Art w/out Intention
Greg Scheckler
>>>Let me also ask you something else: do you believe that
>>>there is anyone alive today who could paint a realistic
>>>picture of a buffalo without intending to do so? (exclude
>>>from consideration trick situations such as those in which
>>>someone else's intentions are required.
[i replied]
>>yes...i'm one case in point.. [i then described how
i paint without intention all of the time]
i actually did mean that. i do paint without intention.
Much to my own surprise i recently discovered that
I'd been working towards action-without-intention for
a very long time. Now i'm in this rather difficult
paradox where I know that i'm not intending to do
a lot of things, which becomes sort of an intention
by default if I choose not to intend things.
Fortunately it's not quite like that. Instead I merely
recognize my lack of intention and keep lacking.
Is anybody else out here working without intention?
If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
an intention?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>Is anybody else out here working without intention?
>If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
>an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
>brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
>an intention?
Actually, I often do this and often end up with realistic figures or objects
as a result. I just start painting and often see some swirl of paint and
imagine some object in it, and then choose to enhance it into an interesting
object.
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
"What tip do you have to leave after staying seven years in a restaurant?"
Bruce Attah
> In article <1996Mar27.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg
Scheckler) writes:
> >Is anybody else out here working without intention?
> >If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
> >an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
> >brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
> >an intention?
>
> Actually, I often do this and often end up with realistic figures or objects
> as a result. I just start painting and often see some swirl of paint and
> imagine some object in it, and then choose to enhance it into an interesting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
> object.
>
> Andy
>
>
> --
> Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
> apea...@panix.com
> "What tip do you have to leave after staying seven years in a restaurant?"
Wecome back, Greg.
Tom Repasky
>bruce attah wrote:
>>>>Let me also ask you something else: do you believe that
>>>>there is anyone alive today who could paint a realistic
>>>>picture of a buffalo without intending to do so? (exclude
>>>>from consideration trick situations such as those in which
>>>>someone else's intentions are required.
>[i replied]
>>>yes...i'm one case in point.. [i then described how
>i paint without intention all of the time]
>
>If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
>an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
>brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
>an intention?
>
>SL...@cc.usu.edu
Although I intend to do art and may select a brush and colors
computer program and tools. THe image that results is
often un-intended. I write in much the same way. THe driving force to
'do' does not need a target/goal. Just doing (un-intended).
I also do art with intention/idea so I believe I know the difference.
For me both approaches result in expression that I call Art.
And often images appear (un-intended) in my pictures when viewed from
different angles. I have yet to have a buffallo appear but perhaps it's
only a metter of time or maybe the buffallo needs a 'scene' suitable before
un-intentionally appearing.
Cheers.
TOm
PS. Many of the pieces in my Gallery are un-intended.
http://members.gnn.com/Repasky/Repasky.htm/
---
E=mc^2 Not just a good idea, it's the law
Tom Repasky to...@cray.com Rep...@gnn.com
http://members.gnn.com/Repasky/Repasky.htm/
All opinions are mine
Greg Scheckler
Pearlman) wrote:
>In article <1996Mar27.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu
(Greg Scheckler) writes:
>>If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
>>an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
>>brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
>>an intention?
>
>figures or objects as a result. I just start painting and often
>see some swirl of paint and imagine some object in it, and
>then choose to enhance it into an interesting
thanks for the reply.
once you see some swirl of paint, is the action of
imagining some object in it an automatic or nearly
automatic process? Is the choice to 'enhance' the swirl
intentional?
Greg
Greg Scheckler
to...@cray.com (Tom Repasky ) wrote:
>In article 77...@cc.usu.edu, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler)
writes:
>>bruce attah wrote:
>>>>>Let me also ask you something else: do you believe that
>>>>>there is anyone alive today who could paint a realistic
>>>>>picture of a buffalo without intending to do so?
>>If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
>>an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
>>brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
>>an intention?
>Although I intend to do art and may select a brush and colors
>computer program and tools. THe image that results is
>often un-intended. I write in much the same way. THe driving
>force to 'do' does not need a target/goal. Just doing
>(un-intended).
thanks for the reply.
i find that i can arrange my studio conveniently
so that access to art mediums is very fluid and
unrestricted. do you arrange your studio to
maximize the 'just doing'?
>I also do art with intention/idea so I believe I know the
>difference. For me both approaches result in expression that I call
>Art.
whew! :)
>And often images appear (un-intended) in my pictures when viewed
>from different angles. I have yet to have a buffallo appear but
>perhaps it's only a metter of time or maybe the buffallo needs a
>'scene' suitable before un-intentionally appearing.
i cannot say that i intend to dream. images appear and
interact and seem meaningful sometimes, sometimes not.
while you paint, is the production of imagery as
automatic as the production of a dream, and if so,
do you leave all those things in that don't seem to
make any sense?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>In article <4jd5vk$g...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
>Pearlman) wrote:
>>Actually, I often do this and often end up with realistic
>>figures or objects as a result. I just start painting and often
>>see some swirl of paint and imagine some object in it, and
>>then choose to enhance it into an interesting
>>object.
>
>thanks for the reply.
No problem.
>once you see some swirl of paint, is the action of
>imagining some object in it an automatic or nearly
>automatic process? Is the choice to 'enhance' the swirl
>intentional?
Usually it is at least somewhat automatic. I just see patterns and think about
things. Allows me to hold something of a limited discussion with my
subconcious in a way. The choice to enhance the swirl is almost always
intentional.
Greg Scheckler
Pearlman) wrote:
>[clip]
>>once you see some swirl of paint, is the action of
>>imagining some object in it an automatic or nearly
>>automatic process? Is the choice to 'enhance' the swirl
>>intentional?
>
>Usually it is at least somewhat automatic. I just see patterns
>and think about things. Allows me to hold something of a limited
>discussion with my subconcious in a way. The choice to enhance the
>swirl is almost always intentional.
would you call that enhancement-process reactionary or responsive?
here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
i might be mixing colors, another i might be holding
a pencil or something... it's very difficult to describe.
it seems to me that sooner or later, whatever i'm doing,
i intend to take advantage of whatever i've been doing,
turn it around, and say to myself something like
"ah yes, i'm making a drawing now." sooner or later
i recognize that i have drawn something, and then I
think "ah yes, i have drawn something, what does it mean?"
etcetera. then i begin to wonder about the beginnings
again, and look at the habits or trends that i relied
on to make the drawing. I often find that when i am
not relying on a sort of intention, i am relying on
either habit or training. I can use intentions to
break habits or analyze training that i'd forgotten
about... i can also use lack of intention to break
habits or trainings that required intentions...
when you are working intentionally, would you say that
involves a lot of your art-training? does working
unintentionally involve training?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
exile
>>[clip]
>>>once you see some swirl of paint, is the action of
>>>imagining some object in it an automatic or nearly
>>>automatic process? Is the choice to 'enhance' the swirl
>>>intentional?
I always work without express intentions... I start by creating
"swirls" with various methods... The actual image and the ideas
I'm tryin to communicate occur to me as the work progresses.
>>Usually it is at least somewhat automatic. I just see patterns
>>and think about things. Allows me to hold something of a limited
>>discussion with my subconcious in a way. The choice to enhance the
>>swirl is almost always intentional.
I'd consider the majority of my creative process to be "discussion
with my subconcious... As I paint I find that ideas, thoughts,
opinions and images occur to me. They begin to develop a sort of
interplay on the canvas. One idea gives rise to the next, one concept
wil spark an emotion that expresses itself in such and such an image,
etc... I can start something in a wonderful mood and end up depressed
as hell, happy, exhausted... I feel I'm exploring myself as I explore
the image on the canvas.
>would you call that enhancement-process reactionary or responsive?
>here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
>process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
In drawing... usually a scribble or a loosley drawn image. I
began one of my better pieces with a suicide note {a real one,
:} Just got too interested in the image to follow through}
In paint.. I generally begin with a rough drawing in pastels
and build paint on top of that... pour turpentine on the canvas,
I've set them on fire... anything to give me a random start.
On the computer The process is pretty much the same except
that I can begin with older images or fragments of them,
fractals, textures, photographs, etc... I can destroy an
image to the point that it has no relation to the original
with filters or scaling, whatever. Gives me a new starting
point for the next idea.
>for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
>i might be mixing colors, another i might be holding
>a pencil or something... it's very difficult to describe.
>it seems to me that sooner or later, whatever i'm doing,
>i intend to take advantage of whatever i've been doing,
>turn it around, and say to myself something like
>"ah yes, i'm making a drawing now." sooner or later
>i recognize that i have drawn something, and then I
>think "ah yes, i have drawn something, what does it mean?"
>etcetera. then i begin to wonder about the beginnings
>again, and look at the habits or trends that i relied
>on to make the drawing. I often find that when i am
>not relying on a sort of intention, i am relying on
>either habit or training. I can use intentions to
>break habits or analyze training that i'd forgotten
>about... i can also use lack of intention to break
>habits or trainings that required intentions...
Habit comes into play much more than I'd like. I have
a tendency to reproduce older, comfortable ideas. Some
ideas tend to surface consistently. That's when it's time
to toss the turpentine. Of course... that's also one of the
things that gives my work consistency.
>when you are working intentionally, would you say that
>involves a lot of your art-training? does working
>unintentionally involve training?
I think it always involves training.
{exile}
Andy Pearlman
>In article <4jkj6m$1...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
>Pearlman) wrote:
>>Usually it is at least somewhat automatic. I just see patterns
>>and think about things. Allows me to hold something of a limited
>>discussion with my subconcious in a way. The choice to enhance the
>>swirl is almost always intentional.
>
Probably responsive. I'm generally interested in preserving the forms that
made me think of the object in the first place.
>here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
>process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
>for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
I just start painting underglazes on the canvas. I'll see some random
brushstroke that looks like it could contain a figure, then outline it or
go the full route of making it into a figure. I can also just start
doodling with a pencil, thinking about nothing, and shapes will start to
appear.
>when you are working intentionally, would you say that
>involves a lot of your art-training? does working
>unintentionally involve training?
Something of both. I didn't start doing art until 21, so I tend to have an
awareness of my training and of a time when I didn't have training. I don't
think they can either be seperated out from me.
By the way, I just wanted to compliment you on your questions. I'm actually
thinking about my art in a response to rec.arts.fine, which is good.
Tom Repasky
>In article <1996Mar28.1...@walter.cray.com>,
> to...@cray.com (Tom Repasky ) wrote:
>>In article 77...@cc.usu.edu, sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler)
>writes:
>>>bruce attah wrote:
>>>>>>Let me also ask you something else: do you believe that
>>>>>>there is anyone alive today who could paint a realistic
>>>>>>picture of a buffalo without intending to do so?
>>>Is anybody else out here working without intention?
>>>If you are, how do you see it that you do not have
>>>an intention? For instance, do you not pick up a
>>>brush and by so doing choose to paint? Is that choice
>>>an intention?
>
>>Although I intend to do art and may select a brush and colors
>>computer program and tools. THe image that results is
>>often un-intended. I write in much the same way. THe driving
>>force to 'do' does not need a target/goal. Just doing
>>(un-intended).
>
>thanks for the reply.
>i find that i can arrange my studio conveniently
>so that access to art mediums is very fluid and
>unrestricted. do you arrange your studio to
>maximize the 'just doing'?
My studio has one door. Everything is convient and available before
>>I also do art with intention/idea so I believe I know the
>>difference. For me both approaches result in expression that I call
>>Art.
>
>whew! :)
>
>>And often images appear (un-intended) in my pictures when viewed
>>from different angles. I have yet to have a buffallo appear but
>>perhaps it's only a metter of time or maybe the buffallo needs a
>>'scene' suitable before un-intentionally appearing.
>
>i cannot say that i intend to dream. images appear and
>interact and seem meaningful sometimes, sometimes not.
>while you paint, is the production of imagery as
>automatic as the production of a dream, and if so,
>do you leave all those things in that don't seem to
>make any sense?
WHen painting with acrylics, I would often leave the 'artifacts' in.
When using the computer for 'doing art' artifacts are less common.
THose that do appear are often the basis for another 'work'. There
are unintended 'figures/images' in many of my digital drawings.
Often the images/artifacts are 'animals/people' sometimes 'plants'.
>Greg Scheckler
>SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
I don't think any of the discussion in this thread so far has been very
clear about what it means to intend something.
To do something intentionally means, roughly, to do something as a result
of imagining the action and the consequence of that action and preferring
that consequence over the consequence of not taking that action. For
example, if I imagine that my purchase of a lottery ticket might just make
me rich, and I experience a sense of preferring to be rich over remaining
poor, and as a result of this, I go out and buy a lottery ticket, I have
done so intentionally. This despite that my image of "being rich" is
necessarily very vague, and indeed my image of the action itself is vague
(perhaps I did not know the procedure involved in buying a lottery ticket,
or I did not know that there was a shop nearby where I could by one).
When people create art intentionally, their image, before starting, of the
finished work may be as vague as the lottery ticket buyer's image of being
rich. Indeed, no work of art of any consequence can be imagined in its
entirety prior to its being made. When we observe artists at work, be
they extraordinarily methodical, like Frederic, Lord Leighton, or very
"intuitive", like Max Ernst, we find that they are really doing pretty
much the same thing. At an early stage, both artists engage in
exploratory behaviour, perhaps by sketching, studying or playing with
their materials. Their actions are at this stage directed by a vague
notion of what it is they want to achieve. Later, when the finished work
is more clearly imagined, they consolidate their experiments in order to
realise it. In the case of Leighton, the consolidation will come in the
form of a cartoon, which will turn into a painting that does not deviate
from the precisely defined intentions. In Max Ernst's case, the
consolidation will take the form of details being added directly to the
work which was started experimentally (perhaps as decalcomania).
Imagine a country where creating art intentionally is a crime, and imagine
an artist arraigned before the court:
Prosecutor: Did you or did you not, rent a studio with North-facing light?
Artist: I did, but because I like the light, not because I intended to paint.
Prosecutor: Ah. And did you equip this studio with an easel and paints?
Artist: I did.
Prosecutor: You spent a lot of money on what could be construed as
artist's materials did you not?
Artist: Yes.
Prosecutor: Why, if you did not intend to produce art?
Artist: I like them, they make a studio look lived in.
Prosecutor: When did you start using these materials to produce art?
Artist: Oh, long after I bought them. I was just mooching around one day,
when I suddenly thought I would play with them, make them look more
convincing.
Prosecutor: (Getting frustrated) But you painted only on canvas did you
not, is that not highly suggestive that you intended to produce paintings?
Artist: No. There is lots of paint on the walls and floor. Besides, I
did not intend to produce paintings, merely to enjoy the experience of
applying the paint to the canvas. You know, canvas is very springy.
(Prosecutor pauses and clears is throat. Time for plan B. He turns to
the judge)
Prosecutor: Your honour, I would like at this point to introduce exhibit
A. A painting produced by the artist.
Judge: Go ahead.
(Two court officials enter, bearing a veiled painting. They remove the
veil, and gasps are heard to fill the courtroom. The work is clearly a
masterpiece.)
Prosecutor: (addressing the artist again) Did you produce this?
Artist: (auietly) Yes.
Judge: (banging his gavel enthusiastically) Stop! Stop!! There is no
point in going on with this trial. The artist is clearly guilty. I shall
now pronounce sentence. (He turns to the artist.) I hereby find you
guilty of intentionally producing a work of art. I sentence you to six
months of probation, during which you shall spend two hours a day in the
Rothko gallery.
Artist: (tearing his hair) No, no! Not the Rothko gallery!
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <1996Mar31.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) writes:
>>In article <4jkj6m$1...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
>>Pearlman) wrote:
>>would you call that enhancement-process reactionary or responsive?
>
> Probably responsive. I'm generally interested in preserving the forms that
> made me think of the object in the first place.
i like the reactionary, destroy and run attitude also... sometimes
i like it enough that i leave the catalyst-forms intact, so that i
can see if my reactionary instinct survives over the long-term.
>>here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
>>process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
>>for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
>
> I just start painting underglazes on the canvas.
doesn't the use of underglazes presuppose that you've developed
a particular process that you're relying on? isn't that
an intentional decision that you either made or were taught
to make, or even a tradition as far as painting techniques go?
i've made the switch now to using primarily acrylic media,
so that i never have to worry about any oil painting
rules such as lean-to-fat... by not worrying about it, and
knowing that i don't have to, my analytic-stop-n-intend-
something-mind is satisfied and i'm more spontaneous.
> I'll see some random
> brushstroke that looks like it could contain a figure, then outline it or
> go the full route of making it into a figure. I can also just start
> doodling with a pencil, thinking about nothing, and shapes will start to
> appear.
do you find that there are particular themes and images that
repeat or recur frequently? I usually end up with lots of
flying saucers, star wars characters and puking babies.
the process of recognizing a brush stroke that at first appeared
to have been randomly made and then becomes some sort of image
makes me wonder: was the brushstroke random at all?
one of the reasons i bring this question of intention up
is that i find when i am painting without intention, there are
nonetheless patterns, intelligent things, always going on. It seems
to me that many of these patterns occur even when I intend them
not to... so now i just go with them.
>>when you are working intentionally, would you say that
>>involves a lot of your art-training? does working
>>unintentionally involve training?
>
> Something of both. I didn't start doing art until 21, so I tend to have an
> awareness of my training and of a time when I didn't have training. I don't
> think they can either be seperated out from me.
i think that's a really key point... not separating...
it seems to me that working without intention frequently requires
this attitude... do you think that a common misconception about
working without intention is that it's an avoidance of parts of
the self?
> By the way, I just wanted to compliment you on your questions. I'm actually
> thinking about my art in a response to rec.arts.fine, which is good.
thanks, that IS rare!
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>In article <4jn8p1$a...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>> In article <1996Mar31.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) writes:
>>>In article <4jkj6m$1...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
>>>Pearlman) wrote:
>>>would you call that enhancement-process reactionary or responsive?
>> Probably responsive. I'm generally interested in preserving the forms that
>> made me think of the object in the first place.
>
>i like the reactionary, destroy and run attitude also... sometimes
>i like it enough that i leave the catalyst-forms intact, so that i
>can see if my reactionary instinct survives over the long-term.
Can always destroy, can't always bring it back...
>>>here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
>>>process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
>>>for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
>>
>> I just start painting underglazes on the canvas.
>
>doesn't the use of underglazes presuppose that you've developed
>a particular process that you're relying on? isn't that
>an intentional decision that you either made or were taught
>to make, or even a tradition as far as painting techniques go?
It is a more refined method of painting technique, but the underlying decision
was an intuition made when I first started painting.
>i've made the switch now to using primarily acrylic media,
>so that i never have to worry about any oil painting
>rules such as lean-to-fat... by not worrying about it, and
>knowing that i don't have to, my analytic-stop-n-intend-
>something-mind is satisfied and i'm more spontaneous.
Lean to fat is much more forgiving than Acrylic, which I find dries too fast
and smells wrong(oil paints have this just beautiful smell to them)
>do you find that there are particular themes and images that
>repeat or recur frequently? I usually end up with lots of
>flying saucers, star wars characters and puking babies.
Buildings, faces of women, and wings.
>the process of recognizing a brush stroke that at first appeared
>to have been randomly made and then becomes some sort of image
>makes me wonder: was the brushstroke random at all?
Generally, I think it was at least partially random, as usually when I start
painting, I'm just interested really in covering the canvas with paint, and
don't really pay much attention to it.
>one of the reasons i bring this question of intention up
>is that i find when i am painting without intention, there are
>nonetheless patterns, intelligent things, always going on. It seems
>to me that many of these patterns occur even when I intend them
>not to... so now i just go with them.
Well, I find it similar to the coin-flip routine. You say heads I do this,
tails I do that. Flip. Heads. best out of three. Heads. Best out of five.
Until finally you decide either to ignore the coin toss or use the coin toss
to justify why a position is weaker/stronger than it is in actuality.
This is the vast simplification of a process which also works extremely well
with most other 'psychic' arts, such as Tarot reading or I Ching - it is the
appearance of true randomness, which is actually merely pseudo-random that
lets both an element of risk and safety into an action. Merely by my arm
making a motion of a brush, it makes a mark that is at least somewhat
distinctive to myself, as much as perhaps my handwriting. I think it would
be impossible to not see something occur, simply because of the familiarity
of the motions of my arm.
(for those who think the Tarot is random as opposed to pseudo-random, look
at how you think about how you weigh cards in combination with each other -
the counterbalancing produces a lot of actually neutral results, but with
interesting sidebars, which if applicable, your brain then jumps on, but
ignores if confusing or meaningless)
>> awareness of my training and of a time when I didn't have training. I don't
>> think they can either be seperated out from me.
>
>i think that's a really key point... not separating...
>it seems to me that working without intention frequently requires
>this attitude... do you think that a common misconception about
>working without intention is that it's an avoidance of parts of
>the self?
I do. Deliberately turning off a part of a brain never seems to work for me.
Bruce Attah
> In article <1996Apr1.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu writes:
> >In article <4jn8p1$a...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>
> >do you find that there are particular themes and images that
> >repeat or recur frequently? I usually end up with lots of
> >flying saucers, star wars characters and puking babies.
>
> Buildings, faces of women, and wings.
The Surrealists put a great deal of effort into the idea of automatic
drawing. The theory was that the method would release profundities from
the unconscious, which was supposed to spend all its time agonizing over
profundities. The result was disappointing. What generally turned up was
the detritus of the imagination, the aimless babble of a mental engine
ticking over, the fluff of neglected crannies of the memory, the droppings
of a browsing mind, and (occasionally) a festering pool of rotten
anxieties.
Only when they deviated from their misguided theory and applied some
intelligence to their work did they manage to produce anything worthwhile.
Greg Scheckler
>>i like the reactionary, destroy and run attitude also... sometimes
>>i like it enough that i leave the catalyst-forms intact, so that i
>>can see if my reactionary instinct survives over the long-term.
>
>Can always destroy, can't always bring it back...
if you're working without intention, and you destroy
something, does it matter whether you can bring it back?
>>>>here's a question that always stymies me: how does the
>>>>process begin? how do you start unintentionally?
>>>>for me it varies greatly from day to day. one day
>>>
>>> I just start painting underglazes on the canvas.
>>
>>doesn't the use of underglazes presuppose that you've developed
>>a particular process that you're relying on? isn't that
>>an intentional decision that you either made or were taught
>>to make, or even a tradition as far as painting techniques go?
>
>It is a more refined method of painting technique, but the
>underlying decision was an intuition made when I first started
>painting.
cool. i mean, we've gotta start somewhere right?
or do we? do we 'start'? sometimes i recognize that i
have been making the same incredibly large growing
painting on a variety of occassional shards of
canvas that more or less float through my life.
>>i've made the switch now to using primarily acrylic media,
>>so that i never have to worry about any oil painting
>>rules such as lean-to-fat... by not worrying about it, and
>>knowing that i don't have to, my analytic-stop-n-intend-
>>something-mind is satisfied and i'm more spontaneous.
>
>Lean to fat is much more forgiving than Acrylic, which I find
>dries too fast and smells wrong(oil paints have this just beautiful
>smell to them)
i do like the smell of linseed oil.
quite a few companies have reformulated their acrylics
lately and have taken out the ammonia.
>>do you find that there are particular themes and images that
>>repeat or recur frequently? I usually end up with lots of
>>flying saucers, star wars characters and puking babies.
>
>Buildings, faces of women, and wings.
>
>>the process of recognizing a brush stroke that at first appeared
>>to have been randomly made and then becomes some sort of image
>>makes me wonder: was the brushstroke random at all?
[clip, Tarot, I-Ching, etc.]
>Merely by my arm making a motion of a brush, it makes a mark that
>is at least somewhat distinctive to myself, as much as perhaps my
>handwriting. I think it would be impossible to not see something
>occur, simply because of the familiarity of the motions of my arm.
what about forgers who convincingly make their work look like
the arm of another? barring exquisite acts of forgery, there is
something to be said, I agree, that no matter what whatever
occurs will paint or draw or come out in accordance with
the nature around us and in us such that composition (as
an aspect of picture-making) will always occur -- because
nature is always actively composing, because we are
part of nature and we too are in a state of becoming.
so why worry about things like composition when nature
will do it all for you anyway?
>>[clip] not separating...
>>it seems to me that working without intention frequently requires
>>this attitude... do you think that a common misconception about
>>working without intention is that it's an avoidance of parts of
>>the self?
>I do. Deliberately turning off a part of a brain never seems to
>work for me.
often it seems to me that working without intention actually
means turning the old mind on completely, all at once.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
<Bruce.Attah-02...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <4jqp2t$p...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
Pearlman) wrote:
>
writes:
>> >In article <4jn8p1$a...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy
Pearlman) writes:
>>
>> >repeat or recur frequently? I usually end up with lots of
>> >flying saucers, star wars characters and puking babies.
>>
>> Buildings, faces of women, and wings.
>
>automatic drawing. The theory was that the method would release
>profundities from the unconscious, which was supposed to spend all
>its time agonizing over profundities. The result was
>disappointing. What generally turned up was the detritus of the
>imagination, the aimless babble of a mental engine ticking over,
>the fluff of neglected crannies of the memory, the droppings of a
>browsing mind, and (occasionally) a festering pool of rotten
>anxieties.
i think the gist of this is a very good point: that a
process without intention runs the risk of losing one's
judgement altogether, of failing to filtering meaningful
from moronic, and so on. the filtering mechanism is
intentional, of course, and built out of a great variety
of habits, some learned, some innate, some invented.
i generally find that my own 'filtering mechanisms' are
far less intelligent than the uninhibited mind.
i also think that the typical surrealist attitude
about what the mind is, as derived from Freud,
far less compelling to me than the contemporary
theories of Daniel Dennet who proposes a network
of processes running parallel to each other,
all processes in a state of continual becoming,
fading in and out of our attention.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu