want to imply with my paintings. Not capturing that at the mo, but I feel if I continue I will. I think at the mo its because I'm new to it and still toeing quite a conservative line. When I've got the confidence of the medium I'll be able to express what I mean properly.

With this in mind, I'm going to break one of my rules. I've always believed that an 'artist', be it a painter, writer, animator or whoever, should try their best with what they're trying to achieve (the message, not just the technical ability). if you're not trying your best your setting in stone a limit of your abilities that is lower, and is a harder standard to reach further from. Your also not developing. Hemingway summed it up neatly during a conversation with Fitzgerald (from his book A Moveable Feast):

"He had told me at the Closerie des Liles how he wrote what he thought were good stories, and which were really good stories for 'the post', and then changed them for submission, knowing exactly how he must make the twists that made them into salable magazine stories. I had been shocked at this and I said I thought it was whoring. He said that it was whoring but that he had to do it as he made his money from the magazines to have money ahead to write decent books. I said that I did not believe anyone could write anyway except the very best he could write without destroying his talent"

This 'destruction of talent' is the reason why I've chose to avoid the industry. Perhaps its pig-headed to do so, but I don't care, its only my opinion. Perhaps im setting myself up to fail, but again I don't care, I may end up 27 with no 'experience' behind me except my own subjective avenues but I'd rather explore them than some other pursuit. I also know its an ignorant perspective (ignorant of the virtues of the industry) but still the main thing I want to do is my own thing. I'd rather walk at my own pace & do that than be caught up in some whole other world.

But for painting with oils I'm going to break this for a moment; I think what I need to do is continue practicing: be conservative about it, if that's all I can do. Most of all I must just keep at it. Keep knocking them out and getting better technically. It's like Dylan said, 'Write ten songs a day, throw nine away'. The gems will begin to shine.

When I have my confidence with them, I'll be able to be freer with it and explore how I want to use them. I spose this is the standard way really - Picasso learnt to paint traditionally & realistically very well before he went into Cubism. Ralph Steadman too - he was a very accurate & articulate, traditional painter, painting landscapes and still life and such. He got his abilities up, then he met Hunter Thompson, got crazy, and his drawings completely changed..

My main inspiration, I'd say is still Kathe Kollwitz. I love her looseness. Altho she didn't work in oils (atleast that's not what she's known for) the way the lines curve & caress and disperse freely is (referring to the waves idea above) what I want to present.

Also love Lucien Freud just for the sheer thickness of his paint, & his auterial eye.

Also getting very into Duncan Grant & Vanessa Bell. I think these two touched on what I want to do at times, and in their varied exploration threw up some interesting ideas.

If you know anyone else I should look into, let me know. 

I do find I'm very 'conservative'. Painting, writing & such you learn things about yourself (for an auteur POV), infact it was playing Chess I really realised how conservative I am. My friend I usually play with would make big sweeping moves - throw the Queen out into the centre ground within a few moves - whilst I'm there, hushing my pawns along, little by little. As I've got more confident with chess, I've began making bigger sweeping moves, this will be the same for painting, in time.

Right, time to get back to it. Will post the painting up when done. Not liking it at the mo, but must keep my integrety, not let the Lilly Briscoe blues take over, and just keep at it.

Peace

Sincerity part 2 featuring Bobby D

Following on from thinking about the importance of sincerity to art (first bit).

'Art' you can think of as 'articulation'. We forget that though words are vast and can be bent to present a fathomable 'articulation' of what we want to say, they are weak, loose-fitting definitions that can never fully pronounce what we really want to express. If we agree with W.Benjamin that works of art are mere deathmasks of the original (link, number 13), then words are merely pale stabs in the dark.

Talking about her husbands lyrics, Olivia Harrison (George's wife) said "George usually referred to the lyrics of Bob Dylan when trying to make a point or elucidate his own feelings of isolation and frustration brought about by things in and beyond this life. Many times he said "I wish I knew more words", but perhaps all the words in the world, including the Sanskrit and mantras integral to his vocabulary, could not fully express his depth of feeling and realisation"

This is true of all of us, and its the reason a certain song (or painting, poem, anything) can be so cherished for us in moments of heartbreak (or joy); they seem to pronounce so much more what we are trying to articulate than our words ever could.

This I feel is in the succincticity of all parts strung together; the melody, the beat - fast or slow, & the lyrics themselves, all joining, working together to relay the depths of what we feel inside & wish to express.


A very good example of this is Dylan on the track 'Positively 4th street'. (Note - A good example if you are  familiar with his other work, so apologies for my rose-tinted view) On this song Dylan sounds defiantly self-righteous, so scornful to his ex in lyrics that kick off with "You got a lot of nerve, to say you are my friend, when I was down you just stood there grinning".
However its not only in his lyrics but in the self-righteous way he sings them, the beat of the drum chugging away, and the melody which sweeps in and commands a sense of resolution to the scene he portrays. This ain't Charlie-Chaplin-Dylan caught in play-rhymes or serious contemplative solemn Dylan like we've heard in previous songs; this is him with his back up & his tail withdrawn from beneath his legs.

Words alone can't command such articulation. For example the lyrics themselves could be imagined in a broken, detached voice, distant and silently self-righteous. But the character he presents is one we can all find within ourselves when the time calls.



Another example, which is perhaps more widely recognised, would be Sinead O'Connor on Nothing Compares to you. Again, the words, her articulation of those words, and the simple, sad karaoke-esque backing track all tie together. With this example, we have the video too, which sticks in your mind just as emphatically as the rest.

---
On second thoughts, this post has a degree of hypocrisy when levied against the preivious post on the subject. Subjectively for myself, Dylan speaks volumes, however what's to say Christina Aguilera singing Diirty - written by someone else, perhaps not with her full 'sincerity' behind - can't speak with equal truth  for people as Dylan does? It's certainly sung with equal gusto, and afterall, art is in the eye of the beholder, regardless of its conception.

The same could be said for a Beyonce song (who I feel is simply playing the game) or a One Direction song (who, undeniably, are as factory-processed as they come). Is sincerity really fundamental?

I spose at the very least it's a great lynch-pin, if something is sincere, then it is worthy of consideration. If someone truly feels something then it is a statement to adorn the great human tapestry. Culture is a reflection of us, in our place & time - regardless of whether that's Sinead O'Connor singing despairingly about the death of her mother or Robin Thick singing ironically & testingly about rape.. Irony, malevolence & disdain are sincere emotions too afterall..

Then on another level, even if Robin Thick wasn't sincere, the reaction to it from the masses (people unflinchingly dancing away) too tells us something to further our understanding of ourselves & our current condition (culture).

Anywho, thoughts thoughts thoughts. Roll on.

sincerity

You could write this video off just as some wacky fella from Belgium. Do that aswell if you like, but it makes you think about sincerity. Note, assuming this is for real and not a joke.

Sincerity I think is key to art. If someone is saying something that they feel sincere about, from a  sociological angle we can use it to futher our understanding about the human endeavour. With this fella for example, he is obsessed with marbles. Bit odd, you might say, but it is an obsession nonetheless. If he was equally obsessed with something a little more usual, perhaps his body, working out, then we may not question it or write it off. 

This leads us to ask, why is it usual to be obsessed with your body/looks rather than something like marbles? They are both passions. Both worthless in the end, so why do we do them? Why do they make us happy & keep us compelled? Is it to be wrapped up in something that is the draw?

Anywho, hope I haven't lost you. But to turn back to sincerity. I find sincerity is key in art. Sincerity is the departure point from the audience to the work, from the audience to the soul of humanity itself. It is the departure point, meaning without that truthfulness & earnestness imbedded compounding every word, brush stroke, movement, how can we trust it?

Sincerity is key. Even if there ideal they are presenting is (perceived by you) wrong, sincerity enables you to trace it - where they coming from? At which point did there feeling become broken off from you're own, their eyes blemished & haized in this way? Trace that vein to the big human heart (we all want happiness, we all want to avoid suffering, we all live we all die). You can forgive innocence, you can accept a different opinion to your own if struck with conviction, you can emphasise - admire, pity, be GLAD for naivety etc etc. 

E.G the songwriter Elliot Smith. After listening to his album a few times I got bored of the whiny broken heartedness of it all. But that aint an act, it isnt something masqueraded or suggested by the record company. He's broke & sounds broke. He's sincere about it. This is the problem with people on X-Factor & modern pop music in general. They are told to 'sing joyful' or sing 'poignantly tragically' etc, but it ain't the truth of how they're feeling, there's nothing beneath the big bellyful singing.

Another example is the futurist art movement. I feel very little in common with the futurists, infact they are quite counter to my feeling about the world. They were people around the turn of the last century obsessed with what was going on around them & the optimism that bloomed from it - motor cars, big great feat's of architecture etc. They were wide-eyed at the new capabilities of man and heralded this new mechanical world they saw growing around them. They believed in a loss of humanity in the shadow of the machine. Marinetti, the leader of the movement, held great revolutionary opinions like "…destroy the museums, the libraries, every type of academy… …the great crowds, shaken by work, by pleasure or by rioting”… …We will glorify war – the world’s only hygiene – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.". I don't agree with this, but sincerity lets me see what led him to this point. 

Art to me is all about unrolling the endless truth of humanity. It's expression of everything in ways that words cannot suffice. As Bukowski put it "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way." Without sincerity we ain't saying nothing atall, just treading dead water.