CONTEMPORARY FIGURATIVE PAINTINGS
words / random musings
Richard Baxter
Not Surrealism
What is art?
Can art be judged?
Evil = Ego
Belief is fiction
Imagine death
Influences
Technical details
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The main, simple feel in all my recent work is that life is joyous and alive, here and now in the present, amidst the ordinary, amongst the flowers and the garbage. This joy is found right wherever you are, at any time, you don't have to search, you don't have to attend monasteries for years on end, you don't need large amounts of money, or knowledge. This is reflected in the painting of the Amoco man, a so called simple man who works at a garage, who has found bliss in the presence of the moment and begins to float, being separate from the world in once sense, yet part of it totally.
Work in the last three years has been examining the sense of self and finding that it is not so real as once believed. Best summed up by the work 'The Awakening' the observation is that the self is a construct, an idea which we have in our mind, which does not have to be fixed nor expressed in thoughts and words. Yet as we accumulate more ideas over time, we come to believe these ideas are real, that this sense of who we are, is real. These paintings are typically about the breakdown of this once held reality, and the experience of discovering a different way of experiencing consciousness.
In the last three years the work has also taken on a new feel, a definite change after 20 years of darker work. More than simply happy, the paintings are light and whimsical but also hold a sense of reverence and magic. They are exploring ideas about consciousness and reality: What is it? Where is it? What is real, and how do we define reality? Subjects have become lighter, more playful and an air of quirky Zen-like riddle has entered. There is a stillness, an expansiveness which hints toward eternity, and a calm. The idea of flight or wings appears many times in the work in one form or another. Objects often float without reason and the sky plays a very important role as it always has in my work, helping to give the feeling of spaciousness and expanse which reflects a state of mind.
I first became aware of space when I was 17, awakening in the middle of the night to a sudden wind, which made a wind sculpture I had made the day before, clang noisily in the breeze.
I opened my eyes and looked at the wall, which suddenly appeared more real than it ever had before, as if I had previously only seen life in two dimensions, and was now seeing in three. Going outside, I was amazed at the 'realness' of everything around me, especially the trees, which I walked around as if seeing for the first time like holograms. At first the ability to feel this new reality only happened at night for many years, but now is with me always. I now know that this sense is part of experiencing a greater awareness of being alive, a kind of stepping outside of yourself and being able to feel the space that life exists within. It was not a change of visual ability, but of mental perception. This is also the endless space of consciousness.
Since then I have tried to incorporate this sense of space and clarity into my work, but not always consciously. Only in recent years has this become a conscious objective.
Toys have entered the works, and take on lives of their own, often separate to the rest of the painting. The appearance of the toys plays with the nature of reality and how we define it. The toys are also a conscious sentimental reflection of the past, for the pure enjoyment of it. They are fun. I have no objection to simply enjoying a work of art, a picture, or an object for it's own sake. Not everything needs a meaning, not everything needs to be conceptual, and things certainly do not need to be painful to be of worth. It is beautiful to enjoy something simply because it is there; sunlight on a wall, the red colour of a toy car, a face. No need for complex theories, statements and reasons. The human mind has enough complexities deep within it, we don't always need to entertain more to make something of worth. These paintings will reveal many levels of explanations and theories if sought, but it is not necessary to understand all this to enjoy them. One may enjoy them on surface value alone, and that is great by me.
NOT SURREALISM:
This work is not Surrealist. Surrealism was a movement in keeping with the psychological discoveries of the early 20th century. It focused on revealing the subconscious and the unknown forces within the human mind through a process of uncensored automatic imaging or writing. My paintings are not uncensored, to the contrary they are carefully thought over and arranged quite consciously for deliberate effect, then executed painstakingly. For this reason I think they often have the feeling of the stage. They are a conscious presentation of a series of props and actors, set in idyllic landscapes. Almost diametrically opposed to surrealism, I ask the viewer to step outside of the mind and its ideas, constructs and unconscious images, and view the world anew, not from the eyes of the mind, but with no mind. I prefer to describe my recent work as a form of playful 'realism' seeking to point to a freedom or open reality beyond the mind (if anything can be defined as real) but it's a realism which ironically leaves open the way it defines itself. It has no definitions. There may seem a similarity to surrealism in style at first, due to both intentions often including a mix of incongruous objects, but with my work I include 'surprising' elements as objects of complete normalcy, rather than as mystery objects with deeper meanings. I'm aiming for a feeling of lucidity and clarity, with complete freedom, lightness, joy and non-attachment. For example, if in real life we see an old car with a goat standing on it, we may think it is quirky or out of the ordinary, but we accept the reality of it. We don't search this image for a deeper meaning, and ask "but what does it mean?" It simply is. The world is so astonishing in its complexity and depth, that at every moment it already holds more mystery than we will ever fathom, including goats and cars. Of course there will be a valid 'reason' somewhere, for the goat standing on the car. And we can explore those reasons if we feel the need to, but there is no need to in these paintings, it is totally optional. We can simply enjoy a parade of colour and intrigue, and the beauty of the present moment as it is, without questioning. So these paintings do not have literal stories or explanations, rather they are more like poems, music or abstract ideas which one may feel without understanding. I prefer to present a question or simply a situation, (which is my own question or situation also) which the viewer is then free to explore in their own way and time. Like a Zen Koan, this process can lead the mind freely to other levels without restrictions. This is a beautiful place to be in, to be contemplating a world of endless possibility and intrigue, yet not understanding anything and making no definitive judgements on anything. To float like a cloud, moving freely around the earth, observing, breaking apart, reforming, having no need to be anything or be anywhere. Just to observe enjoy breathe and be. Action, thought and ideas are still possible in this world if necessary, but in these paintings, we begin to sense that the thoughts and the objects, and ultimately the mind, are not as solid as we once believed...
WHAT IS ART?:
Today art can be defined simply as communication, nothing more or less.
In its simplest terms, any kind of communication may be used for different purposes. It may be direct and informative, coded, humorous, needlessly elaborate, existent for its own sake, entertaining, dull, truthful, a lie etc.
In most kinds of communication, the form can take on endless variations and nuances. In the past, people have tended to refer to only a narrow range of communication as art, but even the way one ties one's shoelaces can be regarded as art, as it is a process that may involve choice, fashion statement, and different degrees of elaboration etc. It can be considered a subtle form of communication.
Yet when most of us think of art, we only think of painting, or perhaps dance and music.
Then within these already narrow definitions, we add more definitions of quality.
If we attempt to narrow the definitions of art, then immediately we must establish an almost endless series of ideas and limits, so we can know what is and what isn't art. Then we begin to make judgements...
CAN ART BE JUDGED?:
Measuring ideas is a way of trying to secure permanency in a world which is ever changing. In a way, by judging and comparing, we are really trying to avoid death. Either the death of ideas, the death of permanency or the death of ourselves, we try and avoid these deaths by measuring and judging in a desperate attempt to set up ideals. We seek something unchanging, something undying, a set of standards which does not change. If we can say 'This thing is ultimately good or bad because...' then we have established some illusion of permanency and an ultimate definition.
To be able to judge something, one must compare it to something else. There must be a standard to measure against. Otherwise something stands totally alone, unable to be compared. To judge something there must be rigidity, solidity and something that doesn't change. Judging something requires taking an object or an idea which is immediate and real, then assessing it against a concept which is an idea in the mind, acquired from other ideas in the past, or an idea about the future. When we judge art, we take a reflection of the world, and assess its worth against a standard set up in our mind of what that reflection should be, for whatever number of endless reasons. Since our thinking minds are limited and not omnipresent, we are unable to measure anything against all possible measures and ideas, (as this would logically be an endless endeavor) so everything we judge is limited in it's list of comparisons and is therefore arbitrary. When you begin to think about it, to measure and compare art is a circular waste of time, and to what end? In the end, all you have established is a concept of difference within your mind, which is itself limited. All things are different and changing anyway, so there was no need to measure to find this out in the first place.
To judge something sets up immediate division. Suddenly there is good and bad, wrong and right etc. But relative to what? Relative to an arbitrary and limited set of parameters within the mind.
This way of assessing and defining the world, works on whatever level you want it to, and for whatever subject you want it to. For example, you decide that a world with trees, is better than a world without. You make a judgement based on limited ideas, measure the outcomes and decide which outcome is most desirable for various reasons. This works on many levels, and is obviously necessary at certain levels. But it is important to remember its limitations. It can only work within a limitation of ideas set up within the mind, which is limited in its knowledge. As soon as there is required freedom or no limits, then judging becomes futile.
When it comes to something we would theoretically like to be outside of limitations, like art, this way of assessing the world does not work.
It's a particular irony that in the present art world where much is made of the fact that anything can be art, we still feel we can judge what is art and what is not, what is worth something, what is not. We hold big art competitions and award large prizes to one person, who is deemed to be 'the best'. All we have really done, is taken one single view of the world, and decided we like that view the best, and disregard all the other views which were equally valid and judged them as worth less. So like caging a bird, we take something that is free and boundless, and try to put it into a box.
The only real 'judgement' that can be made, is a personal one, and this is just an awareness of personal interest, not of ultimate worth. If we judge something's worth, we fool ourselves into thinking we are omnipresent and know everything, are aware of all opinions at all times.
So there can be no judgement of art, only observation, awareness and awareness of difference. Even this awareness of difference should be passive and non-judgmental. Just an acceptance.
One can be interested in certain things at certain times for different reasons, but this is all limited and changing constantly. We only have to think of our own changing interests, needs and views, and how they have changed as we have grown from being 3 years old, to 10, to 25, to 75... Then we can realise that no single view or need can be classed as 'right', or 'better'. It's simply that views and interests are different, depending on where you are at any given time. The art that satisfied us when we were 3 years old, may no longer interest us. It would be foolish to imagine that simply because we have reached an advanced level of human years, that we are finally right. If we continued to live for three hundred, five hundred, ten thousand years, our ideas would continue to change and grow. Also our moods change from day to day, even from minute to minute. What interested us yesterday, may not be what we are in the mood for today. So to judge something, requires a standard which does not change, and yet nothing ever remains unchanged.
Some people would argue that competition stimulates achievement and growth, but this is only the case when judged within very limited parameters, like how fast one can run etc. These types of judgements are very narrow. With art, which seeks to reflect the myriad of human thoughts and our relation to the universe, to make a judgement upon the quality of the reflection is pointless. There is only the reflection which must stand alone.
Competition also sets up a position of success and failure which the ego clings to, to establish it's worth in relation to other beings. Once the idea of competition is accepted, you become either a winner or a loser, and an immediate division is set up which includes pain and pleasure. The winner feels superior and in order to retain the pleasure felt, strives to maintain their position as winner. The loser feels pain and loss, and must fight to gain power and success to achieve happiness. Until success over the winner is achieved, the loser feels lesser, and so there can never be peace in either being.
In our society, so much is based upon winning and losing and these imaginary parameters of quality which we have constructed. We are inwardly afraid to stand alone and free, and prefer the rigidity of an artificially constructed set of definitions, which gives form and solidity to our ego.
To really 'win' we need to let go of all this immature rivalry, and regard the world from a position which is free of judgements and competition.
To do this, requires understanding the difference between the real self, and the false self, which has become known in this century as the ego. In past centuries, the ego has been personified as the devil.
***
EVIL = EGO:
The ego is the human mind, the thoughts, the desires, the dreams, and the memories.
The ego demands attention. It demands that everything goes its way. The ego is a creation of the mind which cannot exist without the creation of fictional enemies, a fictional future, and a memory of the past which is already dead. For the ego to exist, there must be separation, a difference between itself, and rest of the world. The ego demands that there is an 'I' and not only that, but this 'I' is very important!
All humans experience this, and for almost all humans, this is how we experience life. We see ourselves through the ego, AS the ego, through the sense of 'I'. There is me, and then there is the rest of the world. 'I' feel this, or 'I' want that... 'I' was cheated, 'I' am happy, etc. This way of experiencing the world is so normal, so completely common, that almost everyone accepts it, and knows nothing else. Many people have no idea that they may exist on a level outside of this. Society even rewards ego and regards it as desirable, not really understanding it's ultimately destructive value.
The ego wants, needs, and clings. It clings to ideas and attention, and is endlessly consuming for its existence. If it cannot get its way, it becomes angry or sad and tries another way to get it. If the ego ever helps or gives in any way, it is only to further its own existence, to strengthen its own form and sense of identity. An example of the ego giving, is when someone gives to a charity, so that they can feel better about themselves. This has inflated their ego, reassuring them that they are a good person, and given their ego greater form and identity. Thus the ego is not always 'bad', but can often come in the guise of goodness also. True giving, would have been out of a genuine desire to help, which had nothing to do with ones own feelings.
If the rigid and narrow ideas which the mind has developed to form this identity are threatened in some way, then it takes action to stop this happening, which would mean death of itself. This action could mean arguing, fighting, or even killing, so that the ego may establish its importance in the world.
As the human mind and body needs to feel it exists and does not want to die, it wants an identity, which it automatically creates, being the ego. We are all born in this way, and in the bible this is what is meant by original sin, or the devil.
Our identity is created through a multitude of sensory experiences over our life, and all this is remembered and constantly referenced so that we may negotiate our way through the world. If we did not have this ability, we would be vegetables, unable to function in the physical world, unable to remember that stoves were hot, and cliffs should not be jumped from. So memory serves a very important function.
The problem comes when we come to believe that our sense of self, is actually the memories and ideas we have accumulated over time. We are not, they are two very different things. It is easy to say 'I' was born is this country, therefore I AM Australian etc, 'I' like mountain climbing, 'I' have a unique name, 'I' am this and that. But all theses qualities are actually memories of the past, or even fantasies about the future. If we attach to these ideas too strongly, we succumb to the illusion that we ARE those qualities, as opposed to realizing that those things have happened to us as the universe has moved and changed around us, but are not actually happening at this moment. We are not those things, we are in fact nothing. Consciousness is not made up of experiences and ideas and memories. Consciousness can access them, but is not made of them. Consciousness is outside of time, is outside of memory, and outside of thoughts.
We start as babies, gradually acquiring mental information about the world around us, and forming a picture of our place within it.
The problem comes because over time, we forget that the world is constantly in movement and change, and that all we have seen, learnt and heard, can never remain the same for long. The pictures and ideas in our heads which we have taken pains to build up for so long, no longer match what we see outside, and there is pain as our model of the world is challenged. We start to talk about the way the world SHOULD be, we lament the past, we talk about the good old days, and we feel that music is not the same these days, somehow not quite as good as when we were young etc, or that the country has gone downhill, that politicians are corrupt today, that life is somehow just not what it is SUPPOSED to be…
These are all signs that the ego has taken over, and that reception to the aliveness of the present moment has become clouded over. The ego has begun to believe it is real, and that all its static ideas and thoughts are reality. This is the illusion of life. Old people will even sometimes openly express this with the term 'back in MY day' as if they are already dead, and their 'day' only exists in the past! Again this is the illusion of time, of ego, of mind. There really is no past, only the present, which does not move within a continuum.
In the past, people have intuited that 'god' or the eternal, nirvana, or the soul etc, are things which are outside of time and the mind. This has not always been expressed literally or logically, but often intuitively, poetically and artistically.
Christianity talks about the battle between good and evil, between god and the devil. This is really the battle between time and the mind, and the realization of our eternal nature, which is outside of time.
People which the world generally regards as 'evil' like Hitler, have to greater or lesser extents, wanted the world all their own way and have lived their life through extreme ego. Their evil is a product of their mind, which has become entirely fixated within ego.
They are entirely focused on their sense of self and their own needs, even when banded together with other people who they align with. It is no coincidence that we call these people evil. They are unable to see outside of their own needs and desires. Like black holes, they can only suck inwards and take. They have little capacity to give. In this state, the ego is perpetually threatened, either by being ignored, or by death itself. It wants permanence, and it seeks to inflate itself endlessly, in an effort to attain immortality. When perhaps it realizes that it is facing a huge task in this process, it feels quite frightened, and so the ego realizing that it is threatened, joins a group of similar thinking people, where it can feel supported and stronger and bigger, or it joins a group where it can dominate others, thus attaining greater strength. In the process it feels stronger like it has gained identity, and yet it has actually lost identity, by becoming part of a group which discourages true freedom.
Armies are a perfect example of this. The ego in an army feels strong, surrounded by similarity and numbers. Suddenly the tiny little individual is part of something larger and more powerful, and the ego begins to feel stronger.
It's an irony that the ego joins a group out of fear of losing itself.
Think of the many groups in the world which form out of a fear losing their identity in some way. This is how nationalism works. The ego attaches to an idea and decides that it exists within this construct within the mind, and calls it national pride.
Even when a large group of people get together with one ideal, such as the Nazi party, there is still the need for the rest of the world to change to their own doctrines, or to be excluded, and even to be killed so that the collective ego can remained unthreatened and alive.
We have all met someone in our lives, whom to challenge, is to risk getting a punch in the face from. Ego is always afraid and intolerant of change.
The members of these groups themselves become victims to their own authority, and any deviance outside of strict rules is punished.
When a group forms like this, it is many smaller egos joining together to form a larger force, but the process of the group remains the same as the individual. These people then become in effect, robots.
And robotic behavior exists on many levels, not just in large movements and armies. Robotic behavior exists in all our lives, even in simple day to day life, when we are not constantly aware of the bliss of our eternal life nature. Look at how fashion spreads like a disease across the planet. We all want to dress the same way, as the ego is so afraid of being alone.
We dress robotically, think robotically, watch television robotically, go to church like a robot.., All this is the mind, which has become so convoluted and all pervading, that our true alive nature has become clouded over.
It is no coincidence that in groups of like minded egos, uniforms are worn. The uniform reduces all the individuals into one large being. Any thoughts outside of strict doctrines are rejected, and the mass acts as one large being. The emphasis is on conformity and strength. It's a very common process which is seen all over the world, in many different ways from nationalism and pride in one's country, to various small clubs, or even pride in one's company. The ego thinks that to band together with other egos means even more power and acceptance.
And yet see how the individual and its freedom are actually completely lost within uniforms, marching and orders.
This is the tragedy and irony of the ego which becomes lost in its search for greater power.
Alternatively, the people we regards as holy, or as saints, are usually the people that selflessly give, that in their desire to help others, lose themselves, or lose their egos. Saints are usually people we regard as 'self'-less.
This is what I believe Jesus meant when he said to seek heaven, you have to die first. This dying, is the death of the self, or the ego. And Heaven is the state of being that lies beyond the ego and the self. Buddhists talk about the same process in different language. They talk about letting go of samsara, the false world, and finding the Buddha nature within.
Eventually the ego will tire of battle if it does not self destruct, and will be dragged into the present moment again. It will be forced to, it is forced to constantly, but it will fight for a time before this happens. If this fight goes on for a lifetime, the force which eventually will bring it back into the present, will be physical death.
So it is easy to see how this construct within our own heads, has been illustrated throughout history as a separate being, a dark, evil character who's actions always result in pain and who we are in constant battle with. In a way it is true, but it is only an illustration, an analogy. There is no devil 'out there'. The devil is within us, is us, is our ego, until we realize our true nature, which is outside of all this, outside of time, thoughts, and is infinitely vast, endless, and beyond all time.
BELIEF IS FICTION:
Belief is fiction. Do you have any beliefs?
If you examine what is happening in your head when you believe something, you can see that a belief is not a reality. A belief is an idea, a fictional construction which has its basis in either the past, or the future, and which manifests itself as a hope, a fear, a desire. All of these things are mind games and do not really exist, if you really observe what is going on in your head. To do this, you have to be able to step outside of yourself for a moment, and examine yourself objectively. For people who live in fear, this is a very hard process, and the ego will react violently to any kind of breakdown or observation of its process. The ego will cling defensively to its dreams and beliefs, and will not want to face reality. The measure of the ego's attachment to beliefs, is easily established by the proportional reaction against the enquiry into their validity. When someone reacts violently to your questioning of their belief, their ego is living in great fear of reality.
You can say, “but I REALLY believe this” or, “I KNOW that it is true!”
But knowing something is different from believing it. If you knew something, there would be no reason for the word belief. The word 'belief' is simply another world for 'imagine'. Even to believe something you feel you know very well, like the colour of your car, is not knowledge. If you are looking at your car, you know what colour it is. If you then walk away and say you believe it is still the same colour, at that moment you can see that your belief is not real. Your belief is made up of memory, and if you look closer you can even see that your belief also incorporates hope for the future; past and future, two imaginary states. You no longer see the car, (you no longer exist in the past) you no longer even know if the car exists, (you cant see into the future). You simply assume, guess, hope, remember, imagine, and... believe. But truly at that moment, you do not know anything about your car. All has become belief. If you carry this observation further, you can see that at any given moment, you really do not know anything about anything at all. All your knowledge about the world is belief, memories, dreams.
So when people passionately believe in God, or believe in UFO's or whatever, what is really happening is that the mind is imagining, hoping, dreaming, or living in fear. Belief in God, is not the same as seeing God, is not the same as knowing God. If you could know God, you would not believe in God, would not need to believe. And you can only know something in the present, not in the future nor the past. Belief is always based on the past, and the future. Truly comprehending the imaginary status of belief is a revelation, and only then can the mind be free, and begin an enquiry into reality.
IMAGINE DEATH:
Imagine a state of complete nothingness. No matter, no time, no energy, no consciousness, no universe. If you try, you realize it is an impossible thing to imagine or theorize about. There cannot be such a state, where nothing exists. No such state is logically possible for a human mind to contemplate or imagine, as we are bound within time, space, energy and consciousness. As soon as we imagine nothingness, we place ourselves within it, and so there is instantly us and something.
So there is only existence, consciousness, energy and the universe. There is no other or opposite state. Everything, is everything. Everything is not the opposite of nothing.
So when we die, if we were to move from a state of existence, into a state of nothingness, oblivion, blackness etc, then where is the universe? If we cease to be conscious, does the universe then disappear and cease to exist? You might want to argue that it is still there, being observed by others, but it has ceased to exist to us.
But if there is no longer any more 'us' for the universe to no longer exist within, then one cannot logically say the universe has ceased to exist for 'us'.
The universe is either there, or it is not. If it has disappeared from your state of consciousness at death, then the universe has disappeared into nothingness, and 'nothing' is not possible. Everything must continue to exist, there can be no state of nothingness.
So consciousness is needed, for the universe to exist. Without awareness first, there can be no universe. Therefore, consciousness did not emerge from the universe and there is no death of consciousness, only death of the mind and body.
Even though the following makes no real logical sense, you can do this mind experiment to help understand: Imagine lying dead, being in a state of nothingness with no awareness. In this 'state' nothing can exist, and that is not possible. Something must and does exist. We know that when someone else dies, the universe does indeed continue to exist.
So death of awareness is not possible, consciousness must remain, for the universe to continue existence.
This is a very tricky concept to get the mind around. The mind keeps wanting to say, "but I will be dead, so there will be nothing"
But if 'you' are dead, then you cannot realise or know this in any way, so there can be no death.
Death is not the opposite of life.
Death of the mind, and of the body will occur. Imagine someone from 500 years ago. They were a living breathing thinking creature like yourself. Now they are dead. But did the universe go black 500 years ago? You cant even say it went black for them, because there can be no awareness in such a state, no blackness, no nothingness. And if there was some kind of awareness after death, then it is not death.
So if this person died 500 years ago, what has changed? You the reader are still here now, feeling equally alive as they did. Is there the slightest difference between you both?
Outside of thoughts and the body, the two things which will die, what is left? There is consciousness, which remains. The feeling of aliveness, the silent awareness within us all.
When you stop thinking even for a second, all the ideas and memories which go into creating your sense of identity end, leaving you with what?
When I stop thinking, I am left with the same emptiness, yet 'I' am still here.
This is what is left. Not thoughts, not ideas, not the body.
When we die, the body dies, the mind dies, our thoughts scatter to the winds. But there cannot be nothingness, for such a state is not possible.
There can be no death of consciousness.
All other things are dying and changing unceasingly.
***
INFLUENCES:
My work mostly follows the long tradition of figurative painting in European art, drawing on influences from so many places and ages, too many to mention.
I admire and try to emulate the skills of the 'old masters' from the early middle ages through to the 1900's. Skills which have been mostly lost, and remain to be mastered again by future artists. Fortunately my painting teacher taught me much about how to appreciate the masters and I am still learning.
I am also inspired by much contemporary art, culture and philosophy, and try to incorporate it within the medium of traditional figurative painting.
Music in all its forms and styles, colours my day of painting, and is so much a part of my life, it infuses and imbues the work, subtly transforming the moods created through vibrations in the air, to vibrations in colour.
TECHNICAL DETAILS
Most of my paintings are oil on canvas or linen with a gesso base. Occasionally the paintings are begun in acrylics and finished in oil. They are all done with brushes, rags, fingers, sandpaper and traditional combinations of oil mediums, usually ART SPECTRUM brand. Typically I begin with thin washes using a lean medium, and build up layers with progressively fatter mediums. Glazes are often used, and Damar varnish brings out the deeper colours as a final varnish.
Richard Baxter 2004
back to top
IS FIGURATIVE PAINTING DEAD?
HAVE YOUR SAY -
BACK
HOME
EMAIL
CONTEMPORARY FIGURATIVE PAINTINGS
| CONTEMPORARY FIGURATIVE PAINTINGS |
| words / random musings |
| Richard Baxter |
|
Not Surrealism What is art? Can art be judged? Evil = Ego Belief is fiction Imagine death Influences Technical details |
|
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The main, simple feel in all my recent work is that life is joyous and alive, here and now in the present, amidst the ordinary, amongst the flowers and the garbage. This joy is found right wherever you are, at any time, you don't have to search, you don't have to attend monasteries for years on end, you don't need large amounts of money, or knowledge. This is reflected in the painting of the Amoco man, a so called simple man who works at a garage, who has found bliss in the presence of the moment and begins to float, being separate from the world in once sense, yet part of it totally. Work in the last three years has been examining the sense of self and finding that it is not so real as once believed. Best summed up by the work 'The Awakening' the observation is that the self is a construct, an idea which we have in our mind, which does not have to be fixed nor expressed in thoughts and words. Yet as we accumulate more ideas over time, we come to believe these ideas are real, that this sense of who we are, is real. These paintings are typically about the breakdown of this once held reality, and the experience of discovering a different way of experiencing consciousness. In the last three years the work has also taken on a new feel, a definite change after 20 years of darker work. More than simply happy, the paintings are light and whimsical but also hold a sense of reverence and magic. They are exploring ideas about consciousness and reality: What is it? Where is it? What is real, and how do we define reality? Subjects have become lighter, more playful and an air of quirky Zen-like riddle has entered. There is a stillness, an expansiveness which hints toward eternity, and a calm. The idea of flight or wings appears many times in the work in one form or another. Objects often float without reason and the sky plays a very important role as it always has in my work, helping to give the feeling of spaciousness and expanse which reflects a state of mind. I first became aware of space when I was 17, awakening in the middle of the night to a sudden wind, which made a wind sculpture I had made the day before, clang noisily in the breeze. I opened my eyes and looked at the wall, which suddenly appeared more real than it ever had before, as if I had previously only seen life in two dimensions, and was now seeing in three. Going outside, I was amazed at the 'realness' of everything around me, especially the trees, which I walked around as if seeing for the first time like holograms. At first the ability to feel this new reality only happened at night for many years, but now is with me always. I now know that this sense is part of experiencing a greater awareness of being alive, a kind of stepping outside of yourself and being able to feel the space that life exists within. It was not a change of visual ability, but of mental perception. This is also the endless space of consciousness. Since then I have tried to incorporate this sense of space and clarity into my work, but not always consciously. Only in recent years has this become a conscious objective. Toys have entered the works, and take on lives of their own, often separate to the rest of the painting. The appearance of the toys plays with the nature of reality and how we define it. The toys are also a conscious sentimental reflection of the past, for the pure enjoyment of it. They are fun. I have no objection to simply enjoying a work of art, a picture, or an object for it's own sake. Not everything needs a meaning, not everything needs to be conceptual, and things certainly do not need to be painful to be of worth. It is beautiful to enjoy something simply because it is there; sunlight on a wall, the red colour of a toy car, a face. No need for complex theories, statements and reasons. The human mind has enough complexities deep within it, we don't always need to entertain more to make something of worth. These paintings will reveal many levels of explanations and theories if sought, but it is not necessary to understand all this to enjoy them. One may enjoy them on surface value alone, and that is great by me. NOT SURREALISM: This work is not Surrealist. Surrealism was a movement in keeping with the psychological discoveries of the early 20th century. It focused on revealing the subconscious and the unknown forces within the human mind through a process of uncensored automatic imaging or writing. My paintings are not uncensored, to the contrary they are carefully thought over and arranged quite consciously for deliberate effect, then executed painstakingly. For this reason I think they often have the feeling of the stage. They are a conscious presentation of a series of props and actors, set in idyllic landscapes. Almost diametrically opposed to surrealism, I ask the viewer to step outside of the mind and its ideas, constructs and unconscious images, and view the world anew, not from the eyes of the mind, but with no mind. I prefer to describe my recent work as a form of playful 'realism' seeking to point to a freedom or open reality beyond the mind (if anything can be defined as real) but it's a realism which ironically leaves open the way it defines itself. It has no definitions. There may seem a similarity to surrealism in style at first, due to both intentions often including a mix of incongruous objects, but with my work I include 'surprising' elements as objects of complete normalcy, rather than as mystery objects with deeper meanings. I'm aiming for a feeling of lucidity and clarity, with complete freedom, lightness, joy and non-attachment. For example, if in real life we see an old car with a goat standing on it, we may think it is quirky or out of the ordinary, but we accept the reality of it. We don't search this image for a deeper meaning, and ask "but what does it mean?" It simply is. The world is so astonishing in its complexity and depth, that at every moment it already holds more mystery than we will ever fathom, including goats and cars. Of course there will be a valid 'reason' somewhere, for the goat standing on the car. And we can explore those reasons if we feel the need to, but there is no need to in these paintings, it is totally optional. We can simply enjoy a parade of colour and intrigue, and the beauty of the present moment as it is, without questioning. So these paintings do not have literal stories or explanations, rather they are more like poems, music or abstract ideas which one may feel without understanding. I prefer to present a question or simply a situation, (which is my own question or situation also) which the viewer is then free to explore in their own way and time. Like a Zen Koan, this process can lead the mind freely to other levels without restrictions. This is a beautiful place to be in, to be contemplating a world of endless possibility and intrigue, yet not understanding anything and making no definitive judgements on anything. To float like a cloud, moving freely around the earth, observing, breaking apart, reforming, having no need to be anything or be anywhere. Just to observe enjoy breathe and be. Action, thought and ideas are still possible in this world if necessary, but in these paintings, we begin to sense that the thoughts and the objects, and ultimately the mind, are not as solid as we once believed... WHAT IS ART?: Today art can be defined simply as communication, nothing more or less. In its simplest terms, any kind of communication may be used for different purposes. It may be direct and informative, coded, humorous, needlessly elaborate, existent for its own sake, entertaining, dull, truthful, a lie etc. In most kinds of communication, the form can take on endless variations and nuances. In the past, people have tended to refer to only a narrow range of communication as art, but even the way one ties one's shoelaces can be regarded as art, as it is a process that may involve choice, fashion statement, and different degrees of elaboration etc. It can be considered a subtle form of communication. Yet when most of us think of art, we only think of painting, or perhaps dance and music. Then within these already narrow definitions, we add more definitions of quality. If we attempt to narrow the definitions of art, then immediately we must establish an almost endless series of ideas and limits, so we can know what is and what isn't art. Then we begin to make judgements... CAN ART BE JUDGED?: Measuring ideas is a way of trying to secure permanency in a world which is ever changing. In a way, by judging and comparing, we are really trying to avoid death. Either the death of ideas, the death of permanency or the death of ourselves, we try and avoid these deaths by measuring and judging in a desperate attempt to set up ideals. We seek something unchanging, something undying, a set of standards which does not change. If we can say 'This thing is ultimately good or bad because...' then we have established some illusion of permanency and an ultimate definition. To be able to judge something, one must compare it to something else. There must be a standard to measure against. Otherwise something stands totally alone, unable to be compared. To judge something there must be rigidity, solidity and something that doesn't change. Judging something requires taking an object or an idea which is immediate and real, then assessing it against a concept which is an idea in the mind, acquired from other ideas in the past, or an idea about the future. When we judge art, we take a reflection of the world, and assess its worth against a standard set up in our mind of what that reflection should be, for whatever number of endless reasons. Since our thinking minds are limited and not omnipresent, we are unable to measure anything against all possible measures and ideas, (as this would logically be an endless endeavor) so everything we judge is limited in it's list of comparisons and is therefore arbitrary. When you begin to think about it, to measure and compare art is a circular waste of time, and to what end? In the end, all you have established is a concept of difference within your mind, which is itself limited. All things are different and changing anyway, so there was no need to measure to find this out in the first place. To judge something sets up immediate division. Suddenly there is good and bad, wrong and right etc. But relative to what? Relative to an arbitrary and limited set of parameters within the mind. This way of assessing and defining the world, works on whatever level you want it to, and for whatever subject you want it to. For example, you decide that a world with trees, is better than a world without. You make a judgement based on limited ideas, measure the outcomes and decide which outcome is most desirable for various reasons. This works on many levels, and is obviously necessary at certain levels. But it is important to remember its limitations. It can only work within a limitation of ideas set up within the mind, which is limited in its knowledge. As soon as there is required freedom or no limits, then judging becomes futile. When it comes to something we would theoretically like to be outside of limitations, like art, this way of assessing the world does not work. It's a particular irony that in the present art world where much is made of the fact that anything can be art, we still feel we can judge what is art and what is not, what is worth something, what is not. We hold big art competitions and award large prizes to one person, who is deemed to be 'the best'. All we have really done, is taken one single view of the world, and decided we like that view the best, and disregard all the other views which were equally valid and judged them as worth less. So like caging a bird, we take something that is free and boundless, and try to put it into a box. The only real 'judgement' that can be made, is a personal one, and this is just an awareness of personal interest, not of ultimate worth. If we judge something's worth, we fool ourselves into thinking we are omnipresent and know everything, are aware of all opinions at all times. So there can be no judgement of art, only observation, awareness and awareness of difference. Even this awareness of difference should be passive and non-judgmental. Just an acceptance. One can be interested in certain things at certain times for different reasons, but this is all limited and changing constantly. We only have to think of our own changing interests, needs and views, and how they have changed as we have grown from being 3 years old, to 10, to 25, to 75... Then we can realise that no single view or need can be classed as 'right', or 'better'. It's simply that views and interests are different, depending on where you are at any given time. The art that satisfied us when we were 3 years old, may no longer interest us. It would be foolish to imagine that simply because we have reached an advanced level of human years, that we are finally right. If we continued to live for three hundred, five hundred, ten thousand years, our ideas would continue to change and grow. Also our moods change from day to day, even from minute to minute. What interested us yesterday, may not be what we are in the mood for today. So to judge something, requires a standard which does not change, and yet nothing ever remains unchanged. Some people would argue that competition stimulates achievement and growth, but this is only the case when judged within very limited parameters, like how fast one can run etc. These types of judgements are very narrow. With art, which seeks to reflect the myriad of human thoughts and our relation to the universe, to make a judgement upon the quality of the reflection is pointless. There is only the reflection which must stand alone. Competition also sets up a position of success and failure which the ego clings to, to establish it's worth in relation to other beings. Once the idea of competition is accepted, you become either a winner or a loser, and an immediate division is set up which includes pain and pleasure. The winner feels superior and in order to retain the pleasure felt, strives to maintain their position as winner. The loser feels pain and loss, and must fight to gain power and success to achieve happiness. Until success over the winner is achieved, the loser feels lesser, and so there can never be peace in either being. In our society, so much is based upon winning and losing and these imaginary parameters of quality which we have constructed. We are inwardly afraid to stand alone and free, and prefer the rigidity of an artificially constructed set of definitions, which gives form and solidity to our ego. To really 'win' we need to let go of all this immature rivalry, and regard the world from a position which is free of judgements and competition. To do this, requires understanding the difference between the real self, and the false self, which has become known in this century as the ego. In past centuries, the ego has been personified as the devil. *** EVIL = EGO: The ego is the human mind, the thoughts, the desires, the dreams, and the memories. The ego demands attention. It demands that everything goes its way. The ego is a creation of the mind which cannot exist without the creation of fictional enemies, a fictional future, and a memory of the past which is already dead. For the ego to exist, there must be separation, a difference between itself, and rest of the world. The ego demands that there is an 'I' and not only that, but this 'I' is very important! All humans experience this, and for almost all humans, this is how we experience life. We see ourselves through the ego, AS the ego, through the sense of 'I'. There is me, and then there is the rest of the world. 'I' feel this, or 'I' want that... 'I' was cheated, 'I' am happy, etc. This way of experiencing the world is so normal, so completely common, that almost everyone accepts it, and knows nothing else. Many people have no idea that they may exist on a level outside of this. Society even rewards ego and regards it as desirable, not really understanding it's ultimately destructive value. The ego wants, needs, and clings. It clings to ideas and attention, and is endlessly consuming for its existence. If it cannot get its way, it becomes angry or sad and tries another way to get it. If the ego ever helps or gives in any way, it is only to further its own existence, to strengthen its own form and sense of identity. An example of the ego giving, is when someone gives to a charity, so that they can feel better about themselves. This has inflated their ego, reassuring them that they are a good person, and given their ego greater form and identity. Thus the ego is not always 'bad', but can often come in the guise of goodness also. True giving, would have been out of a genuine desire to help, which had nothing to do with ones own feelings. If the rigid and narrow ideas which the mind has developed to form this identity are threatened in some way, then it takes action to stop this happening, which would mean death of itself. This action could mean arguing, fighting, or even killing, so that the ego may establish its importance in the world. As the human mind and body needs to feel it exists and does not want to die, it wants an identity, which it automatically creates, being the ego. We are all born in this way, and in the bible this is what is meant by original sin, or the devil. Our identity is created through a multitude of sensory experiences over our life, and all this is remembered and constantly referenced so that we may negotiate our way through the world. If we did not have this ability, we would be vegetables, unable to function in the physical world, unable to remember that stoves were hot, and cliffs should not be jumped from. So memory serves a very important function. The problem comes when we come to believe that our sense of self, is actually the memories and ideas we have accumulated over time. We are not, they are two very different things. It is easy to say 'I' was born is this country, therefore I AM Australian etc, 'I' like mountain climbing, 'I' have a unique name, 'I' am this and that. But all theses qualities are actually memories of the past, or even fantasies about the future. If we attach to these ideas too strongly, we succumb to the illusion that we ARE those qualities, as opposed to realizing that those things have happened to us as the universe has moved and changed around us, but are not actually happening at this moment. We are not those things, we are in fact nothing. Consciousness is not made up of experiences and ideas and memories. Consciousness can access them, but is not made of them. Consciousness is outside of time, is outside of memory, and outside of thoughts. We start as babies, gradually acquiring mental information about the world around us, and forming a picture of our place within it. The problem comes because over time, we forget that the world is constantly in movement and change, and that all we have seen, learnt and heard, can never remain the same for long. The pictures and ideas in our heads which we have taken pains to build up for so long, no longer match what we see outside, and there is pain as our model of the world is challenged. We start to talk about the way the world SHOULD be, we lament the past, we talk about the good old days, and we feel that music is not the same these days, somehow not quite as good as when we were young etc, or that the country has gone downhill, that politicians are corrupt today, that life is somehow just not what it is SUPPOSED to be… These are all signs that the ego has taken over, and that reception to the aliveness of the present moment has become clouded over. The ego has begun to believe it is real, and that all its static ideas and thoughts are reality. This is the illusion of life. Old people will even sometimes openly express this with the term 'back in MY day' as if they are already dead, and their 'day' only exists in the past! Again this is the illusion of time, of ego, of mind. There really is no past, only the present, which does not move within a continuum. In the past, people have intuited that 'god' or the eternal, nirvana, or the soul etc, are things which are outside of time and the mind. This has not always been expressed literally or logically, but often intuitively, poetically and artistically. Christianity talks about the battle between good and evil, between god and the devil. This is really the battle between time and the mind, and the realization of our eternal nature, which is outside of time. People which the world generally regards as 'evil' like Hitler, have to greater or lesser extents, wanted the world all their own way and have lived their life through extreme ego. Their evil is a product of their mind, which has become entirely fixated within ego. They are entirely focused on their sense of self and their own needs, even when banded together with other people who they align with. It is no coincidence that we call these people evil. They are unable to see outside of their own needs and desires. Like black holes, they can only suck inwards and take. They have little capacity to give. In this state, the ego is perpetually threatened, either by being ignored, or by death itself. It wants permanence, and it seeks to inflate itself endlessly, in an effort to attain immortality. When perhaps it realizes that it is facing a huge task in this process, it feels quite frightened, and so the ego realizing that it is threatened, joins a group of similar thinking people, where it can feel supported and stronger and bigger, or it joins a group where it can dominate others, thus attaining greater strength. In the process it feels stronger like it has gained identity, and yet it has actually lost identity, by becoming part of a group which discourages true freedom. Armies are a perfect example of this. The ego in an army feels strong, surrounded by similarity and numbers. Suddenly the tiny little individual is part of something larger and more powerful, and the ego begins to feel stronger. It's an irony that the ego joins a group out of fear of losing itself. Think of the many groups in the world which form out of a fear losing their identity in some way. This is how nationalism works. The ego attaches to an idea and decides that it exists within this construct within the mind, and calls it national pride. Even when a large group of people get together with one ideal, such as the Nazi party, there is still the need for the rest of the world to change to their own doctrines, or to be excluded, and even to be killed so that the collective ego can remained unthreatened and alive. We have all met someone in our lives, whom to challenge, is to risk getting a punch in the face from. Ego is always afraid and intolerant of change. The members of these groups themselves become victims to their own authority, and any deviance outside of strict rules is punished. When a group forms like this, it is many smaller egos joining together to form a larger force, but the process of the group remains the same as the individual. These people then become in effect, robots. And robotic behavior exists on many levels, not just in large movements and armies. Robotic behavior exists in all our lives, even in simple day to day life, when we are not constantly aware of the bliss of our eternal life nature. Look at how fashion spreads like a disease across the planet. We all want to dress the same way, as the ego is so afraid of being alone. We dress robotically, think robotically, watch television robotically, go to church like a robot.., All this is the mind, which has become so convoluted and all pervading, that our true alive nature has become clouded over. It is no coincidence that in groups of like minded egos, uniforms are worn. The uniform reduces all the individuals into one large being. Any thoughts outside of strict doctrines are rejected, and the mass acts as one large being. The emphasis is on conformity and strength. It's a very common process which is seen all over the world, in many different ways from nationalism and pride in one's country, to various small clubs, or even pride in one's company. The ego thinks that to band together with other egos means even more power and acceptance. And yet see how the individual and its freedom are actually completely lost within uniforms, marching and orders. This is the tragedy and irony of the ego which becomes lost in its search for greater power. Alternatively, the people we regards as holy, or as saints, are usually the people that selflessly give, that in their desire to help others, lose themselves, or lose their egos. Saints are usually people we regard as 'self'-less. This is what I believe Jesus meant when he said to seek heaven, you have to die first. This dying, is the death of the self, or the ego. And Heaven is the state of being that lies beyond the ego and the self. Buddhists talk about the same process in different language. They talk about letting go of samsara, the false world, and finding the Buddha nature within. Eventually the ego will tire of battle if it does not self destruct, and will be dragged into the present moment again. It will be forced to, it is forced to constantly, but it will fight for a time before this happens. If this fight goes on for a lifetime, the force which eventually will bring it back into the present, will be physical death. So it is easy to see how this construct within our own heads, has been illustrated throughout history as a separate being, a dark, evil character who's actions always result in pain and who we are in constant battle with. In a way it is true, but it is only an illustration, an analogy. There is no devil 'out there'. The devil is within us, is us, is our ego, until we realize our true nature, which is outside of all this, outside of time, thoughts, and is infinitely vast, endless, and beyond all time. BELIEF IS FICTION: Belief is fiction. Do you have any beliefs? If you examine what is happening in your head when you believe something, you can see that a belief is not a reality. A belief is an idea, a fictional construction which has its basis in either the past, or the future, and which manifests itself as a hope, a fear, a desire. All of these things are mind games and do not really exist, if you really observe what is going on in your head. To do this, you have to be able to step outside of yourself for a moment, and examine yourself objectively. For people who live in fear, this is a very hard process, and the ego will react violently to any kind of breakdown or observation of its process. The ego will cling defensively to its dreams and beliefs, and will not want to face reality. The measure of the ego's attachment to beliefs, is easily established by the proportional reaction against the enquiry into their validity. When someone reacts violently to your questioning of their belief, their ego is living in great fear of reality. You can say, “but I REALLY believe this” or, “I KNOW that it is true!” But knowing something is different from believing it. If you knew something, there would be no reason for the word belief. The word 'belief' is simply another world for 'imagine'. Even to believe something you feel you know very well, like the colour of your car, is not knowledge. If you are looking at your car, you know what colour it is. If you then walk away and say you believe it is still the same colour, at that moment you can see that your belief is not real. Your belief is made up of memory, and if you look closer you can even see that your belief also incorporates hope for the future; past and future, two imaginary states. You no longer see the car, (you no longer exist in the past) you no longer even know if the car exists, (you cant see into the future). You simply assume, guess, hope, remember, imagine, and... believe. But truly at that moment, you do not know anything about your car. All has become belief. If you carry this observation further, you can see that at any given moment, you really do not know anything about anything at all. All your knowledge about the world is belief, memories, dreams. So when people passionately believe in God, or believe in UFO's or whatever, what is really happening is that the mind is imagining, hoping, dreaming, or living in fear. Belief in God, is not the same as seeing God, is not the same as knowing God. If you could know God, you would not believe in God, would not need to believe. And you can only know something in the present, not in the future nor the past. Belief is always based on the past, and the future. Truly comprehending the imaginary status of belief is a revelation, and only then can the mind be free, and begin an enquiry into reality. IMAGINE DEATH: Imagine a state of complete nothingness. No matter, no time, no energy, no consciousness, no universe. If you try, you realize it is an impossible thing to imagine or theorize about. There cannot be such a state, where nothing exists. No such state is logically possible for a human mind to contemplate or imagine, as we are bound within time, space, energy and consciousness. As soon as we imagine nothingness, we place ourselves within it, and so there is instantly us and something. So there is only existence, consciousness, energy and the universe. There is no other or opposite state. Everything, is everything. Everything is not the opposite of nothing. So when we die, if we were to move from a state of existence, into a state of nothingness, oblivion, blackness etc, then where is the universe? If we cease to be conscious, does the universe then disappear and cease to exist? You might want to argue that it is still there, being observed by others, but it has ceased to exist to us. But if there is no longer any more 'us' for the universe to no longer exist within, then one cannot logically say the universe has ceased to exist for 'us'. The universe is either there, or it is not. If it has disappeared from your state of consciousness at death, then the universe has disappeared into nothingness, and 'nothing' is not possible. Everything must continue to exist, there can be no state of nothingness. So consciousness is needed, for the universe to exist. Without awareness first, there can be no universe. Therefore, consciousness did not emerge from the universe and there is no death of consciousness, only death of the mind and body. Even though the following makes no real logical sense, you can do this mind experiment to help understand: Imagine lying dead, being in a state of nothingness with no awareness. In this 'state' nothing can exist, and that is not possible. Something must and does exist. We know that when someone else dies, the universe does indeed continue to exist. So death of awareness is not possible, consciousness must remain, for the universe to continue existence. This is a very tricky concept to get the mind around. The mind keeps wanting to say, "but I will be dead, so there will be nothing" But if 'you' are dead, then you cannot realise or know this in any way, so there can be no death. Death is not the opposite of life. Death of the mind, and of the body will occur. Imagine someone from 500 years ago. They were a living breathing thinking creature like yourself. Now they are dead. But did the universe go black 500 years ago? You cant even say it went black for them, because there can be no awareness in such a state, no blackness, no nothingness. And if there was some kind of awareness after death, then it is not death. So if this person died 500 years ago, what has changed? You the reader are still here now, feeling equally alive as they did. Is there the slightest difference between you both? Outside of thoughts and the body, the two things which will die, what is left? There is consciousness, which remains. The feeling of aliveness, the silent awareness within us all. When you stop thinking even for a second, all the ideas and memories which go into creating your sense of identity end, leaving you with what? When I stop thinking, I am left with the same emptiness, yet 'I' am still here. This is what is left. Not thoughts, not ideas, not the body. When we die, the body dies, the mind dies, our thoughts scatter to the winds. But there cannot be nothingness, for such a state is not possible. There can be no death of consciousness. All other things are dying and changing unceasingly. INFLUENCES: My work mostly follows the long tradition of figurative painting in European art, drawing on influences from so many places and ages, too many to mention. I admire and try to emulate the skills of the 'old masters' from the early middle ages through to the 1900's. Skills which have been mostly lost, and remain to be mastered again by future artists. Fortunately my painting teacher taught me much about how to appreciate the masters and I am still learning. I am also inspired by much contemporary art, culture and philosophy, and try to incorporate it within the medium of traditional figurative painting. Music in all its forms and styles, colours my day of painting, and is so much a part of my life, it infuses and imbues the work, subtly transforming the moods created through vibrations in the air, to vibrations in colour. TECHNICAL DETAILS Most of my paintings are oil on canvas or linen with a gesso base. Occasionally the paintings are begun in acrylics and finished in oil. They are all done with brushes, rags, fingers, sandpaper and traditional combinations of oil mediums, usually ART SPECTRUM brand. Typically I begin with thin washes using a lean medium, and build up layers with progressively fatter mediums. Glazes are often used, and Damar varnish brings out the deeper colours as a final varnish. Richard Baxter 2004 back to top |
|
IS FIGURATIVE PAINTING DEAD? HAVE YOUR SAY - |
| BACK | HOME |
CONTEMPORARY FIGURATIVE PAINTINGS