Paint and the Abstract Painter

I just wrote an article for the Enkaustikos Newsletter. I wanted to express a distinctive dimension of abstract painting that may be overlooked or unappreciated by the casual observer. Plus, take the opportunity to communicate to my fellow artists, not familiar with encaustic paint, a few personal reasons why I am such a fan. Here's what I wrote:

I belong to a segment of painters that may be labeled pure abstractionists. One way to define this category is to focus on the artist’s primary source of inspiration. Before I begin, it is important to note that no one can really be conscious of the mysterious wellspring from which inspiration flows. Nor, can one type of painting be considered to be superior to another. However, the point of inspiration is instructive when distinguishing between abstract and other types of painting. Pure abstractionists do not rely on the direct observation of nature as their primary source of inspiration. Unlike plein air or figurative painters that turn outward to the natural world around them, many abstractionists draw upon the world within. By doing so, they abandon external relationships such as the ability to study how the light plays upon the haystacks. They have no means to confirm proportion, color, and shading of a subject. They swim in a shoreless sea of spirit, history, aesthetic harmonies, and unconscious symbolism. The abstract painter’s work seems to be generated through the interplay of acquired knowledge and intuition. Their compositions rely mostly on feelings evoked through color, texture, shape, line, gestures, etc. that represent the tangible expressions of an invisible reality. Paint is the primary medium for this expression.

Painters have many paints to choose from. I like the word “medium” because it means something “in-between” that communicates between things. To me, the act of painting is the intermediary between the painter’s heart/mind and their creation. Most often, it is the response to this action that guides the painter to the next step of their journey. Therefore, the relationship between the painter and their paint is highly intimate and crucially important to the creative process.

I love all paint. Each has its own character and some even play well together. Since attending art school I have experienced all types of media and felt the most comfortable with oils. That is, until I discovered encaustic paint over a decade ago. Encaustics changed the way I paint. It dramatically opened up a new aesthetic and means of expression that could not be imagined with any other paint. Encaustic paint is the most versatile medium ever created and it’s only 2,500 years old! Why is versatility desirable? If you create by visually expressing a multitude of feelings and complex ideas your paint and materials must be aesthetically aligned with those expressions. Or said another way, abstract painters are translating emotion into language. It is helpful if their paint speaks their language and even better if it speaks many languages. Encaustics are multilingual!

It is beyond the thrust of this article to list all the virtues of encaustic paint, not to mention all the related art supplies and techniques. However, I’ll share a few of the paint’s salient characteristics that have kept me a devoted admirer all these years.

• Luminance. Encaustic paint is one of the most heavily pigmented paints available and possibly the most luminous. Its binder is a combination of purified beeswax and tree sap, which has the capacity to hold loads of brilliant color. And, it can be polished to further enhance its luminosity.

• Opacity. Encaustic paint is truly opaque. Plus, it hardens in seconds making one-stroke color adjustments possible. Because there is no bleed-through repeated paint-overs are a snap. This is a very empowering capacity. Of course, encaustic paint has transparent qualities as well, and many artists are drawn to these qualities. But for me, real opacity is a wonderful thing.

• Sculptural. The capacity to build up of surface texture is perhaps encaustic paint’s most spectacular quality. No other paint can produce the variety of dimensional surfaces –ranging from glass-smooth to highly textured organic forms that defy description. Marks or lines can be carved or incised into the surface effortlessly. If you want to remove a layer, just scrape it off. You won’t need an electric sander. Encaustics allow the shaving off of thin layers of paint producing a wonderful distressed effect by exposing the under-painting. Furthermore, you can cut deep to remove many layers of paint – right down to the substrate. This is especially desirable for mixed-media artists since photographs or collaged elements can be attached to the substrate at any stage of the painting.

• Compatibility. Encaustics and oils (tube or stick) are lovers. Oil paint can be combined with encaustics in many creative ways. All kinds of amazing techniques have been discovered. I found that a few oil colors (i.e. Alizarin Orange) have the ability to stain certain encaustic colors creating beautiful and subtle color variations. Oils also produce contrast when washed or rubbed into surface indentations formed by brushstrokes. By the way, acrylics are the enemy of encaustics – keep them separated.

• Forgiving. Much of abstract painting is experimental. You are dealing with the unknown, so you try something and see if it works. No matter how bad the idea is, with encaustics it can easily be corrected. In my experience, the correction takes you to a solution that is surprisingly exciting. Making mistakes seem to be a virtue with this paint.

• Substrate. Some paints are linked with their support medium, e.g. watercolors with paper. Encaustic paint requires an absorbent substrate. Wood panels work best and can be purchased in a variety of sizes and styles. I prefer the cradled type (they don’t require framing). Working on a panel instead of canvas has expanded my realm of expression. As a mixed media artist, I can adhere, affix, and encase all kinds of things, drill and hammer into the wood, and carve into the painted surface without concern.

No matter what kind of painter you may be or aspire to be, there is no doubt that paint is dear to your heart. As with all the things that you love, there is a desire to know all about them. I am still learning new techniques and continue to be captivated by encaustic’s latent potentialities. Manufacturers like Enkaustikos help sustain enthusiasm by creating innovative new colors. Colors based on historical pigments that approximate ancient formulas or exciting new colors – begging to be tried.

I would be happy to respond to any questions or thoughts – please contact me through my website.

Carey Corea is a graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology, living in Rochester, NY. His work can be viewed at careycorea.com or his blog read at careycorea.blogspot.com.

Naming a Painting

I recently finished a new painting entitled Naw Ruz. The title has nothing to do with the content or inspiration of the painting. It was on the festival of Naw Ruz (March 21st) when I happened to complete the work. Naw Ruz is an ancient Persian holiday (celebrated throughout the Middle East) as well as one of the Baha'i Holy Days (ending the period of fasting). Naw Ruz means "New Day."

Carey Corea "Naw Ruz" 

Encaustic on cradled panel, 30"x 30"

 Detail of "Naw Ruz"

Detail of "Naw Ruz"

I name paintings in an enigmatic way. Sometimes if the painting coincides with a holiday, like Naw Ruz or Memorial Day, it takes that event as the title. However, that doesn't happen that often. Most of the time the title is a hidden mystery that probably doesn't make sense to anyone but me. Sometimes one of the painting's concepts and form suggests a name. For example, "Odalisque and the Virgins" has to do with purity of isolated colors (the virgins) detached and floating above the surface of the painting . Whereas the surface is characterized by multiple layers of built up paint that has been textured by over-painting and scraping – revealing its exotic complex beauty (the odalisque). It is painted with abandonment utilizing splatters and drips, bold brush strokes, and the juxtaposition of harmonious colors. The base surface tells a different story from that of the 25 individual solid colors (like orderly angels) suspended in the air above it. Picasso once said, "all art is sexual." Maybe he meant "paradoxical?" In any event, this painting seems to contain a little of both dynamics. It is up to the viewer to feel it and possibly to think it.

Carey Corea "Odalisque and the Virgins" 

Encaustic on cradled panel, 16"x 16"

Other titles come directly from Holy Texts. "Jake's Dream", "Ark of Fire", "Possessors of Circles", "Beauty of Joseph", "Twins", and "Dry in the Sea" all have their origin in the Bible, the Quran, and primarily the Baha'i Writings. Sometimes a particular graphic element in the painting suggests its name. "Red Square", "Seven", and "Patterns" are examples. Once a painting was named after its source of inspiration – "Crow's Pond." Some titles are deeply personal and will be kept that way.

Well, I intended this post just to quickly share my latest painting, but it turned into something else. Isn't that indicative of the mysterious creative process?

Why is art like a seafood dinner?

We live in a confusing and polarizing age. Almost every social arena is weathering the winds of negation and disunity. The art world is not spared from such forces and may at times reflect them. Conversation regarding the nature of art seems to take on the qualities of discussing religion or politics – where reaching consensus is nearly impossible!

Undeterred by controversy, I am moved to consider the dynamics surrounding the subjective and/or objective nature of art. The paradoxical nature of this age-old¹ conflict revolves around two seemly opposite positions. The subjective view that “art, quality, and beauty are in the eye of the beholder” – making them entirely personal, therefore indefinable. And, the objective view that “art and beauty has ideal qualities, independent of the beholder’s eye” – suggesting a universal reality. These two perspectives are usually viewed dichotomously. However, they may be viewed as a continuum where each perspective has polar positions and equal validity.

As I contemplated this polarity, a number of familiar questions surface: Is it possible to define art and beauty? Does beauty and quality possess spiritual dynamics? Does intent affect art? Do principles such as “moderation in all things” apply to art? I will not attempt to address these questions directly. My focus here is to explore the ramifications of subjectivity and objectivity in art. Furthermore, I am not interested in the usual surface discussion where subjectivity is simply defined as the viewer’s unique emotional response, and objectivity is seen as mastering techniques and composition. What interest me is how these two perspectives actually impact our lives and how deeper reflection may stimulate introspection of one’s personal conceptual framework of reality. But let’s focus on art for now.

I have a tendency when attempting to unravel complex issues to explore the extremes. Therefore, I embarked on a traditional dichotomous approach to subjectivity/objectivity in art. I confess that I am opinionated. I hold the view that the orientation produced by subjectivism divorced from the beneficial affects of objectivity has contributed to strains of art not worthy of critical assent.

As I began to formulate ideas on how to articulate this view, a crazy idea popped into my head. Would it be instructive if we applied the dynamics of dining out to that of attending an art exhibition? And by doing so, we substitute chefs for artists, and assess the quality of art like we would with food – with our actual sense of taste! There are those that will immediately challenge this notion by proclaiming there is no way to tell how anyone perceives anything therefore everything is relative – classic subjectivism! But let’s set that reality aside momentarily so we can have some fun. It is clear that the art world enjoys operating on the subjective end of the scale, while the food industry prefers a more objective approach. However, there are obvious parallels between the worlds of art and food.  

On the consumer side, people’s palettes vary, but possibly to a lesser degree than with art. As with art, one’s taste may be influenced by habit, culture, acquisition of taste, and personal perception (my young children loved the taste of fried calamari until they discovered it was a sea creature with tentacles). Although our personal ideas as to what is palatable vary and evolve, they should not dramatically affect the reality of a food’s taste. The sweetness of a Fuji apple doesn’t change because of one’s preference for tartness or one’s superstitious belief that apples are evil. Generally speaking, taste sensibilities may be more universal than individualistic, thereby providing a more empirical metric for quality. This assumption can be supported by the well known fact that, “everybody likes Italian food!” Furthermore, our tongues act as a universal detector for under or overly seasoned food.

On the creation side of the equation, a chef can easily be compared to an artist. He is able to combine a variety of ingredients in a proper balance and proportion to create a flavorful and nutritious meal. A good chef has talent, experience and skill, knows how to harmonize diverse spices and ingredients, and can sense a perfect state of doneness. Regardless of skill level, most cooks attempt to operate within the bounds of health safety and wise practices.

Lastly, restaurants like art galleries and museums want to be known for excellence.

What happens when a chef/artist’s conceptual framework is exclusively built around the subjective orientation derived from “beauty is in the eye of the beholder?” In today’s art world, this mindset translates to the prevailing view that art can be anything²! Operating within this paradigm, which can yield either positive or negative results, the chef/artist is liberated from any authority or objective definition. In such a paradigm, the possibility of overstepping the bounds of moderation and perverting art's higher purpose becomes inevitable.

Let’s suppose we visit a respected restaurant/gallery, where the chef/artist is now free to pursue any form of self-expression. We order the chef’s new entre, which we have been told was inspired by his recent experience at the beach. The creation of this new seafood dish involves substituting sand for salt, and features washed up fish on a bed of beached seaweed. Having tasted this dish, would we praise the chef’s artistic passion and insight? Would we applaud the meal for its new textures and aromas? Or, moved by metaphor, donate to preserve our endangered shorelines? I don’t think so! One bite and we would instantly detect the meal’s inappropriateness and self-indulgent expression.

Actual taste sensibilities are not transferable to making, exhibiting, and viewing art. And if it were, the world would be less interesting place. And, most contemporary art is not self-indulgent or extreme as suggested by the above parable. However, some unfortunately is. In an environment where devotion to unbridled freedom is coupled with fierce competition, we get Shock Art²! No respectable chef would consciously set out to create an uneatable meal. Why should an artist intentionally create works that abase the nobility of man?

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating inhibiting or censoring artistic expression. More important, no one should be allowed to force his opinions upon another person. The axiom that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is not debatable nor is it without its mystery. However, acknowledging the reality of individual perception does not negate the existence of universal compositional principles and a profound natural order that surrounds art as well as of everything else. By the way, this last statement drives those that are fearful of any form of an objective standard crazy.

My whimsical notion of exchanging food for art suggests that personal perception can be part of a reality that also admits to universal truths or ideals. These polarized points of views can be harmonized. However, without this unity, we will continue to experience art that shocks and degrades rather than benefits and uplifts.

In my experience, most artists and viewers of art will adamantly profess that they can determine beauty and truth for themselves. No one will tell them what is right. Many will also acknowledge that there are universal forms that apply to creating quality art. Still fewer will identify these universal forms with natural law or have the desire to contemplate its profound and mystical nature. I have the suspicion that there may be an unconscious avoidance of reflecting too deeply on this subject. One reason could be that many artists relate to the idea of laws as a restriction of freedom – “laws are made to be broken.” On the other hand, there is a wide acceptance of the invisible forces of intuition that effect an artist’s creative decisions. These feelings and spiritual forces are employed to achieve excellence and quality. Similar feelings are what viewers use to detect and appreciate beauty.

The reason we can discuss these is dynamics is because our hearts have been given the power to respond to beauty and excellence in art and in the world. Although art and beauty may be challenging to define, one thing is true: “no one adverts their eyes from beauty.”⁴ ­­One reason for this truth may be that beauty is a sign of the Creator. Likewise, attributes such as perfection, moderation, unity, symmetry, and harmony delight the heart because of their mystical connection to the laws of the universe. When art corresponds to natural order it affects our nerves, heart and spirit. Art in conformity with these laws inspires noble thoughts and becomes a source of comfort and tranquility for troubled souls⁵.

It is my conviction that these powerful dynamics of natural order exist both outside and inside the realm of individual perception. It is the stuff of art and deserves reflection. I believe that the “beholder’s” inner eye can be developed to perceive beauty in higher degrees and in unlikely places. And, that it can penetrate the mysteries that surround art and life. As an artist, I strive to operate within the mystery of natural order and the spiritual realities that surround it. My goal is to create work that attains a level of resonance with this mystical reality. And hopefully when it does, the human heart detects it and it is filled with joy. These are some of the reasons making quality art is so difficult, and why experiencing beauty in art is so wonderfully mysterious and magical.

I welcome your views and thoughts – for ultimately the conscience of the artist and viewer must wrestle with the paradoxical nature of subjectivity and objectivity in art. Or conversely, not want to think about it at all and just let the experience of art waft over you.

1. Philosophers throughout the ages have viewed the nature of art or more precisely beauty somewhat dichotomously. Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus connect beauty with the objectivity of ideal forms. Plotinus attributes spiritual responses such as love and unity to the nature of beauty. Aristotle acknowledges a degree of objectivity but differs with his teacher Plato on the nature of the artist. On the other hand, Kant and Hume are hardcore subjectivists. Kant basically expounds that reality is a product of personal perception.

2. Today, art can be anything and anyone can be an artist. Art is art by just saying that it is. Contemporary views constituting what is art are fuzzy at best. Some art seems indistinguishable from pornography, while conceptual art may resemble protest or crime! There are those that seek clarity and desire to define art as something that is noble, possessing merit and having lasting value. In my mind, these defining characteristics may be better attributed to the degree of quality in art rather than art in general. Art forms, like all created things, possess both its own heaven and hell. How either characteristic is manifested may depend on the spirit or intention of how it was created and how it is perceived.

3. Examples of performance (shock) art from Dazed magazine (warning: descriptions may be disturbing):

At Art Cologne 2014, Swiss artist Milo Moiré stood naked on a pair of stepladders outside the German art fair, proceeding to squeeze paint-filled eggs out of her vagina. Each egg smashed on the blank canvas below, creating a supposedly colorful expression of fertile creativity. Moiré explained: “I’m interested in pushing boundaries through art, living and expressing my art with my body and mind while opening mental doors.”

"No religion forbids cannibalism,” argued Chinese artist Zhu Yu. "Nor can I find any law which prevents us from eating people. I took advantage of the space between morality and the law and based my work on it." Zhu Yu recorded himself in his own kitchen eating a six-month old dead fetus, which was supposedly stolen from a medical school. It led to a global outcry, and as a consequence, China’s Ministry of Culture cited it as a menace to social order and the spiritual health of the Chinese people.

In a performance piece that caused fury amongst animal rights activists, Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas tied a starving dog just out of reach of a pile of food. The animal was supposedly captured in the alleys of Managua – near to the exhibition space Galeria Codice – by some children paid by the artist. Meanwhile, the statement “eres lo que lees” - “You are what you read” - was written on the gallery wall in dog food. Vargas received dozens of death threats, but it merely proved his point: take a stray dog off the streets, put it into a gallery, and it suddenly becomes an ethical phenomenon.

4. Kiser Barnes

5. Paraphrasing 'Abdu'l-Baha