Rob Adams a Painter's Blog painter's progress

November 7, 2012

Where are our Cathedrals?

Looking back over history there is a trend that can be quite easily traced. A society will get organised, the efficiencies of scale kick in and then it has more labour than it needs to survive. In Egypt the cyclical nature of the agriculture seasons driven by flooding produced the Pyramids and other wonders. It is only the most spectacular of many, from the Incas to the Christian world of medieval times. There was whenever the spare effort was available this impulse to beautify the world. This seems to be true even up to the 19th century with the Victorians building vast palaces to industry and even beautifying their sewage pumping stations!

This is that astonishing cathedral to sewage the Abbey Mills pumping station in east London.

Often religion was the driver, or actually the status of the patriarchs and tyrants into whose hands power had devolved. Nonetheless I suspect there was much general pride in the achievements. So what do we do with our spare human effort? It is certainly there in greater quantities than we ever seen in history before. By any previous measure there should be vast monuments being raised of incomparable richness and beauty. You might point out that we have staggering high rise cities, but these are raised with only a minor expenditure of effort compared to the past. There is also no real attempt to make them beautiful only tall, ingenious engineering wise and above all cheap. Any of the great cathedrals would be too expensive to build nowadays. Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, one of the last built, cost around £700,000 or about £53 million today. That however does not mean it would cost that amount to build today as the required labour and materials for such a project would I estimate be far higher.

So where does our spare effort go? Well, essentially as far as I can see we waste it. Governments fear people without an activity to keep them off the streets more than anything else. Unemployment breeds discontent and and can quickly cause a society to implode, as we might, I fear, soon see in Greece and Spain. This unemployment is small though when compared to the numbers of people we actually need to keep the show on the road. I’m not sure of the figures, indeed I suspect no one is, but I daresay we could support our population at an acceptable survival level with only the effort of 15% or less of the population’s effort. With full automation yet to have its greatest effect that proportion is probably due to plummet. The  Marxist dream of leisure for the masses has come true, but not quite how those early socialists expected.

The problem of all this leisure is what on earth are people to do with it? There are no vast communal projects to soak up the unneeded potential, indeed out greatest communal effort is in extending individual life which just adds to the time to be occupied by harmless activity or bovine inactivity. If the potential isn’t used up in some way then the pressure will build up and those person hours could and likely would be used to the detriment or destruction of society as a whole. The Devil truly does make work for idle hands. The answer we have arrived at by empirical accident is to divert that effort into mostly harmless pastimes. So hours are soaked up by entertainment, not just by those that consume the TV shows etc, but also the vast industry devoted to supplying the fodder and hardware to amuse those surplus  minds. We also make up endless activities that keep idle hands busy while producing nothing and using minimal resources, commonly known as sport. Depressingly my own preferred activity in life is also now defined as a hobby and listed amongst these unneeded absorbers of time. We churn out far more paintings than will ever be required to go on domestic walls or fill private and national collections.

Surely this human potential could be better used. At the moment it is merely vented as if from an over pressurised boiler with fragile seams. If all this useless activity was carried out without a cost to society or the fabric of our world it would be bad enough, but the price paid in resources and wear and tear on our planet is dreadful and unsupportable in the longer term. Where has mankind’s ambition gone? There is it seems no vaunting drive to conquer new territory or extend the reach of the species. It is not as if there isn’t plenty of space in our vast universe to do just that if we chose. If the Victorians had discovered spaceflight in the 1860’s you could bet that by now they would have been all over the solar system like a rash! Yet we huddle close to our small world with most of our effort in that regard used to put up satellites so that we may more easily distribute entertainment to keep the masses quiet and safely inactive.

There is a considerable and growing swelling of opinion against the way we organise things. However depressingly to my mind they are all aimed at retrenching. We are fashionably green, we espouse renewable energy, living in harmony with nature and so forth. All fine and admirable aims, but in order to achieve them or anything close, several billion people will have to die. If we are serious in that ambition then reduction of population should be the number one cause celebre, but that is rarely ever mentioned. Rather we cling to ideas such as “organic” or “carbon neutral” etc which are for the most part entirely bogus in their actual delivery. The whole idea of sustainability is fraught with illogical and unrealistic thinking. Rather as if a group of people were trapped in an airtight chamber with no hope of rescue . Instead of making the effort to escape, which is they know just about theoretically possible, they decide the best course is to breath less often. The result being that they die a little later than they would do if they had made the attempt to escape but failed.

The facts are simple, the earth is a closed system, we will exhaust its resources because our cultural momentum is too great for any meaningful course change, indeed we have probably already overstepped the mark. The planet’s vulnerability and instability will cause our extinction sooner or later. As individuals we have no difficulty in choosing later rather than sooner in relation to personal mortality. I don’t see any problem with a whole race of beings taking the same posture vis a vis extinction. Yes, human kind will expire eventually, but in the meantime many lives will be lived, joys and sorrows experienced and shared. To my mind it would be well worth it just for the wonder that would inevitably be experienced during the lives that would be lived.

Why do we not dream of garlanding our sun with beautiful rings teeming with life? Why do we not set about reaching out into that great ocean of stars? Yes it is huge and frightening, cold and inhospitable, and we would die in droves attempting it. But we don’t think that the many sailors that died exploring our globe as having wasted their lives, indeed we laud those in the past who died in hopelessly dangerous leaps into the unknown. Yes it would deplete and I dare say ravage our poor world yet further, but if life is as rare as it seems to be and possibly unique, then surely its longer term survival is worth fighting for. The attempt may fail, but surely that is more glorious and dignified than to merely fade away whist dissipating our energy and desire for survival on Playstations and reality TV. For the Greens and Environmentalists there is the thought that once the unsupportable drain of human demands is being supplied by off planet resources then Earth could once again be a garden, perhaps to give birth to other minds in some unknowable future.

When I express such thoughts and when I hear others occasionally do the same the response is mostly similar:

“We have enough problems here on Earth to be solved before we use precious resources to look beyond.”

Superficially this looks sensible. We have poverty, disease and dying innocents to deal with. Surely that is where our efforts should be focussed? If there was any hope of success in these ambitions in the current world’s social trends I might agree. Sort those out first and then we can turn our attention outwards. A little thought shows that the ambition to deal with these problems within our current closed world are nigh on impossible. We struggle to improve child mortality, then the populations out strip supply and starvation and misery often result. I was struck by a recent documentary about countries that had rich resources to be exploited. Sadly it didn’t result in the uplifting of the ordinary population, but only the increased exploitation and degradation of the many by the few. The most optimistic potential future has us all living in more or less equal poverty not lifting the masses out of it. There is only so much cake and the slices will by stages have to become thinner, even in the unlikely event of them being divided fairly. The most probable future is that we will fight over the dwindling resources until enough of us have been killed to ease the pressure. Or more likely still, a whole series of such events punctuated by periods of recovery.

Another opinion I hear uttered as if it is wisdom is the idea that we don’t need to explore off the planet’s surface as machines can do it better, cheaper and more safely. I just can’t see how anyone thinks this could be sensible. If we miraculously discovered a new continent on the Earth we wouldn’t say, “We will just learn about it by sending over drones as colonisation would be too risky!”

Why do scientists think that just finding out about our surroundings is sufficient? Men don’t look at Everest and think, ” Oh I know how high it is and I’ve sent a drone up and it has taken samples, so I don’t need to bother to climb it.” We don’t think like that at all, as the many fatalities show, because the important thing is that they wished to experience it first hand. Exploration isn’t an end in itself it is merely the means to extend potential human experiences. Exploring our universe in person is merely the beginning. Columbus didn’t come back and then nobody bothered to follow as it had already been “done”. Others followed to live their lives there, which I know was pretty bad luck for the indigenous peoples, but many many wonderful lives have been lived out there. That is why we need to take the leap.

Not for the resources.

Not for the knowledge gained.

Not for the glory.

We need to do it so that humanity can experience and know the wonder of this vast place in which we find ourselves. Lives lived, loves, hopes and disappointments felt are the richest harvest here.

The emptiest and most depressing award I think goes to the nihilists who say, “We have made a right mess here, all we will do is mess up the rest of the solar system!”

They equate humanity to a desease spreading relentlessly and wrecking everything it touches. This seems to me to be a stupidly self centred position to take. Would life as a whole be served letting it die out on this small pebble we call home? Will trees never have the chance to spread their branches wide under other suns? Will whales be denied the chance to swim in other seas? Will men be denied the chance to live and love on other worlds or in the vast reaches between them? We are the only hope we know of at present for this thin smear of organised matter we call life, it is I feel our duty to extend its reach.

How sad it would be if we are truly alone in this great place and we by inaction allow our small light to go out. That the majestic galaxies should wheel on their courses through the immensity without ever being seen by a knowing eye. For worlds to raise up their mountains that will never to be climbed. For the vast ocean of space to remain empty and barren of that small plankton we call life.

The above is also a good reason for me to paint, even though most of the paintings will never grace a wall and are destined for storage under my bed. Indeed when I am gone they are probably destined for a landfill. They are my small appreciation of the wonderful and often scary place I find myself. A thank you letter to whatever outrageous combination of events has allowed me to be here and appreciate the fact.

.

Not many big paintings this post, I am still busy earning a few bucks so painting time has been restricted. I have however been trying yet again to find a practical way of sketching standing up in difficult and often busy places where a tripod is impossible. I have decided small might be better so I have been experimenting with 7in by 5in oils.

.

London, Deptford, plein air, oils, painting

This is St Johns Vale very close to home. Just a quick study of the light but plenty of information for a larger painting. Often at this time of year this very ordinary scene becomes transfigured by the light. I just need the right figures or whatever to bring out the atmosphere and give a sense of the people and their routines. The train station is just to my left and streams of people arrive only moments before the trains they need to catch. I love the mood of often distracted urgency that comes from people who would prefer to be still in bed but have to rush for their train to work. Unfortunately that is not when the light is at its best, so I will have to use my imagination to set the early morning activity in the later afternoon sun.

.

Deptford creek, oils, painting, plein air.

Another test expedition close to home. this is the lifting bridge over Deptford Creek at the oddly named Ha’ penny Hatch. I had no thought of painting here until the walked past me into the light. Which show how important figures are in a composition. The figure took longer than the rest as I had to make it up. But still all done in about 20min which is a great thing about these tiny studies.

.

St Pauls, London, fleet st, cathedral, oil painting, plein air.

This is St Pauls from Fleet St. Not too busy so I could just stand, even so I was a bit in the way. It’s odd how few stationary people there are on the streets every one is busy going somewhere. Due to that people tend to bump into you as they pass!

.

London, church, Strand, oil painting, plein air

St Mary le Strand, some lovely contrasts, here I got all the darks established as very simple thinly painted areas. The canvas texture of these panels is very good for this as the darks can be rubbed into the weave, but the high points show some transparency which enlivens the shadows.

.

St Pauls, cannon st, London, oil painting, plein air

I have painted this scene dozens of time now and it never disappoints. This is St Pauls from Cannon St. I scrubbed the dark reddish brown over everything except the sky just as a silhouette. Then laid in the lights and the deepest darks over the top.

.

pochade

For the plein air nerds this is my latest and simplest set up for painting standing. It’s really a test rig to get the design sorted. The curved board just rests against my stomach. This takes enough of the weight of the box to allow painting handheld standing up in relative comfort. At first I just used a ruler as a prop  but the the shaped board works better. I think the board will be replaced by a wire frame eventually. I am in the midst of building a wooden version which will be much lighter… and hopefully more elegant!

.

Life drawing, nude

Some life drawings to finish off.

.

Life drawing

I just brought brush pens to this session which was a mistake. They are great for delicate touches and first sketching outbut rubbish for larger areas!

.

Life drawing, nude

Next session and watercolour brushes too this time… so much easier!

.

Life drawing, nude, watercolour

I thought about making the hair black but the blue rather took my fancy.

.

Life drawing, nude, watercolour

Another of the same pose, it is fun to do this, it is some how easier to break the subject down at the second attempt I try to do these very fast without worrying too much about accuracy.

October 16, 2012

Joseph Mallord William Turner

Filed under: Art History,Painting,Watercolour — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Rob Adams @ 1:21 pm

I have always been a bit disappointed in art books about painters, or indeed TV documentaries. They often don’t seem to be much interested in the pictures themselves, more in the career, life ‘n’ times and peccadillos of the atrist. So have decided to review some famous artists I admire from a painter’s viewpoint, which is more focused on the work itself and how it was done. The other thing is to be realistic about the quality of the work. Just because an artist is famous and in the art history books does not mean all his or her work is admirable. In some ways the pictures where an artist misses the mark are more informative to other painters than the triumphs are, though we all love those too of course. I am I have to say a little nervous about setting out on such a course as anyone might protest, “What does he know about it?”. Well, a critic could be accused in the same way, so I could say to them, “You don’t paint yourself so what do you know?”. For myself I think both viewpoints are worthwhile. Any painter will tell you however that the best praise and the most painful criticism come from other painters especially if you admire them. Lots of people have admired my watercolours, but when Trevor Chamberlain told me he liked them I walked for a few days 6in above the ground!

Todays victim is JMW Turner. I am not going to rehash his life story, you may find a quick precis of it on Wikipedia. Turner and all his works and much more are here on the wonderful collection put on line by the Tate Gallery London: Paintings.

We first see Turner in the company of Tom Girtin, copying watercolours in the collection of a certain Dr Monroe. Some of these were by Cozens, below are some paintings by Turner, Cozens and Girtin so you can see the similarities and differences.

 

Turner

John Robert Cozens

.

Turner

Thomas Girtin

.

Turner

Turner after Cozens

.

Turner

Here are the dynamic duo Turner and Girtin apparently working on the same picture!

 

The sheer quantity and quality of Turner’s output is a little forbidding. He  produced over 350 oil paintings, 2,000 watercolours, 30,000 paper works. Many of the 30,000 paper works in sketchbooks are also in watercolour, which means that primarily Turner was a watercolour painter. A lifetime total for oils of 350 (including many unfinished under paintings) is really not very many for such a long lived artist.

The art historical view, touted by all the books on him that I have seen, is a steady progression from detailed and tight, to inchoate sweeps of colour verging on abstraction. On closer examination however this is considerably less than the truth. By careful choice of paintings throughout his career I could easily make the opposite case, by choosing indistinct early works and finely wrought later ones. The truth is Turner painted loose impressions and colour notes from early on and detailed finished works right up until the end of his life, or at least until his eyesight began to fail. The progression toward the abstract is something I feel just did not happen in the way it is often portrayed. It is maybe possible that Turner came value his more atmospheric paintings as a truer representation of the sublime; but many of the works that are touted as Turner moving towards abstraction are unfinished works, only underpaintings, that were intended to be revisited.

He painted from quite early on in the manner where he laid in the general tone and palette of the painting and then drew out the finished work by resolving, reworking and leaving until he considered it finished. This is a very common way of working for artists from ancient to modern. To exhibit these as finalised works as galleries do is I feel to misrepresent the artist, his work and his intentions. I have seen colour tests on the backs of sheets put forward in catalogues as examples of how far Turner was ahead of his times and presaging the arrival of modern art.

Next are a few finished and unfinished works from various times in his life. The number of unfinished examples from later on is larger obviously, early on he could not afford to leave expensive canvasses lying fallow!

TurnerThis is from 1805.

.

Turner

Then from 1825.

.

Turner

Here we are in 1850, see he was trying to be Marc Rothko his whole life! To compare next are two finished and exhibited works from early and late.

.

Turner

This was painted when he was in his twenties in 1796.

.

Turner

This is from 1842 and about as abstract as he gets in exhibited works. I don’t however think that his intention is abstraction. Everything makes good

pictorial sense. He is just trying to paint the wild confusing power of the sea as best he can. You cannot see the ship distinctly because as Turner well knew

in such conditions it was truly the case that only vague glimpses would be seen.

.

Why is his art so misrepresented in books, exhibitions and documentaries? It is basically I think because art historians have a story they wish to tell about art moving in a tidy progression from representation through abstract to modernism and the story of Turner’s work has to be bowdlerised to fit that story, rather than the actual story of his work and progress, which I think is really quite different. I cannot somehow imagine Turner reading these dubious tales of his artistic progression and recognising much of his own artistic career. The whole arc of art moving from “traditional” to “modern” is mostly a fantasy and not, as far as I can see, born out by the painted works that history records. Turner, poor soul, has been chosen long after his death to be the cornerstone of this art historical fairy tale.

The result is that we do a tremendous disservice to one of our greatest artists. In one fell swoop we make him both more and less than he really was. The sad thing is that modernism and its related offshoots have a perfectly respectable genealogy that goes back to the earliest of times, but it is on a different branch to Turner and earlier western painting. To claim him as a direct antecedent of modernism is rather like me claiming that hippos are my direct ancestor, we share ancestors in the past, but we are not on the same timeline or grazing the same pastures. Not that he didn’t influence later abstract painters, just that he trod an entirely different road.

Turner was pretty precocious and improved rapidly from his juvenile style emulating earlier painters to a confident and accurate draughts man. The two examples below are only 5 years apart and both of his home city Oxford.

TurnerOxford in about 1787 so he is 12 years old.

.

Turner

Here he is in 1792 five or so years later at seventeen or eighteen.

.

I suspect, though it is hard to confirm dates that it is the influence and friendship of Tom Girtin, or rather the competition of two young men striving in the same arena that produces this huge step forwards. Also whether in company or by himself Turner starts to fill his sketchbooks with finely observed drawings.

TurnerThis fine and accomplished sketch is from 1796.

.

Turner

This seascape, a subject he would paint his whole life, is from 1796 too. Not bad for a twenty one year old!

.

By 1806 he is producing masterly topographical renderings in watercolour.

TurnerThis is Morpeth from around 1806.

 

He is also painting ambitious oils for exhibition such as this painting from 1805.

TurnerThis fine seascape hangs in the National Gallery London.

.

TurnerWe also see him absorbing the influences of earlier painters as in this shaky attempt at a Titian from 1803 after visiting the Louvre.

A good try, but not really convincing!

.

Turner

 Another influence is popular mythological and biblical epic paintings which were very much in vogue. Here is the Deluge from 1805.

.

Turner

We cannot leave out his other influence that was to last his whole life. Claude Lorraine inspired a great swathe of his work, here is an early one from 1806 of Abingdon.

It is from Claude he gets his love of that suffusing light that makes the whole picture seem to glow. Unfortunately he also gets a penchant for scattering classical figures in various states of undress scampering about. I chose the picture above as they are thankfully replaced by cattle a la Aelbert Cuyp.

What is often passed over by writers and critics is that the majority of Turner’s work in his lifetime was spent producing reference paintings and drawings that were to be engraved and sold as editions. To this end he undertook a punishing series of travels to the far corners of Britain and far across Europe. The large oils were only a small part of his output, but important nonetheless as a means of self promotion and the gaining of prestige, which in turn drove sales of his engravings. Here is one of Isleworth with the sketches probably done around 1806 through various stages to the final engraving.

Turner

.

Turner

These two are from his sketchbooks and probably done en plein air on the same day.

.

Turner

Here is the compositional drawing worked up from the sketches.

.

Turner

Then a sepia wash drawing as a guide for the engraver.

.

Turner

Finally here is the finished engraving sold as an edition.

 

Whether Turner coloured these entirely himself I doubt, I dare say it was quite a production line with Turner plus assistants beavering away to get the work done as quickly as possible.

For his research Turner developed an amazing technique of noting down subjects and things that interested him. His process in about 1830,  25 years later, is pretty consistent, below is Alnwick.

TurnerThis sketch is typical, he just notes down the salient features, the mood and colouring would probably come from another sketch possibly not even

of the same subject.

.

Turner

On his return or perhaps in a moment of rest in between travelling he would work up a watercolour version.

.

Turner

Here is the final result, a steel engraving this time I think.

 

Below is an early sketch of lighting and mood. He could have referred to these sketches at any stage in the future to give the bare bones of a subject a dramatic and realistic mood.

Turner

Towards the end of his life Turners eyesight begins to fail, and from the late 1830’s onwards his colouring becomes uncertain with him tending to paint too brightly. Here is a quote from Richard Liebreich writing in 1872 defending Turner.

“According to my opinion, his manner is exclusively the result of a change in his eyes, which developed itself during the last twenty years of his life. In consequence of it the aspect of Nature gradually changed for him, while he continued in an unconscious, I might almost say in a naïve manner, to reproduce what he saw. And he reproduced it so faithfully and accurately, that he enables us distinctly to recognize the nature of the disease of his eyes, to follow its development step by step, and to prove by an optical contrivance the correctness of our diagnosis. By the aid of this contrivance we can see Nature under the same aspect as he saw and represented it.”

Another more recent assessment is by James McGill, as reported by Maev Kennedy in the Guardian in 2003.

“Mr McGill is convinced Turner was slightly colour-blind, and this particularly affected his perception of red and blue. “The blues are all wrong, either too dark or too bright, and the reds get stronger and stronger, which is exactly what you would expect. And I have no doubt that later in life he had untreated cataracts, which would have made the centre of his field of vision very blurred, with some objects at the edges in focus – and with exactly that effect of dazzling shimmering light we see in the paintings.”

“With the type of cataract which I believe Turner had, it is quite possible to see foggily through the cataract, until you are look ing directly into bright light. Then you’re in trouble, because all you can see is the dazzle – and that’s what we get with Turner.”

Here are his glasses. which were tested to determine how Turner’s eyesight had decayed.

Turner

Below is a very late picture which shows his sad decline.

Turner

Below is how this might have seemed to the painter as he worked.

Turner This is only a rough guess but it gives you an idea of how heartbreaking it must have been for a man like Turner to have his eyesight decline.

It has alas been also the case with other painters that decaying eyesight and the decline of old age are taken as a move towards abstraction and presented as a step forwards. Degas and Monet have been used in this way too. I find it, I have to say, as an insult to these great men, and a cruel and insincere act to use their sad decline in old age to prop up a poorly conceived and simplistic view of art history.

We shall leave Joseph Mallord William Turner on a high Here is his own favourite of all his works The Fighting Temeraire, this is often represented as the new age replacing the old, which I don’t disagree with, but I think he is also thinking, as in another similar picture, of the death of his great friend and fellow painter David Wilkie.

Turner

The images of Turner’s works in this article are copyright by the Tate Gallery London.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress

error: Content is protected !!