The first thing I noticed when browsing through Frank Gardner’s marine paintings was the recurrence of the wall motif. In towns — on terra firma — it was people against the walls; here, at sea, it is the boats. But perhaps the artist takes the contrast up a notch, to a level where it mutates into a real clash: that of the sea and the land and that of living on a constant move and in a permanent dwelling placed on the ground. Planes of bright single hue, which formed the walls in the town, stream down into the see and break down into shimmering reflections. The stability and quietude of the city is lost, the inconstancy and irregularity of the sea is gained.
Read the rest of this entry »
Frank Gardner is an American painter (and art instructor) currently residing and working in Mexico. Oil is his medium; he applies it to cotton and linen canvases to create outdoor scenes and landscapes involving farm, urban and marine subject-matter. Frank Gardner publishes his work online on his blog and on his website. Many of his works are for sale via art galleries listed on the galleries page of his website. In today’s review I would like to talk about his village/urban scenes and particularly the puzzling and captivating contrast of the small human figure and the surrounding monumental buildings.
Read the rest of this entry »
As I already mentioned in the first review, Deborah Paris aims at completeness of the viewing experience. Her marine scenes offer exactly that: the artist employs the relatively limited genre inventory to the fullest. Her template of sea paintings consists of a three leveled composition, with some loud action occurring on the forefront, the sea stretching above and beyond and the sky overlooking solemnly from above. This basic set-up captures the major nature’s ways of showing itself — a disaster, a constant movement and displacement (of water, sand, people) and a serene, meta-calm rest which, in fact, to many may appear the most threatening and portending state of them all.
Read the rest of this entry »
It is said that imagination is the most powerful tool humans have.
You’ve got the Power!
We have touched imagination several times already while talking about brainstorming — but these were mostly motivational statements. Motivation is important, and you will find more of it here. However, the main purpose of this chapter is to suggest and discuss several practical methods which will give you the needed boost to launch your independent interpretation session. These methods prove that using your imagination is a skill that can be acquired and implemented by anyone willing to put in the time and thought. Considering you already have a bank of ideas to work with generated during brainstorming, you are off for a good start.
I would also like to encourage you to develop your own techniques. Nothing here is written in stone. I will try to reveal how I arrive at these methods, and hopefully outline the blueprint for the whole process — to offer the fishing rod along with some fish. However, when dealing with imagination, there are always the unknowables of inspiration, epiphanies, meditation induced revelations and such and sundry of mental and spiritual paths. Once again, I would suggest not to lock on a single known method and always leave room for… your imagination to work the wonders.
It’s Your Show
One of the crucial — for all of us — notions to internalize declares that when we interpret a work of art it doesn’t matter, at this stage, what we think the artist meant to express or convey. There is a widespread and generally accepted principle that once a work of art leaves the studio, once it is out there, it is yours to interpret any way you like. This is a heavy burden to take off of your mind; your imagination would soar like an air balloon after jettisoning some ballast.
Everything goes. Too many good ideas get stifled on the altar of “high” and “low” brow differentiations. There is no high and there is no low — there are only good arguments, based on good logic and supported by actual examples. Every work of art can be spun to suit your ideas, as long as you arrive at the conclusion via a series of sensible claims.
Some theories suppose that the artist’s personal biography is tightly linked with his artwork; psychoanalysis would be one such theory. However, there are also opposite views, which position works of art independently of the creator’s persona, making emphasis on the piece itself rather than on surrounding trivia. In my opinion, you do not have to adhere to neither of the trends: just be aware that they exist, and use either, when needed, for your purposes. Perhaps this is an intellectual opportunism, but then, art interpretation is an inherently opportunistic activity.
Even if the artist offers a ready made interpretation, his or her ideas cannot determine what the art piece means for you. The author does not own other people’s thoughts on his own creation and everyone has the right to interpret it. This leads, once again to incredible freedom.
The Possibilities
In many ways, imagination is all about the possibilities. The painting you see in front you was the arriving point for the artist, but it is one of departure for you. Paradoxically, our ignorance of the private process of painting puts us into an advantageous position. Even if you arrive at the same conclusions about the piece, you may choose a different route — and it is the route that matters, as it describes your own analytical interpretative process — something both an artist and an instructor would want and demand to see.
Therefore, “what could have been” and, subsequently, “what should have been” will be the focus of the next parts of this chapter. We will learn techniques to engage in a battle of minds and creative thought with the artist and her work, with the clear objective to win — to formulate concepts and theories and impose them on the work of art as if they were intended by the artist herself. We will learn to decipher and interpret art with the same tool the artist used to make it — imagination.
Stay tuned for Part 2!
Having little to no knowledge of the technical side of painting snow, I would guess that the substance poses at least two creative problems. First, white seems counter-intuitive and restrictive in terms of main palette choice — just by being a “colorless” color. When covering wide spaces, white may confuse, possibly repel the viewer; negative space becomes exaggeratedly such, complicating visual comprehension. Second is the color’s (and snow’s) inherent susceptibility to the influence of other hues: it presents a clean slate that any other color can contaminate. Therefore, snow asks for special care and consideration, adding another sensitive variable to the artist’s set of existent challenges. So let’s examine how she copes with these two.
Read the rest of this entry »
