If you donât have technique, nobodyâs going to notice your emotional content.
Boating, 1874, by Ădouard Manet, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art. Itâs beautifully composed, serene and yet energetic. |
In one of my classes, an advanced student (who has probably won more awards than me) asked why I focus on systematic painting. âWhat about emotion and feeling?â she asked.
Oddly enough, for all that weâre social beings, our souls are insulated. We are born alone, and we die alone. At times in between, the lucky among us carry on conversations with each other or with God. But our emotional intelligence is very personal and private. We can share it if we choose to, but I doubt others can influence it. The best we can do is encourage others to be moral and empathetic.
Self Portrait at 28, 1500, by Albrecht DĂŒrer, courtesy the Alte Pinakothek. Is it possible to have a crush on a man whoâs been dead for 500 years? |
That doesnât mean I canât teach students to see and recognize beauty. This is why I often have my students look at and learn to analyze great paintings. Iâm a firm believer in the non-linear, associative, synthetic mind, and our sympathetic intelligence. âThink with your gutâ is not just an expression. If youâve ever been truly terrified, you know that only a small part of you is controlled by your rational mind. Beneath that, we run on very primitive lines. The interchange between that and our rational minds is what drives creative expression.
The Census at Bethlehem, 1566, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, courtesy Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium. I love how Brueghel always pushes the main action into a corner. Just like life. |
But artâno less so than mathematicsâis an intellectual discipline. Most great painters approach the problem in the same way: they make design decisions, color decisions, and lay their paint down in the prescribed manner handed down to us over centuries.
Why do they do that? Because it works.
Late Afternoon, Monhegan Island, by Rockwell Kent, courtesy Jamie and Phyllis Wyeth Collection. It’s always a toss-up between Lawren Harris and Kent. The light is spectacular, the colors are the essence of sunset. |
System is liberating. If you doubt that, consider the last time you flailed around trying to make a picture and ended up with mush. It happened because you either forgot what you were doing or changed your mind in mid-painting.
I used to write music. It sometimes shocks me to sit down at the piano and realize I no longer can run through chord progressions automatically. How did I ever learn that? By learning lots of music by rote. I read it, I regurgitated it, and occasionally, I managed to be lyrical with it. Now that Iâve forgotten it all, I canât express any emotion through the keyboard.
Moonrise, 1894, by David Davies, courtesy National Gallery of Victoria. Itâs simple, austere and powerful. |
On the other hand, Iâve painted more than a thousand paintings. Occasionally I surprise myself by being brutally honest, as I was with The Dooryard, painted last week. Its emotional kick wasnât conscious but it comes from a deep and real place: thatâs my darkened bedroom window.
I donât have to ask myself, âcan I do this?â I know the process and I approach a painting the same way every time. Knowing the limits means I know where I can push. I can rise above the technical issues to occasional lyricism.
Haymaking (Les Foins), 1877, Jules Bastien-LePage, courtesy MusĂ©e d’Orsay. Exhaustion is something I understand intimately, and he has expressed it so poignantly. |
Does that get stale? Of course not. There is enough mystery in painting to keep me working until I die. Recently, Colin Page told me he was studying John Singer Sargent boat watercolors. Colin certainly knows how to paint, and he has a process that works. But that doesnât mean heâs stopped searching.
Your assignment is to identify your current five favorite paintings and tell me why you love them. Since Iâve demanded that of you, I gave you mine as illustrations for this post. Donât get too excited. The list might change tomorrow.