I prefer a buttery, creamy paint; that is easy to manipulate and handle. This is why Michael Harding’s Artists oil colours have become my first choice. The strength of colour in the pigment is evident. There is luminosity that speaks volumes, making my work stand out. The flow, workability, usability and colourfastness of the paint is highly relevant to me.
I have noticed some other brands add less linseed oil in their paint, and this affects the usability and finish. Drier paint gives a matt finish while paint with more flow gives a glossy finish. I have found that tubes of oil paint from other manufacturers with slightly drier contents will become unusable over a year or two, and this is very frustrating, though a hard, dry tube of paint can be useful at times if you require a matt finish. I found that the best solution is to use a medium as mediums improve with handling and can increase the glossy finish.
Do you use any of these products in your daily practice? Your welcome to add your thoughts and start a conversation below.
Over the years of visiting art exhibitions, few exhibitions have had such an impact on me as the Abstract Expressionist exhibition did at the Royal Academy. I was staggered by the amount of impressive and inspiring works. The first few galleries are hung in chronological order, then the order in the galleries changes and the work is hung related to styles and approaches, some rooms have work by more than one artist. This changing approach works well as it easy to understand the relationships and contexts between the works in each room.
In one of the largest rooms, I found two of David Smith’s sculptures and one of Jackson Pollock’s drip painting next to each other, it was a stimulating experience. David Smith’s sculptures ‘Hudson River Landscape’ 1951 (welded painted steel and stainless steel), and his ‘Star Cage’ 1950, (painted and brushed steel) sat opposite Jackson Pollocks’s drip painting ‘Summertime number 94’, 1948, (oil enamel and commercial paint). What was so intriguing and absorbing was how the lines in the three different works were so alike. Pollock’s dancing splats of paint over the surface were heightened and intensified by the Smith sculptures. I have always delighted in interesting and complex spatial compositions and having these works next to each emphasised their associations. While Smith calls his work, ‘drawings in space’, Pollock presents his as ‘energy and motion made visible, memories arrested in space’. This juxtaposition of two and three-dimensional space was enlivening, inspiring and delightful to experience.
Later l found work by Frank Kline. I always appreciate looking at Franz Kline’s work and this was the first time I had seen ‘Vawdavitch’ 1955 and ‘Andrus’ 1961, (both are oil on canvas). The simplicity of the subtle change in the colours and the spatial harmony is very enjoyable. I think Kline’s work has a strong relationship with poetry and music. When I look at Kline’s work it always amazes me how ‘less is more’. I always think of the Mies Van der Rohe quote when looking at reduced and distilled work where simplicity is beautiful. It looks like Kline used a wide brush to create ‘Andrus’ 1961, he uses a few simple brush gestures in layers of mars black, cadmium orange, crimson, cerulean blue and deep purple mixed with different amounts of white. The simplicity is intriguing and really sparked my imagination.
If I had a criticism of the exhibition it would be that you need more time to see everything, I found it challenging to select only a few pieces of works to discuss in this review as I really did feel blown away by seeing so much artwork of such a high standard. After a couple of hours, l needed a break. Having spent so much time with the works I have mentioned and looking at some of the pieces by other artists I felt guilty walking past further great pieces of work because I felt my eyes and brain needed a rest. It would be great if you could revisit the exhibition on the same ticket on a different day. I would happily go again.
If you would like to read more, there is an interesting review here on the Saturation Point site written by Paul Carey Kent, after visiting this show and the at the Museo Guggenheim, Bilbao: 3 Feb – 4 June 2017 and comparing the shows.
Eric Fischl was born in 1948 in New York City, his suburban upbringing and career as an internationally acclaimed American artist is presented in his book ‘Bad Boy’.
Fischl shares his deep wounds when discussing his personal relationships, especially with his depressed and alcoholic mother. These troubling experiences made their way into his artwork creating a dialogue about his personal wounds and ironically they ultimately lead to him getting into trouble.
The death of Fischl’s mother inspired the work he became famous for. It is interesting that after his first solo show in New York at the Edward Thorp Gallery in 1979 and the following success lead to him ‘going off the rails’ as the book title suggests and he enjoyed success a little too much.
Fischl’s book is informative and helpful to other artists. There are interesting advice and tips on how to deal with the process of being a successful artist and he discusses the issues and ideas in his work.
Eric Fischl says in the book,
“Painting is a process that guides me back through complex experiences that I didn’t have words to describe or understand. It relieves feelings and memories and brings them forward with clarity and resolution. Each one of my paintings is like a journey, a process to excavate nuggets of emotion, artefacts of memory, the treasures buried in my unconscious. My imagery evokes feelings that were once too painful to ephemeral or too embarrassing to articulate or even to remember.”
Eric Fischl’s ideas are well developed and considered as you would expect from someone who has had international success as an artist. He uses clear, convincing and honest language. I think the book is a good read and has lots of information and advice about dealing with life an artist. I enjoyed reading it and strongly recommend it.
Often I think viewers look at works of art and immediately ask themselves why did the artist make this? Understanding the original idea or intention of why I made it defeats my ambitions for this artwork. Instinct led me to paint this painting. My aims are never going to be clear.
“the only thing that matters in art is what that cannot be explained.”
A person viewing an artwork comes to see the work with their own unique background, knowledge, and history. Art does not have a purpose and function like a design. It is not essential to try and understand why I made this artwork. The artwork now exists on its own, and it has to stand up by itself.
Everyone sees things differently. Two things are put together, and they create meaning. The best artworks in my eyes mean different things to different people.
Like Duchamp said;
“the artist has only 50% of the responsibility and that is to get the work out, it is completed by the viewer.”
I’m interested in this part of myself where this artwork comes from. The parts of life I am curious about exploring and that I am hung up on. I’m not in control of what comes out. Creativity is instinctive, and it is buried within me.