Michael Henderson - Painter

The Temptation to Paint Realistically

2009-09-22T09:26:00.001-07:00

I paint abstract oil paintings on canvas or on paper because that how I like to paint, and because abstract expressionism and gestural painting is really what art is about. It is pure unadulterated painting. Sometimes, however, I wonder whether I should paint realistically. I have the ability to do so (see the picture attached hereto), and sometimes it's fun, but I find no real gratification in it. Should I paint realistically anyway? Isn't that what people want? I often think about what would have happened if Picasso's mother had said “Pablo, you paint realistically so well, why do you paint these funny pictures? Paint a realistic picture,” and he had followed her advice. Same thing with Jackson Pollock and Joan Mitchell. So, painting abstract pictures is a good thing.

But sometimes self doubt creeps in. There are two questions that need to be answered: 1) does abstract painting requires any artistic skill? and 2) even if it requires skill, why abstract and not realistic?

As to the first question, the type of painting I do is often criticized for being childish. People say that their kid could do that, or that they themselves could do it. They point out that chimps and elephants (and even horses) have been taught to paint. Or upon looking at a painting they ask the penetrating question “what is it supposed to be?” If these criticisms are valid, and what I do could be done by a chimp, then I should not do it. Are these criticisms valid? No.

For one thing, their kid could not do it. Yes, their kid makes scribbles and abstract looking pictures. But this is because that is all the kid knows how to do. The kid is really trying to make a realistic rendition of something, but fails. I can tell whether a kid has painted a particular picture, or whether an artist has done it.

The critics themselves cannot do it. Go ahead, try. You will end up with a giant mess – something sloppy and ugly. Even if you are an artist (a real artist) and you usually paint realistically, it is unlikely you could do a decent job on an abstract. I submit that you would not be able to abandon realism, and that imagery will always creep in.

Now about animals that “paint.” Yes, they are very intelligent critters, and they can hold a brush and can be shown how to paint, and even perhaps (accidentally) produce something interesting. There has to be, however, guidance from their masters. When is it done? (when the master takes away the canvas) What colors do they use? (the ones provided by the master) What size brush? What kind of brush? Oil or acrylic? Here is the big difference between man and beast: the chimp and the elephant did not think of painting or of creating art on their own, neither could they. I am not aware of any artwork created by these animals that has been discovered in the wild. They simply do not know or understand what they are doing. They could not paint a portrait of a person or draw an apple. They do not paint abstractly by choice, but because their brains do not know any other way to paint; they are randomly spreading paint on the canvas without a thought to anything else.

Moreover, the paintings I have seen made by animals lack composition. Even Pollock's “all over” paintings had composition or, if lacking it, the lack was an intelligent act of the artist. This notion simply does not exist in the minds of babes or of monkeys. When I paint, I am always thinking about

what should happen next to the painting. What color would balance it?; should there be a large area of color, as opposed to complex brush strokes?; is it done?; what would make it better?; What if I took this out?; should this blue rather than yellow? To even ask these questions, and to come up with answers, requires artistic skill and training, or at least a human brain.

So, if animals and babes are only capable of producing random blotches of color knowing not what they do, then why make a big deal of it? Great, you taught a chimp to hold a brush and smear paint. You could teach him to type (i.e., randomly punch the keys), but would that make him a writer? Put him in front of a piano and let him bang the keys – is he a modern composer? No and no. The sole purpose, then, of giving a chimp a brush and sitting him in front of a canvas is to insult abstract artists. “Hey look, that there monkey can paint as good as you; hardi har har.” (By the way, I know that a chimp is not a monkey, and I know that it should be “well,” not “good,” but I'm making fun of these people, dig?)

Having thus established that abstract painting requires artistic skill, and taking for granted that I have the skill to paint realistic paintings as well, we come to the central question posed here: then why paint abstract pictures?

Because in abstract art, particularly the kind I usually do (which contains no imagery) the viewer takes away from the picture what they will. I am not talking about those among you who do not like or appreciate abstract art; these pearls are not for everyone, as I am fond of saying. If you appreciate abstract art in the first place, an abstract picture can evoke emotion and thought simply by the arrangement of color and form. They instill feelings without requiring the viewer to make any analysis, or to even understand why. In fact, it would be a waste of time to analyze any of my pictures to find any meaning or symbolism. You can say that a painting reminds you of this or that, or that it makes you feel a certain way, but don't bother to analyze them – there is nothing there. There is only the purely human activity of painting colors and forms onto a canvas.

Abstract Art with Traditional Decor

2009-02-08T01:33:00.001-08:00

As you know, I am an advocate of mixing abstract art with traditional or antique decor. It is a common notion that modern art should be mixed only with modern decor and furnishings, and that traditional furnishings should be accented by traditional art. This is wrong - the two can be mixed to great effect, and it is truly more interesting when they are mixed.

I came across a blog recently (click here to see it) with two photographs that illustrate this idea perfectly. One photo shows a room furnished with traditional antique furniture, classical sculptures, and oriental furniture, with large abstract paintings on the walls. The other picture shows modern furniture with one of the same paintings as is shown in the picture with the traditional decor. The room with the traditional furnishings is strikingly more interesting. It has the result that the contrast between the modern art and the traditional furnishings makes both stand out more.

Another blog shows an abstract painting in an antique frame hung on a wall in a room decorated with traditional furniture, further illustrating my pint that abstract art and traditional decor go together. The interior design of this apartment, although having a certain appeal, is consistent with the observations I made in a previous blog about the frightening trend in interior design. That is, it is awash with totally neutral decor, even the paintings, with only a few spots of color around, which is created solely by a few plants and nick-knacks.

Frightful Trend in Interior Design

2009-01-25T00:51:00.000-08:00

As an artist trying to sell paintings, I realize that there are two kinds of people who may purchase my works: collectors and interior designers. With respect to the latter, I preach using my paintings to jazz up one’s decor, even if otherwise traditional or antique. Since my primary mode of marketing is the internet, I keep myself alerted to blogs on the topic of decorating with abstract art, and seek websites of interior designers who might share my philosophy.

The other day while looking for such designers through Google searches, I came across a list of interior designers in New York City. I thought that this might be an excellent place to connect with an interior designer. New York is the home of the Abstract Expressionists, after all, and a lot of people who might be able to afford my modest fees. So I started down the list looking at websites and portfolios of rooms they had decorated. What I saw surprised and dismayed me.

The first designer had a portfolio showing room after room with subdued earth tones of tan, brown, grey, and colors that can be described as “pebble,” or “sand.” There was virtually no art on the walls, and such art as was there was in a similar color. There was no real color at all in any of the rooms. “Alright,” I thought, “this guy has made this his trademark. It has a certain appeal, but he’s not someone with whom I should have a business relationship.”

I left that site and went to the next. Same thing. And the next - the same. I visited the websites of several interior designers in New York with the same result, until I quit in despair. They all had taken to using no color, very few accessories, and virtually no art. An occasional boring photograph, but I don’t recall seeing any paintings in the bunch, and certainly none with any color.

Have we here a reaction to the trend of adding color, which I had observed in the past few years? Is this lack of color what the entire market of those willing and able to pay large fees for interior designer services demands?

Here’s what I need: I need a designer who is willing to take some abstract pieces and stick them with some traditional or antique furniture. Take my challenge. And as the gondoliers here say: “I give you good prrrice.”

Why Decorate with Abstract Art?

2009-01-02T08:53:00.000-08:00

Whether you are completely redecorating your home or office, or just looking for a way to bring new life to your existing decor, abstract art is the way to do it. Here’s why.

It’s colorful. Abstract art adds color and interest to any room. Take your boring picture of a sailboat and replace it with a nice colorful abstract, and you will have immediately injected new life into the room.

It’s timeless. Look at any abstract painting. There is no outdated political message, and no clothing style giving away its age. Put a good gestural abstract or abstract expressionist painting in the room, and it could have been painted yesterday. There is generally no message in such a painting to become outmoded.

It’s interesting. A good abstract piece will become an instant conversation piece. The bigger the painting the better, but even a small work can do wonders. Everyone may not like it, but everyone will talk about it.

Abstract art goes with everything. Even if your decor is otherwise traditional, you can decorate with abstract art. It is surprising, but abstract paintings coordinate will with antiques and very old buildings. In Venice there is a place where they display modern paintings, which are generally quite abstract, in what amounts to a crypt. It has bare brick walls, and tombs from the 15th century along the walls, but the display works.

When is a Painting Done?

2008-12-30T08:30:00.000-08:00

Abstract painting, particularly the type without any imagery, causes one to wonder how the artist knows the picture is finished. The short answer is a quote from Picasso (or at least a paraphrase), which is something to the effect that "a work of art is never finished, it is simply abandoned."

The word "abandoned" is a bit harsh, as it has a negative connotation, but it is close. Obviously, it is not possible to say that a painting with no imagery, or imagery that is a loose representation of a thing, is ever "finshed." I can say your portrait is finished. I can say the painting of an apple is finished. But how can I say that a painting that consists of only a series of lines, circles and masses of color is finished?

When I start to paint I generally have no plan at all. At best, I may have a vague notion of what I hope to achieve, but there are no plans or sketches. I allow the painting to sort of take its own path. I put on some black, swish it around and see what happens. I add some white, and maybe some color, and see where these things take me.

There comes a time when I wonder if there is anything else I can or should do. One can over work a picture. Just as a lawyer needs to know when to shut up, the artist needs to know when to leave the picture alone. This point in development of the painting is not always clear. There often comes a point when I look at the painting and don't know what to do next. That is a good time to stop, at least for a while. I then put the painting to the side for maybe several weeks, and look at it later.

At that point, one of three things will happen. 1) I like it the way it is and decide to quit; 2) I don't like it, and I see what else might be done to it; or 3) I paint over some or all of it. This may go on for several rounds. I continue with the "unfinished" picture until I like the way it looks, or I give up and paint over it.

In the end, there should be some feeling of satisfaction I get from looking at it, at which time I try not to ruin it putting more paint on it.

Visit my website at www.MichaelHendersonGallery.com

What Next for Art and the Artist?

2008-12-28T11:53:00.000-08:00

The Development of Painting: What Next?

The question of what direction painting should take next has been gnawing at me. As a painter, I am not satisfied with learning a set of skills and simply applying them to make a pretty picture; this is easily done. I am concerned with making a contribution to the development of art, and with moving it in some direction. But these days that is not easy, and may not be possible, and it may not even be relevant. Painting has gone from realism to total abstraction and back. Is there a “direction” in which painting can be taken, or is it simply a matter of finding a unique and interesting style?

Western painting over the centuries before the impressionists was concerned with trying to make accurate representations of things and people. This is understandable, as there were no cameras, and such things needed to be drawn or painted to preserve their images. Some artists varied the way that was done, such as el Greco and Caravagio, and some artists did it better than others, but the point was still to create a recognizable image.

The impressionists used a looser painting style to manipulate light, which bordered on the abstract, but which always had the goal of producing an image. These painters broke from the tradition and opened a door to Picasso and his contemporaries to move on and try other things. Picasso, who, by the way, could paint and draw like the old masters from the time he was a child, worked for years to develop painting beyond what the impressionists had done. His early works reflect an impressionist influence, but quickly moved to a distinct style in the blue and rose periods. If Picasso had continued in this style, he would have been looked at as mere extension of the impressionists. He did not, and with Les Mademoiselles d’Avignon (1907), he single-handedly marked the beginning of cubism.

Picasso’s paintings, and all that came after (with one or two exceptions) were still intended to represent something. At the same time Picasso was working, other artists were making paintings ranging from those with abstract imagery, to those with no imagery. I do not know when all imagery was first taken from painting, but the most notable event was the invention of the “all over” paintings and the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock.

Pollock’s paintings are interesting to look at, and I like them, including those made before the drip paintings. He only made the drip paintings for a short time, and then went on to try and find something else, a quest that was largely unsuccessful before he died. But with the drip paintings he set painters free. There were no longer any rules of composition, and it was the act of painting that was important. The only resemblance these works have to anything that came before is that they consisted of paint on canvas. He only used a brush to cause the paint to drip, and painted on the floor, rather than an easel.

What is really important about the painters from the impressionists through Pollock, is that they were consciously working to find something new. Not just a unique style, but a new way to represent things and light, and a new direction for painting. Can we do that today, that conscious searching for a new direction, or are we reduced to simply finding a unique signature style and sticking with it?

Consider that in painting anything goes. We can paint (and sell) photo realistic work. We can paint (and sell) minimalist work. We can do the same thing with work in an impressionist style, and work that is purely abstract. So what is the challenge for the artist? The challenge is to find a unique style that is identified only with that painter, while not being an imitation of others. This is all we can do.

Interior Designers and Decorators

2008-12-28T07:41:00.000-08:00

My paintings would add interest and color to any room, would be a valuable resource for interior designers.

I welcome inquiries from interior designers and decorators, and will be glad to work out a price and commission schedule that compensates us both fairly.

If your clients are interested in decorating with abstract art, but they need something with a size or color scheme different than the paintings on the site, I would be happy to discuss it with you and try to come up with a custom solution.

My goal is to make the purchase of one of my paintings as easy and pleasant of an experience as possible, whether you are purchasing one already completed, or a custom project.

Please fell free to contact at any time.

Mike Henderson

TheArtist@MichaelHendersonGallery.com

"Three Figures" - A Triptych

2008-12-25T03:05:00.001-08:00

This group of three paintings, which I expect to be kept together as a triptych (although not totally necessary) are my most recent completed works. They seem to be astronomical figures, but there is no secret symbolism or meaning to any of the elements. They are not meant to actually represent anything. They are all the same size, 40 x 50 cm, and all oil on canvas.

As any painter knows, particularly an abstract painter, once you start painting the work takes on a life of its own. It's as though the act of putting the first dab of paint on the surface brings something alive that was dead before, or did not exist at all. But once the paint is on, it lives, and what happens to the painting is, to a large extent, due to what the picture wants to do, not what the artist wants.

This is a strange notion, but I have done several paintings where I tried to make the picture do what I wanted it to do. It resisted me. There was bad energy coming from it. When this happens the picture is most unsatisfactory. Then some or all of it is painted over. When I finally realize that this must be done, and then give in to the will of the picture, the result is much better, the painting satisfies me, and good energy is all round.

I am not a new age freak, I do not believe in all this spirituality, but there is definitely a vibe coming from the canvas once the pain is put on.

This is perhaps an element to abstract painting that makes it so appealing to both the artist and the viewer. Look at an abstract painting in museum, where you can see it up close, in its original size, and see the true colors. You will either sense that the artist surrendered to what the painting wanted to do, or that the artist continued to struggle against the painting, imposed his will, and then quit. The result may be a work that is satisfactory to look at, in general, but there will be something not quite right - something negative coming from it.

www.MichaelHendersonGallery.com

Cy Twombly

2008-12-25T02:42:00.001-08:00

The other day I was in the Peggy Guggenheim Collection here in Venice and for the first time actually noticed a painting by Cy Twombly. It's possible that the painting was not there before, or that my state of mind at the time caused me to ignore it. But now I was looking for some inspiration, as I have not painted anything for a few weeks, and did not have the inclination to do so. Since the visit I have not painted, either, but I bought two canvases.

I had heard of Cy, but I had not lent any importance to him until now. I did a little research when I got home and discovered that he is still living, and lives and works in Rome. I looked at other of his paintings on the internet. I do not like all of them, and I think the best work was done in the 50's, but he is still going at it, although he is 80. This gives me hope.

My research came up with an article relating to his recent exhibition at the Tate Modern. There were tidbits from an interview with him, and the most interesting part was his observation that he looked in books dealing with modern art, and the abstract expressionists or gesturalists, of which he is clearly one, but his name does not appear. His works are in important museums all over the world, but he is still only a blip on the radar. Is this because he is still alive?

His paintings, even the more recent stuff, are sort of the antithesis of mine. I generally cover the whole canvas (but not always) and that part of the canvas that is covered is full of color and activity. His paintings, particularly the older ones, are much more sparse. You may see more of this effect in my paintings in the future; I like the effect. Actually, it had occurred to me to make sparse paintings with pencil marks and drawings, but I have not been able to bring myself to stop painting before the canvas is covered.

See my art at www.MichaelHendersonGallery.com

Basket of Fruit

2008-11-24T08:02:00.000-08:00

This painting is called "Basket of Fruit" because I thought I should give it a title, and it looked to me like a basket of fruit. I could just as easily have called it "Easter Bunny." I read a forum recently that was discussing the question of whether to give titles to your pictures. Most of my pictures, including this one, are not meant to represent anything. But does it leave the viewer unsatisfied if the thing does not have a title? I think people like to have titles, so I am going to take up the habit of giving titles to my paintings.

Abstract on Paper 6833

2008-09-19T00:15:00.000-07:00

(Click image to enlarge)

Abstract on Paper 6833
Oil on paper, 14 x 21 cm
2008
$195.00

Abstract on Paper 6831

2008-09-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

This is one of my oil paintings on paper. I like to make two sizes of paintings: very large and very small. The in between sizes are ok, but they are less fun. The small paintings are good because I can do a lot with them, experiment a lot, and can sell them at a lower price.

This painting is done in a gestural style. If you are interested in affordable abstract art, these are for you. You can get three or more of them and make a little arrangement.

Untitled

2008-09-17T12:38:00.000-07:00

This is an experimental work, oil on canvas. It is important for an artist to have an identifiable style and to be consistent. Amateurs will sometimes jump all over the place. On their websites you are likely to see paintings of different styles, including attempts at abstraction, and even more feeble attempts at realism, mixed with photographs, and maybe even jewelery. The professional, on the other hand, will work on and develop a unique style over time and pretty much stick with that, making changes slowly, so as not to upset gallery owners and clients.

At the same time, an artist should not become stagnant, and it is necessary to experiment. This is such a painting. It is looser and less rigid than some of the more geometric paintings I've done. It explores the line between when a bit of paint on the canvas starts to look like a recognizable image.

Woman in a Cheap Green Hat

2008-09-15T06:05:00.001-07:00

This is one of my geometric paintings. There are several common elements in my paintings over the past year and a half: they contain a lot of circles, squares, and slanted lines. The green square at the top reminded me of a hat. I thought that a hat like that would be cheap.

My paintings also have in common vivid color. The colors in this painting are quite interesting; I was experimenting with light blue, light green, a deep yellow and red. I think it worked very nicely, and this painting would make an interesting addition to any room.

Woman at the Beach

2008-09-15T05:48:00.000-07:00

This a bright sunny picture with an unusual amount of open space for one of my paintings. The colors reminded me of a bright day at the beach. There is a bit of red to balance the other colors.

Woman in Red

2008-09-15T00:45:00.000-07:00

(Click the image to enlarge)

This painting is largely red, with lines of black, white and green breaking up the composition, with some fields of white, yellow and blue. The circle in the upper left is the closest thing to an image in most of the paintings in this series, as it has the vague resemblance to a woman’s face. Otherwise, there is no imagery, but is essentially an arrangement of geometrical shapes.

www.MichaelHendersonGallery.com

Woman in Blue

2008-09-14T03:52:00.001-07:00

Visit my website at www.MichaelHendersonGallery.com