I’ve always had this interest in how I might be able to tell a story in my paintings, without having to layout every detail.
This painting is a “work in progress” and for me it’s about distance. The two figures have adopted the same stance and maybe for different reason. Because they appear to be in the same location/room, they are together. I will find out what they are about as I continue to paint. Figuring out the story is one of the most enjoyable parts of painting for me.
Bob,
I think introducing story is a terrific way of adding psychological depth to your portraits. In this one we can see the man is angry or upset, but there’s not too far we can go with that thought. Of course we move on to appreciate the painting of the face and think about how it relates to his mood. But when you add the woman in the background, there are many places for our mind to go, and I think we feel more engaged with the picture. We try to read nuances into his expression. His eyes are cast a bit toward her side; is he about to turn around? Is there any way we can try to figure out whose “fault” it is that they’re like this?
I think the distance between the two people is the greater because she does not look angry and even seems to have her eyes closed. And yet they are linked by the color of their clothing and are touching as shapes in the 2D world of the painting. That distance plus connection tension really works for me here. I like the red/orange in the man’s forehead matching her hair, as if he’s got her on his mind.
Bob,
I am fond of the idea of developing the meaning of a work as it progresses. This is the way many novelists work, I have read.
This picture is off to a “bad” start, so to speak — a great representation of an unhappy situation. Maybe the characters will find a connection…
It seems that you draw in paint directly on the canvas, is that right?
A powerful picture!
I disagree with the interpretation that the unhappy situation absolutely needs to be the fault of either the man or the woman. They could be reacting to an unhappy event that is caused by something beyond their power.
Another type of interpretation – that we engaged in recently here on A&P – is that these two people depict different aspects of the artist himself that are trying to figure out a solution to a difficult problem.
Bob,
I like the tension here which is amplified by the design choices you have made, one of which is to butt him up right to her edge so there is no space between them whatsoever. As well the green behind him flips back and forth for me between foreground and background. I may want that to eventually sit back (i.e. be less intense of a color, matching the intensity of the wall behind her) but I don’t know what your intent is – is it a wall right behind him around which we are looking at her? Or is it the back wall? The woman’s face is really ambiguous. I understand her expression more from her pose, which is great, but I am wondering if her face could be either more or less clear in its expression? Just a thought. It is teetering in between at the moment. His face is wonderfully crafted and specific and I see it as pissed off. I see the middle of an argument perhaps, but like Birgit, I don’t assign blame in the scene. Thanks for showing work in progress! That’s always fun for me.
I like the picture very much as there are a lot of story elements here.
– We do not know if they are husband and wife or just live in partners
– We do not know if this is the culmination of a heated argument or it is the beginnings
– We do not know if he has pushed her into a corner and not letting her out or if both of them are in their own respective corners and we are just seeing a close up of him from his corner
– We do not know if she is being a dominatrix with her hands on her hips telling him what to do and him defying all the ‘orders’
I love the unknowns that you can develop in the picture when you have multiple characters (something that I cannot do with my ‘face paintings’)
Loved it…
Interesting to compare this juxtaposition of figures to that in one of Bob’s previous paintings. The emotional dynamic is entirely different. The slight overlap of the figures is there though.
I interpret this painting as a close relationship that once happen has fallen apart…
Sometimes you can be physical close to a person but your soul might not be in the same room as them at all.
Bob, the lively colours you have chosen contrast with the coldness of this relationship. Maybe there must be some hope in terminating whatever the relationship this two might have… sometimes is better to walk away….
Really rich and wonderful comments.
Relationships are sometimes like the elephant in the room, We know something is there but we would rather not mention it. I think we all have been some place, a party, reception or something and we can feel the tension between people. I want to be able to capture that in some of my paintings. I did not have a specific tension that I was looking to convey, but more on how I could use the space to show distance and connectedness.
I don’t remember who wrote this “The space between us is not what makes us different, but what connects us to one another” (I am sure this is not an exact quote). I was looking to do this with the edge of his shirt on her dress. I think that the tension is immediately detected, that this must be the theme of the painting. The cause of the tension is not as important as the tension it self. We can tell something is wrong.
I use drawing lines a lot in my paintings, it helps ground me.
Thanks all, great experience
Angela,
Maybe the people are close but there is consternation about how to deal with an external problem. Maybe they are each trying to probe their own thoughts as to how, as a team, they can overcome that external problem (their kid is failing at school, the roof is leaking, whatever). I think we have all be jumping to conclusions too quickly, looking at Bob’s picture in the most superficial way.
Karl,
That’s exactly the point. Everybody naturally starts “jumping to conclusions,” that’s the power of the story element here. Any person of experience is well aware that first impressions are not always right, and that’s what keeps them looking at and thinking about what’s in the picture, getting down to details of composition and color. That’s why I cast my “fault” hypothesis as a question. I think viewers sense a confrontation or tension and start from there, considering many possibilities. I didn’t read any comments as pushing a particular interpretation, just suggesting possible ones. This connects with the narrative gaps idea that we discussed once.
I interpret this painting as a close relationship that . . . has fallen apart…
Steve,
That comment seems to propose a particular interpretation, and if I didn’t propose one, I certainly had one in mind. I confess to being not aware of multiple interpretations at first. It was only today that I started to think of alternatives. I suppose a question for the artist (or artists in general) is, to what extent should the viewer need to figure out the need for alternative interpretations? Should the artist assume that the viewer will see the picture again and again? On the internet this is, sadly, a risky assumption.
Hi folks, I believe what happens is that if we make a connection with a work of art we superimpose our current situation on to it.
I remember coming home from Army and hearing Smoky Robinson’s “Track of my Tears” and thinking that was one of the most incredible songs ever written (because my girl was gone, you know the story). Like in following Angela’s work and the little she has shared with us about herself and family, I totally get her comments. I would have been shocked if she didn’t see the possibility of hope in this painting.
I remember coming home from Army and hearing Smoky Robinson’s “Track of my Tears” and thinking that was one of the most incredible songs ever written (because my girl was gone, you know the story).
Bob,
Talking about interesting topics for paintings, the above sounds great. Have you ever given it a try?
Karl, I returned from the army back in 1965 and it was so strange to have all of those memories show up again as Smoky sang this song at this years Grammy Awards. I’ve not thought about that song for a while. A Painting might be interesting.
How long were you in the army, Bob? What was it like being an artist in an institution that does not promote individual creativity and self expression as its primary goal?
Karl, I wish I could say that being in the Army had no value but it did. At the time I was a smart kid from the inner city (Bronx) who did not know how to keep his mouth shut. So I was always in trouble with my sgt. When I got out of the Army I hadn’t changed much, except that I now had an appreciation of me. That my being able to say what I believed, being honest with myself and others was what really mattered. Most institutions and the Military being maybe the largest, need group-thinking and the value that I got from being in the Army was the certainty that I didn’t belong there. Just going along, because everyone else is, scares me silly.
Bob,
You are saying that rather than turn you into a conformist, the army confirmed your individuality. I can imagine that would get you in trouble with the sergeant.
Just going along, because everyone else is, scares me silly.
The funny thing is that it seems in the art world that we are expected to just go along because everyone else is, also — to long for recognition from the big collectors, get into the important galleries, dream of being in museums. I find myself wondering, why I should want to play this game? The obvious answer is that this is our art world, the way it apparently works. Frustrating, I find it sometimes. The art system itself is not aesthetically pleasing. But what is one individual to do? To become a successful artist is to be drawn deeper into the system. To be an unsuccessful artist is to have no voice.
Karl, there is this wonderful tag-line that the University of Notre Dame uses. It’s something like “You have to be willing to be different if you want to make a difference”. All of us, even people who don’t practice an “art” are asked to be a blade of grass, no taller nor shorter then the rest. Its a difficult life to accept, but so many do.
I just finished watching “Speaking in Strings” a documentary about Violinist Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg, extremely talented musician. Her critics said, she puts to much of herself in here playing, she makes it to personal. I’ve always thought that was to point of doing anything.
David Mamet recent book (I’ve not read it) apparently pulls the curtain away from the folks who make up the establishment in Hollywood, when it comes to understanding what’s creative, Mamet says they don’t know anything. I think we would not be wrong if we said that about all of the Art Establishment. I respect them, they have a job to do, but it does not mean that they know something more.
Bob,
In modern terminology, “transparency” is a characteristic of institutions or systems that function well and have nothing to hide. The art establishment is a prototype of an “opaque” system. What does that opacity hide? It may hide a truth which says that the whole system is illusion. Imagine how much money would be lost if the system were discredited and much contemporary art suddenly lost all value. There may be a very good reason for that opacity.
The 17th century philosopher Spinoza wrote, regarding the political sphere, that policies that did not serve the interests of most people would be given divine justification. This is a critical basis of the concept of division of church and state. I wonder, is “Art” a god in whose name much is done that is in the interest of the few?