Boat Dock II

Boat Dock III

Shimmering Boat Dock Sky

Boat Dock with Red Dinhy

I've been playing with the boat and dock motifs for a long time. There is something archetypal about it. It says the Maine coast, and has an automatic recognition by the viewer. This may be a good thing, allowing the artist and viewer to explore a variety of approaches to this subject.

On the other hand at a recent art discussion group about abstract art at the Deer Isle Artist Association there was some concern that subject matter can be a problem in that it overwhelms the aesthetics of art. The argument, if I have it right, suggested that copying from life is better done with a camera, and that the emotional or commonplace content of subject matter has the potential of being too dominant and too demanding in itself to be part of a meaningful artistic statement.

Abstract or nonobjective art is free to tackle meaningful ideas without the strings attached that come with subject matter. This line of thinking suggests that subject matter is not supposed to make sense or be logical or straight forward in abstract art. Sometimes ideas that stem from the subject are simplified or exaggerated or transformed to a high degree in order to refine the concept or get to its essence without showing the regular or mundane version of the subject. Sometimes the subject is made more mundane or crass or slick than the ordinary view to make a point. This can be very effective and can communicate to the viewer on a different level than straight forward realism. It can also confuse the viewer if they do not have the same reference points as the artist.

What we think is important or "real art" is at the core of this discussion. I don't know if there is any answer to the question, what is art? What are the standards of excellence for art? How do you know if you are looking at something of high quality or not? These questions have haunted me since art school. I have come to think that the definition of art is so relative that it can only have meaning to each individual. We each have our own ideas of what is good art. Sometimes we fit into a group of like thinkers. Sometimes the general public, who have not engaged in art since grade school, wish that art would conform to their level of understanding. But there is no standard of what is good or bad art. Different galleries and museums and buyers may all have completely different ideas of what is desirable. What's an artist to do but keep exploring and trying things out to feel their way along, to discover things that they didn't know or experience before and to pursue things that interest them and then to practice and work at developing it?

It is easy to use subject matter as a crutch, leaning on the content as a cover up for weak creative effort. On the other hand when creative expression brings new light, new meaning, and a delightful expansion of previous assumptions concerning the subject matter, then there is an enrichment of the mind that goes on. That can give a sense of delight and discovery to the artist and viewer. Even realistic painters of the Renaissance used abstract elements in their work. They were very aware of abstract composition and elements of design that gave underlying unity and strength to their work.

I almost always consider elements of abstraction in my work even if the end result is somewhat realistic. I also try to progress from one idea to the next and to develop a sense of quality as I make one work after another. Sometimes that means simplifying or purifying my technique or limiting the amount of subject matter I take on. Sometimes it means working in a series, taking incremental steps in each work. Sometimes I have to give myself an assignment. First I ask myself what I want to check out, and then order myself to take steps to explore those ideas in a systematic way; otherwise I might wander and dabble without progressing. Sometimes I strike out in a seemingly random way and explore a whim. Sometimes I will come across an idea, a statement, or an art work in my daily routine and it will send me off in a mini safari. Continual exploration brings development of artistic endeavor and maturity and originality. No one else can take your path, and once you have pursued an idea in your own way it will be different and unique compared to what anyone else might have done.

In "Boat Dock II" I was revisiting imagery from a painting I did a couple of years ago called "Hauled Out". This time I was playing with the shaft of light coming down; the idea was a response to a drawing I saw by another artist where the parts of the scene seemed to tumble down the page like a waterfall. I was also experimenting with different kinds of colors than I usually use. It was a step in a process of exploration. In "Boat Dock III I decided to change the design from a big U shape to a zigzag action. I also switched the value system from light against dark to dark against light. These were fun experiments. The subject matter which has a lot of dynamic visual elements lends itself to many different approaches. Lobster boats and docks and quaint houses can seem overly romantic and perhaps touristy, but on the other hand they are part of everyday real life without exaggeration in coastal fishing towns. Those fishermen do not consider themselves to be quaint or picturesque; they are sometimes pretty tough, gruff types you don't want to mess with. I am feeling an idea for another painting coming on here. There is a tight rope for the artist to walk between painting for painting's sake and use of imagery.

In "Shimmering Boat Dock Sky" there was an evolution that took place. I started with a watercolor on location. It was at the end of a day in which I had already done a lot of things and was a bit tired but wanting to get to the painting I wished I could have done at the beginning of the day. The painting got rushed, muddy, confused and so deemed a failure. I took it up again a month or two later in the studio and decided to play with pastels which could cover up the mud. The watercolor was a failure so taking some big risks with pastels was a no loss situation. The shimmering light on the bow of the boat was what caught my attention in the first place so I decided to use the same kind of broken light in the whole painting. It turned into something new and different for me. Later I made a watercolor version of the same scene using the broken light idea from the outset. These steps of inquiry led me to things I would not have thought of at the end of a long day. The use of broken light is nothing new, and I was acknowledging Cezanne's work as I went along, but doing it as an outgrowth of the shimmering light that I saw made it seem appropriate; and making it work in my own imagery is new to me.

"Boat Dock with Red Dinghy II" is a second version of this imaginary scene, and has only subtle changes from the original. I wanted to simplify a dock and buildings as one big shape in contrast to a white boat and white back lighting. The first version showed more parts within the big shapes. The white is a negative shape, meaning it was made by painting around it, but it also projects and comes forward. I was also interested in the light burning through and blurring between the dark pilings. The first version had less blurring in the lights. This painting seems more formal looking to me because of the numerous horizontal and vertical lines which give it a lot of stability, broken somewhat by the diagonal lines of the boats and roofs.

These are all steps in the exploration of the boat dock imagery. Perhaps the imagery holds me back from more powerful abstract artistry, but for now it fits in with my line of thinking (obsession with boat docks) and so I go with it.