What Painting Is: How to Think about Oil Painting ... - Victoria Vesna
What Painting Is: How to Think about Oil Painting ... - Victoria Vesna What Painting Is: How to Think about Oil Painting ... - Victoria Vesna
WHAT PAINTING IS 97 tunnel view through the viewfinder. A photograph that has been heavily manipulated in the darkroom, such as one by Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, brings with it the long hours bending over the enlarger. The clean snow and cold air of Adams’s photographs of Yellowstone in the winter are mixed with the acrid odor of the stop bath; their pure whiteness mingles with the red darkroom light; and their open distances are closed again by the memory of peering into a magnifier, focusing the grain of the negative onto the test paper. Many photographs are made as if it were possible to ignore those physical meanings, but they cannot be erased and any full reaction to a photograph has to admit them. By the same logic, marble sculpture often seems to be about marble: that is, the sculptors try to work up to the limits of what the marble will allow. Long thin objects are the most difficult: Gianlorenzo Bernini, one of the most skillful sculptors, managed to shape marble into branching twigs and leaves. Michelangelo carved five perfectly curled fingers on the Rome Pietà that have long been famous among sculptors. It is probably not coincidental that they are the fingers that were the target of the attack by an angry spectator in the 1970s. (He broke them off, and ever since the sculpture has been kept behind a Plexiglas screen.) There are techniques for deceiving the stone into those unstonelike shapes: Michelangelo would have left small marble bridges between the Madonna’s fingers, and cut them away at the last moment. Such tricks are common knowledge, but they are superficial, because they tell us very little about what compels sculptors to work so with such devotion on marble—instead of wood, for instance, which is easier to carve, or clay, which is easier to mold. To sense the meanings that marble gives to any sculpture, a viewer needs to know how the work of pushing, chipping, dusting, and gouging can occupy the mind. Marble is something that sculptors work on, but it is also something they think about. Marble has a specific kind of hardness. It is woody, meaning it can sometimes be pushed back or “peeled” in slivers. A chisel can dig down, curve, and come back out like a sharp knife in wood. But marble is also dry and friable, and it powders like chalk. Sculptors are constantly preoccupied with the feeling that marble is like wood, perhaps because it is seldom true: it is more like a dream, a kind of half-way version of the Pygmalion story where the artist dreams that the marble turns into wood instead of flesh. People
98 HOW DO SUBSTANCES OCCUPY THE MIND? also say that marble is like skin, but that is also a bit of a dream since marble outshines skin: it is glossier and smoother than any skin could be. It is notions like these, and not stories about technical excellence, that make marble an absorbing subject for a life’s work. It is cold stone that dreams of being wood, and even skin. A sculpture might conjure thoughts of hard chiseling with a heavy mallet, or whittling, as if it were wood, or caressing, as if it were skin. Any viewer can appreciate the accomplishment of making stone into fingers and leaves, but in a more important, bodily way, marble is about the different motions and emotions that go with stone, wood, and skin. It would be possible to write more along these lines, but they are only generalizations. What makes artworks interesting is the precise unnamable sensation particular to a single image. The moods and meanings I have been sketching creep into our experience without our noticing, sparking directly from the eye to the mood without touching language at all. How do substances speak eloquently to me without using a single word? How do my eye and my finger know how to read paint? Partly, it is a matter of studio experience: the more time you spend painting (or sculpting or taking photographs) the more acutely you will be aware of the meanings of substances. But it is also independent of that experience. Anyone can walk up to a painting in a museum, look at the brushstrokes, and begin to relive them in imagination. Something about paints and colors must work on us without consciousness being much involved. Painting and art history do not have much more to say on the subject. Better answers to the question, How do substances occupy the mind?, are to be found in the old science of substances. Alchemical substances have meanings very different from their modern chemical counterparts, so it would not make sense to study alchemical lead in order to understand painter’s Lead White. The alchemists knew hundreds of substances, but chose just a few and made them fundamental. Sulfur, salt, mercury, and a few others are the building blocks of much more complicated methods. The alchemists would not have been able to believe in such a gross simplification if it did not answer to compelling differences between basic qualities such as wetness, dryness, or fieriness. The bodily response to substances may be about the same: it probably understands only very simple notions, and
- Page 56 and 57: WHAT PAINTING IS 47 they are entire
- Page 58 and 59: WHAT PAINTING IS 49 will tell you
- Page 60 and 61: WHAT PAINTING IS 51 but a source of
- Page 62 and 63: WHAT PAINTING IS 53 be more monstro
- Page 64 and 65: WHAT PAINTING IS 55 lower one blue.
- Page 66 and 67: WHAT PAINTING IS 57 they are painte
- Page 68 and 69: WHAT PAINTING IS 59 other garden pl
- Page 70 and 71: WHAT PAINTING IS 61 FIG. 1 Oppopana
- Page 72 and 73: English mystic Robert Fludd, air is
- Page 74 and 75: WHAT PAINTING IS 65 the same as wat
- Page 76 and 77: WHAT PAINTING IS 67 alchemists saw
- Page 78 and 79: 3 The mouldy materia prima IT IS PO
- Page 80 and 81: WHAT PAINTING IS 71 repression: the
- Page 82 and 83: WHAT PAINTING IS 73 oil, canvas, sq
- Page 84 and 85: WHAT PAINTING IS 75 alchemist could
- Page 86 and 87: WHAT PAINTING IS 77 live in murky u
- Page 88 and 89: WHAT PAINTING IS 79 last, and then
- Page 90 and 91: hapsody on salt. Welling says that
- Page 92 and 93: WHAT PAINTING IS 83 mysterious ladd
- Page 94 and 95: WHAT PAINTING IS 85 FIG. 2 Noah’s
- Page 96 and 97: WHAT PAINTING IS 87 half-light and
- Page 98 and 99: WHAT PAINTING IS 89 he could make,
- Page 100 and 101: WHAT PAINTING IS 91 arm’s length
- Page 102 and 103: WHAT PAINTING IS 93 with the correc
- Page 104 and 105: WHAT PAINTING IS 95 an experienced
- Page 108 and 109: WHAT PAINTING IS 99 probably stumbl
- Page 110 and 111: WHAT PAINTING IS 101 (an odd mistak
- Page 112 and 113: WHAT PAINTING IS 103 driest and mos
- Page 114 and 115: all put in a crucible in a darkened
- Page 116 and 117: WHAT PAINTING IS 107 It’s importa
- Page 118 and 119: WHAT PAINTING IS 109 qualities, pri
- Page 120 and 121: WHAT PAINTING IS 111 spoon as it is
- Page 122 and 123: 5 Coagulating, cohobating, macerati
- Page 124 and 125: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 126 and 127: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 128 and 129: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 130 and 131: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 132 and 133: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 134 and 135: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 136 and 137: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 138 and 139: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 140 and 141: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 142 and 143: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 144 and 145: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 146 and 147: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 148 and 149: COAGULATING, COHOBATING, MACERATING
- Page 150 and 151: THE STUDIO AS A KIND OF PSYCHOSIS 1
- Page 152 and 153: THE STUDIO AS A KIND OF PSYCHOSIS 1
- Page 154 and 155: THE STUDIO AS A KIND OF PSYCHOSIS 1
WHAT PAINTING IS 97<br />
tunnel view through the viewfinder. A pho<strong>to</strong>graph that has been<br />
heavily manipulated in the darkroom, such as one by Ansel<br />
Adams or Edward Wes<strong>to</strong>n, brings with it the long hours bending<br />
over the enlarger. The clean snow and cold air of Adams’s<br />
pho<strong>to</strong>graphs of Yellows<strong>to</strong>ne in the winter are mixed with the<br />
acrid odor of the s<strong>to</strong>p bath; their pure whiteness mingles with the<br />
red darkroom light; and their open distances are closed again by<br />
the memory of peering in<strong>to</strong> a magnifier, focusing the grain of the<br />
negative on<strong>to</strong> the test paper. Many pho<strong>to</strong>graphs are made as if it<br />
were possible <strong>to</strong> ignore those physical meanings, but they cannot<br />
be erased and any full reaction <strong>to</strong> a pho<strong>to</strong>graph has <strong>to</strong> admit<br />
them.<br />
By the same logic, marble sculpture often seems <strong>to</strong> be <strong>about</strong><br />
marble: that is, the sculp<strong>to</strong>rs try <strong>to</strong> work up <strong>to</strong> the limits of what<br />
the marble will allow. Long thin objects are the most difficult:<br />
Gianlorenzo Bernini, one of the most skillful sculp<strong>to</strong>rs, managed<br />
<strong>to</strong> shape marble in<strong>to</strong> branching twigs and leaves. Michelangelo<br />
carved five perfectly curled fingers on the Rome Pietà that have<br />
long been famous among sculp<strong>to</strong>rs. It is probably not coincidental<br />
that they are the fingers that were the target of the attack by an<br />
angry specta<strong>to</strong>r in the 1970s. (He broke them off, and ever since<br />
the sculpture has been kept behind a Plexiglas screen.) There are<br />
techniques for deceiving the s<strong>to</strong>ne in<strong>to</strong> those uns<strong>to</strong>nelike shapes:<br />
Michelangelo would have left small marble bridges between the<br />
Madonna’s fingers, and cut them away at the last moment. Such<br />
tricks are common knowledge, but they are superficial, because<br />
they tell us very little <strong>about</strong> what compels sculp<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> work so<br />
with such devotion on marble—instead of wood, for instance,<br />
which is easier <strong>to</strong> carve, or clay, which is easier <strong>to</strong> mold. To sense<br />
the meanings that marble gives <strong>to</strong> any sculpture, a viewer needs<br />
<strong>to</strong> know how the work of pushing, chipping, dusting, and<br />
gouging can occupy the mind. Marble is something that sculp<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
work on, but it is also something they think <strong>about</strong>. Marble has a<br />
specific kind of hardness. It is woody, meaning it can sometimes<br />
be pushed back or “peeled” in slivers. A chisel can dig down,<br />
curve, and come back out like a sharp knife in wood. But marble<br />
is also dry and friable, and it powders like chalk. Sculp<strong>to</strong>rs are<br />
constantly preoccupied with the feeling that marble is like wood,<br />
perhaps because it is seldom true: it is more like a dream, a kind<br />
of half-way version of the Pygmalion s<strong>to</strong>ry where the artist<br />
dreams that the marble turns in<strong>to</strong> wood instead of flesh. People