Within a day or two, I completed all three of these paintings. I am exploring, and playing, and doing exactly what I like to do. They are all authentically me. I did them. I used varying amounts of analysis, problem-solving, emotion, and kinetic energy. At times I was hunched over in ruthless observation, and sometimes, I was standing, flicking, scooping and dancing with the paint.
They progress, or digress, (depending on your point of view), in order here, from realistic to non-objective.
It is interesting to listen. Representation v. non-objective. Art-jargon for "Looks like something I recognize, or doesn't." It is a hot topic with people. People very often believe that one is the natural progression of the other. One is a maturation of the other. One is just objectively better. Camp A or Camp B. I find this so fascinating. I get that someone might like gestural strokes of color over the likeness of a vase with flowers. I get that people might gravitate toward painting one kind of art, over another. There is nothing wrong with that. One way of painting is very free and feely. One is very thinky and methodical. But to think there is some intrinsic value in one over the other, is I think, wrong. There is no Camp A or Camp B. There is only a forest of hue, value, stroke, balance, discord, harmony, depth, warmth, shock and awe. It's all the same. What I'm finding is that personal preference varies wildly. A person who loves bold color, is not always the same person who loves the subtle contrast of neutrals. But sometimes they are. It's so individual.
Comments