Fitz Henry Lane (1804-1865) was a “luminist” painter. He painted… mostly boats.
He’s on my border, this is why I put him here…
Above this border, it’s too academic, therefore boring. In Art, I like the “Hey this is new!” state, raising eyebrows, etc.
Nothing like that with Lane! But there’s this I-don’t-know-what which makes me watch more. Like the hesitating emoji holding his chin…
“Too wise”. “Too conventional”. “Lack of energy”. “Lack of surprises”. “Bland”. “Pff”.
Eyes want to roll. But they don’t.
Thus I wrote this article to think about this pattern : when you watch something you find “too conventional BUT”.
“Nope. Wait a minute…” : this, in loop.
Therefore, where is it? Where is this frontier? Aesthetics? Mood? Light? What about choices? What about other arts? What’s this loop in… propositions? In poetry? What is a music you don’t like BUT you want to stick on it to find what you “do like, though”? What is to be on this border? Is it lukewarm? Could this hesitation be useful? For what?
Thanks for reading!
Denis Sarazhin (he’s born in 1982) has a style. He seems to be obsessed by hands, and long twisted bodies. He has something of Vroubel, of Segantini.
Have a great day!
Hyper-Realism painters are exhausting. Exhausting.
In front of this work, which is technically impressive and visually killing you, you wonder : How does he do that???
More realist than reality, right? There’s a “too much” thing here, and it’s also really gorgeous. In an awe : and it’s a good sign.
I chose 10 paintings for you :
The painter paints then steps back to judge then steps forward to paint then…
All this in a loop.
As a perfect metaphor for creativity, which could be defined as :
a dance between effusion and lucidity
Every thinker-creator is aware of this dance of focus/de-focus, and this is a splendid territory to explore in its lightest nuances, its thinnest articulations.
I give you three examples I found from a book from Michel Thévoz :
- Artaud talked about an intellectual eye in the delirium : intelligence and folly never don’t merge, they revolve around each other.
- Dubuffet, a painter, advised practicing “alternated construction works”. One day on a painting, the day after on another one. A way to disembark as a visitor each morning.
- Michaud is famous because he tried drugs to create, but he was very clear on this : everything he wrote was after the dissipation of drugs effects, he wrote in the lucid phases of oscillation, and talks about “miserable miracles”.
There’s a need of a “New Eyes” state. Monet wished at times to be born blind and suddenly discover vision, to have a wished freshness…
Baudelaire and Valéry both talk about the urging need of having a critic inside a good poet.
Maybe one secret tool of every creator is disenchantment, is to surf on this descending wave which follow the “miserable miracles” of the fast defocused “inspiration”.
We could go further, right? How, in your field (blogging, photography, poetry, teaching, management, advertising, writing?), do you articulate this necessary dance? Do you need external things to lose focus? Are you aware of useless rushes when you’re fast, effective and proud… to get nothing good at the end? Where and who is your inner critic? Is this person inside you too powerful, too weak? How is it activated? What would you add? You know what inspiration is, but how do you “fix” it? Do you need to? How do you canalize?
Thanks for reading!
Simplicity – recording of the “banality of everyday life”, this is Vilhelm Hammershøi. people don’t “pose”, they show their back, most of the time.
Yes, he’s a cousin of Hopper, right? People in silence, in melancholy – maybe – are they simply… quiet?
Do you love it? Watch his photography : don’t you think he… doesn’t look like his paintings? ☺
Thanks for reading. Have a great day!
V. Hammershøi (1864-1916) was a Danish painter who, in the splendid middle of modernity, stayed in conservatism.
The core of Art, says G. Deleuze, is “What newness does it bring?”. It’s essential, of course, and any good Art History focuses on this force of progress. Art is moving forward. Each important artist, in music or painting, brought something new.
On all the keyboard of a discipline, the “newness” is very funny to study. It’s why I am currently reading a Manet biography. It’s why I love Fellini or Godard in cinema, or Bartok and Debussy in classical music.
Jubilation, it is what you get in front of invention.
There’s always a time when you see there’s a rock in the current.
Well, there’s a pleasure in Art exploration in seeing the one who stays behind, in “his style”, when the whole “correct” colleagues seems to push forward. Hammershøi? It was the time of Van Gogh and Cézanne!
As for every domain, it’s splendid to study “conservatives”. To find out why, what were their motivations. “Where” they were evolving all the same. What they said, wrote, decided. Were they aware of the progresses outside? What they did from the movements they saw. Little elements? A slight change? Nothing at all?
Are and when these artist are re-discovered?
I what other domains should we sometimes watch the unevolving strong rocks in the current? Why? What do we learn?
Thanks for reading!