Blog

​That’s right……I don’t like making paintings from life.  As one who studied academically at the Florence Academy of Art, this probably sounds like heresy.   And as a painter trying to emulate the standards of the 19th century naturalist traditions, it must sound quite counterintuitive.   But before you judge this statement too harshly, let me explain.
 
First of all, I love painting from life.  It is, has been and always will be the source of my greatest inspiration and knowledge as a painter.  Life is what I’m trying to emulate in my work, so life is where my initial inspiration must always spring from.  Life provides limitless possibilities, always presents the unexpected and unique and provides the greatest source of information for my work.  And I love the immediate, real time response I get while painting from life.  Whether it be the interaction with a model, the experience of sitting amidst the landscape or searching over still life objects and studying various colors and textures, the time spent working from life is one of the most essential aspects of my painting process.  

But…...and this is a big BUT…
 
I don’t like making paintings from life.  I love making studies from life, but not paintings.  For me, there is a distinct difference between making a painting and making a study.  And the joy I feel when working from life comes from allowing my entire attention to be on learning and observing.  Of course there are elements of design and composition that seep into the process, as they should.  But what I love most about working from life is trying to understand something so beautiful and so complex.  And some of that understanding isn’t just about the subject I’m observing.  It’s about the materials I’m using.  It’s about understanding how to manipulate my materials in a manner best suited to define the pivotal elements about my subject.  How to control my edges, define light, space, form, weight and volume while controlling the value, color harmony and overall balance of every element that supports an aesthetic focus.  That’s a lot to think about and a lot to study and control.  So typically, when working from life, I simplify my subjects.  I’ll study a portrait, a figure, colors and values of a sunset, the movement of water, the overlapping foliage in a forest, etc. with the idea of piecing these elements together in a final studio painting later.  And although many of these studies end up looking and feeling really beautiful, I almost never sell them as their usefulness is far too great.  I have hundreds of these studies cluttering up the studio.  They act as a constant source of informative reminders and useful notes that I can refer to any time I need to.   

​But are they paintings? 
 
I don’t know.  I don’t think of them that way, but I’ll leave that debate up to someone else.  Whatever they are, they’re generally more valuable to me in the studio than they are if I sold them.  So I keep most of them.  And that relieves a lot of pressure for me when making them.  Knowing they are just for learning and information gathering, I completely eliminate the self-imposed pressures of trying to make them marketable.  And painting without that pressure is pure joy for me. 
 
So what’s the difference in my mind between studies and paintings?  Simple.  It’s purpose and intent.
 
What does purpose and intent mean to me and how does that differentiate a painting and a study?  I'll explain more in Part II...Stay tuned.