The Temptation to Paint Realistically

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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