PHOTOGRAPHY TO EN SITU
& DAVID HOCKNEY
Photography used to be instrumental, in
processing visually, the first contact between the Landscapes and deducing a
concept behind the production of a painting. However this process has developed
for me over recent years, towards En Situ painting and with it, the adoption of
a far more organic approach, to experiencing and representing the land, through
visual interpretation. I'm able to perceive the Landscape at its
highest most poignant reality, which the photograph merely distils.
En Situ, the Landscape artist is open to
the natural elements and the atmosphere, becoming far more integrated into the
decision making, the emphasis of eliminating the surplus extraneous variables,
leaving behind the necessary, with what it perceived to be the ultimate, in
terms of narrative of their journeys and explorations.
The challenge of painting En Situ is
harder than one might think; there is a necessity to learn patience, not only
in an adaption to this new Land, which prescribes numerous exploration to
comprehend it, but patience with the process of painting, it may not come to
fruition straight away; and the artist must study and assume the role of the
flaneur, being forever inquisitive about their surroundings, until, finally
they may obtain the ability to respond succinctly to the Land surrounding them.
The attention devoted towards the actual
painting is extensive, the perspective and composition takes a lot of the
artist’s focus, to try and provide accurate foundations, from which colour
detail and mark making can be intensified.
However the more time and concentration
the artist devotes to these En Situ representations, the increased knowledge of
what it means to represent the Land and how to represent it is elaborated, and
with further practice and engagement, the En Situ studies become more intricate
and a truer depiction of reality. As I have witnessed, my larger studio pieces
have become more challenged in their aesthetics, a freer approach has been
adopted, they are less restricted to simply re representing what has already
been accounted for, they expand upon it.
There has been a role reversal between
the scales of the visual outcomes. The smaller En Situ pieces have become more
particular, intricate and accurate and the larger pieces have become more
abstract and dynamic. I believe this is an effective change, the En Situ pieces
need to condensed full of insightful information, about the landscape which I
have explored, so that as much visual material, as possible, is available for
me to utilise. The more painting I carry out En Situ, I become more
self-assured of my actions and so the most recent ones show this more confident
approach.
The larger pieces, as a result, have had
to emphasise the formal qualities of composition and structure a lot less, you
already have an incredibly detailed and accurate view from the smaller pieces
and so this has allowed me to think less about the final outcome being a direct
representation and allowing more of an interpretation. To try and engage more
inquisitively with colour, form, shape, composition, texture and the layers of
the land, in a way it becomes more adventurous, because there’s less
restriction and so every mark is to narrate a completely different visual to
that of the En Situ piece it corresponds to. They aim to incorporate the basic
visuals, it’s still familiar, though an imaginative expansion, whereby the
possibilities are less final and distinctive, it becomes a far more elaborate
engagement with paint, from which a final outcome will come to fruition.
Photography still plays an integral role
in the development of the painting, photographing the paintings throughout,
gives me an impression of how they are progression, and perhaps a more
objective focus on what aspects might need developing further.
Furthermore I've been able to really document the
painting process and the fun that I'm having with the
exploration and manipulation of the paint, as shown in the PAINTERS
PALETTE SERIES.
The man-made process of
photography is better acquainted to this documentation aspect, especially
in regards to painting, it allows for the artist to utilise, as a means of
communication, with the man-made process of painting. Rather than
compressing the natural Landscape and reducing it to a ‘sum of its parts’
methodology, through distilling it, as photography of the landscape often does,
it can be used to represent a painting, because the enormity of a singular
painting, is by no scale, as vast as the enormity of landscape, so the
painting isn't perhaps lost in translation, or becomes as much a
totality Detotalized, as the real landscape would become through photograph.
DAVID HOCKNEY: INSIGHTFUL
QUOTES
Martin Gayford, A Bigger
Message Conversations with David Hockney (London: Thames & Hudson, 2011),
53.
“We think that the photograph is the
ultimate reality, but it isn't because the camera sees
geometrically. We don’t. We see partly geometrically but also psychologically.
If I glance at the picture of Brahms on the wall over there, the moment I do he
becomes larger than the door. So measuring the world in a geometrical way is
not that true.”
Martin Gayford, A Bigger
Message Conversations with David Hockney (London: Thames & Hudson, 2011),
50.
“I always knew that you couldn't draw from
them very well, because you couldn't see and feel volume in the
same way you can in life.”
Martin Gayford,
Introduction to A Bigger Message Conversations with David Hockney (London:
Thames & Hudson, 2011), 11.
“A two-dimensional surface can easily be
copied in two dimensions. Its three dimensions that are hard to get onto two.
That involves making a lot of decisions. You have to stylize it or something,
interpret it. You've got to accept the flat surface.”
Thank You & Enjoy
Daniel Goodchild
Email: dangrahamgood@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PaintingTheLand
Blog: https://paintingtheland.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment