——————————————————————————————————————————-
REMINDER: This painting is part of the 10th Annual Henry Fukuhara Workshop Exhibition, Aug. 4 – Sept. 8, 2007, at the APC Fine Arts & Graphics Gallery, Torrance, CA. Click THIS LINK for details.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Manzanar Enigma – DETAIL – Watercolor by Woody Hansen
(Click image to view entire painting)
Manzanar Enigma was a demonstration painting at Friday morning’s Free Friday mini-workshop. As was my method in years past, Enigma, was painted without a preliminary sketch or value plan. However, without first working with a value plan is a rarity these days.
For several weeks now I have been attempting to achieve a personal statement about Manzanar, without success. The failure process is a reminder that one often has to do many poor paintings before he has a chance to do a good painting. I think Enigma is a worthy example that much of the art of painting is achieved with controlled abandon.
I am indebted to Free Friday participant Rich Osborn, for this one. It was Rich’s honesty, his own struggle to succeed, his intense interest in painting, and his insightful questions that inspired me to attempt to explain and demonstrate a technique in which he expressed interest.
It is worth noting that my previous failures seemed to mysteriously lay the ground work for this painting. The pieces flowed together almost without effort. It was not until I began applying the final touches that I realized I created the Manzanar painting I had been seeking in weeks past. I was immediately pleased with the demonstration, which seems to support the idea that creativity usually begins when we realize we don’t have to paint to the expectations of others.
At some future date could this work be replicated larger or smaller, or even perhaps the same size? In a word, no. Does the fact one cannot replicate a painting make one less an artist? I think not, for if life is an unrepeated miracle, and a painting is, as I believe, a metaphor of life, then a painting should be unrepeatable. That’s why it’s called painting, rather than science.
EQUIPMENT NOTE: This work was accomplished without the aid of either American Journey, or Daniel Smith watercolors.
#1 by Rich Osborn on July 21st, 2007
Quote
Woody I am glad indeed that this work withstood the “we’ll look at it later” phase
and it was posted on the Blog. It was an inpiration for me to be there and witness
the creation of a work of art. You have been generous with your time, talent and
an inspiration beyond measure. Thank you.
Woody said:
Thanks for the comment, Rich.
I am reminded of the Andrew Wyeth quote, “Artists today think of everything they do as a work of art. It is important to forget about what you are doing .. then a work of art may happen.”
I don’t know about the art part, but this piece is proof positive I forgot about what I was doing. And, that is exactly why I appreciate the outcome. At least that’s how I feel about it today. Tomorrow? Who knows?
#2 by David Peterson on July 21st, 2007
Quote
I see you got the telephone poles in this one.
Woody said:
What telephone poles?
#3 by Russell Black on July 22nd, 2007
Quote
Great example of color “patching.” I think you hit every color on the wheel with this one and got in a few neutral grays to boot. Though some of the calligraphy is a bit hard to figure out, there is enough (readable) to get the meaning.
Woody said:
Those who take time to get to know about Manzanar, realize that like the calligraphy, Manzanar “… is a bit hard to figure out.” That is exactly the point of my painting, and why the title, Manzanar Enigma. Jury Foreman, bring in the next case.
#4 by Russell Black on July 23rd, 2007
Quote
Actually, I want to ask why you had to mention paint types not used in your “Equipment Note.” ? What difference does it make what paint was used to create this nice piece?
Woody, not to be jumping on your case about this, but you still seem to have this bug up your butt about paint manufacturing. I’ll quote Henry Fukuhara on this one, “…paint is paint…”. I know that you have your concerns about permanence, but really, if your paint lasts 500 years (whatever you’re using) and another brand lasts only 400 years, so what? You’ll be long dead and past caring by then. So will most of us, along with our critics and supporters. The only thing that will be remembered in the future is the work itself, was it any good or not? That’s what counts in the end, not which tube of paint was used, or if it had a silly name on it like “Red Hot Mama.” In 100 years from now, no one is going to care about it.
And don’t come back with the argument that art should last forever. Nothing lasts forever. Never will. Even stone crumbles, so a piece of paper has even less chance to begin with.
Who knows what Monet used? If he was down to his last Franc and had to choose between the expensive, one tube of paint or three cheaper tubes, which choice did he make so that he could continue to paint? Did it matter to Pollock that he used house paint to make his large canvases? Does it matter to anyone? What matters more is the work created. That’s what’s important.
I know that you have your crusade to run here, but it sounds a bit snobish to say that one brand of paint is truely better than another (assuming artist quality, etc.). No manufacturer has its own quarries, pulling out raw materials exclusively just for them. Synthetic paint is chemistry, pure and simple. Unless you can prove to me that Winsor Newton (for example) has it’s own quarries, uses it’s own trees for gum arabic, and shares no materials at all in common with any other manufacturer in the world by way of suppliers, then paint is paint. Given the same materials, and the same chemistry, anyone can make the same paint, even you.
Which brings me to my last point. If you’re sooooo concerned about the quality of the paint that goes into your work, then why not make it yourself? It’s simple enough to make. You can call red, red (not Red Hot Mama), or yellow, yellow (instead of Bumble Bee). You can call it whatever you want, but it’s still just paint. You can give then very artsey, fartsey names, but at the end of the day, blah, blah, blah.
I think there are better things to do than complain about what paint is, or isn’t. You use what you want, let the rest of use what we want (without discourse), and call it a good painting day for all.
Woody’s reply:
MUSIC of Ray Stevens (Everything is Beautiful)
CUE MUSIC: (Up full, hold five seconds, and under)
Initially, I find the need for comments like the above unfortunate, confusing, a bit unsettling, some what depressing, and only mildly annoying; they do however, give me cause to reflect, to question why it is I try to do what I do. It certainly is not for capital gain alone. Then I remember that for communication to exist, the message must be received in the manner in which it is intended (which obviously has not occurred in this situation). Next, I also take comfort in knowing that in order for one to learn, one must be ready to receive the information. And, I remind myself there is more to being an artist than being an artist.
After carefully considering the questions and arguments posed, I found there is no need of a direct answer. Here, an indirect answer provides the better educational opportunity. The questions and arguments themselves, as well as the phrasing of the questions and arguments, provide – to the critical reader – the best answer possible; much better than any I might attempt.
For a serious, accomplished, well educated, professional artist to feel a need to ask what difference it makes what paint is used to create a work of art is beyond my comprehension; it seems sad, disheartening even, and – I believe – reflects negatively on the educational process. Asking such a question is a little like the wonderful Louis Armstrong line, “If you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know.”
I embrace, and appreciate, the idea that It is not so very important for a person to learn facts; for that, a person does not really need a college. Facts can be learned from books. The value of an education … is not the learning, and regurgitating of many facts, but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from a textbook.
Furthermore, in any attempt to communicate, or discuss difficult issues with others, it is always helpful to attempt to use some degree of adroitness and sensitivity. In a word, tact. As noted earlier, there is more to being an artist than being an artist.
Now, I hope you’ll excuse me, but that blasted bug seems to be entering a state of extreme annoyance, hyperactivity, and/or agitation! I don’t mean to complain, or appear snobbish, but the ever increasing rectal pain is making it very difficult to continue sitting at the computer. Butt, er, but, I thank you for your passionate comments (I think).
MUSIC: (Up and hold five seconds, and slow fade out)