Artist and Subject

Where do the artist end and the painting begin? Put Cézanne and Constable in front on the very same landscape and you will have two vastly differently paintings. Which one would be better? Is that even a valid question to ask? Unfortunately or fortunately, it is one which we are compelled to ask. We are doomed to judge. Judge ourselves, judge others. It’s how we move forward, how we improve, or so we are told. I’m not sure.

Perhaps neither work would meet with our approval, especially if we were not familiar with who the artists were. We would term Constable’s stale and overworked, Cézanne’s whimsical dreamy works, lacking in real substance and we would promptly discard them, and settle for our Keith Haring print out of Antennae.

Yesterday I finished a painting. Another painting. It was a struggle and the canvas was repainted over a period of weeks. In some ways, the most reasonable way, the subject varied a great deal over that period, oscillating between three large women looking at a ring on one of their fingers, to looking at a handbag on one of their arms, to a chagall-like work of a girl having a bath while three cats sit timidly on three separate mats in front of the tub, to the final version of girl having bath...and that’s it. No cats on no mats, and not a handbag in sight.

So it could be, very reasonably argued that I attempted to paint three separate paintings, failing one after another, until I simplified the subject enough so that I could get it right. 'Right' being God only knows. But I'm happy with the final work. So were they really three different subjects? Or were they merely aspects of the same underlying emotion that I wanted to capture. I think the latter. I hope the latter. I guess I need to believer, for progress sake, the latter.

The common thread is there is an air of lightness about the work, what could be lighter than a person splashing in the bath? That lightness, for lack of a better word, attracts me to create such work.

Lately I have found myself looking at a lot of the work of Francis Bacon, Damien Hirst and even the work of Gilbert and George. For the most part, and this is purely subjective, I feel their work does not evoke light, or a feeling of lightness in me, in fact the opposite, there is a darkness. Everyone has aspects of both in their make up, that’s what makes us human, and the role of art is delve deep into the recesses of the human experience, and display and show it in all its glory and in all its decadence. The fore mentioned artists do that admirably. I just think for now, in my painting I want to expand the glory of the human condition, even if it’s just an airy painting of a girl having a bath.

So at least that is a very positive thing, in that I have a broad understanding of the subjects that attract me. They could be categorized as nice subjects, pretty pictures. I paint pretty pictures, to instill in people a positive emotion.

That is a statement relating to my art. I’m not very proud of it, because it lacks depth, it seems to not offer anything longstanding, to the art world or people in general. It is clearly lacking, perhaps if I phrase it differently, - I want to elevate human consciousness. Sounds more serious.

I want to elevate my own conscious awareness and in doing so help others do the same. I think that is a more accurate description of what I’m trying to achieve.