Recently, I received an email asking, "Which is more important: painting from the intellect or painting from feeling?"
That is an age old question that during the 18th and 19th centuries, produced two major painting movements: neo-Classical and Romantic. In the western art world it was a kind of civil war. (War results when idealists become
extreme and refuse to see any merit in the opposing side.)
Jacques-Louis David, the recognized leader of the neo-Classical visual arts era, declared: "Art should have no other guide than the torch of Reason."
Notice the strong verticals and horizontals, precise arrangements and stilted movement in his painting below.
But French painters leading a rebellion, declared: "The heart has its reasons which Reason does not know." We know this revolt as the Romantic era.
Among its leaders was Eugène Delacroix. Notice the dominance of curves and diagonals as well as overstatement of feeling in his The Death of Sardanapalus.
Fact is either extreme causes the art to suffer. We use our intellect to figure things out, so when we're in the process of learning, our thoughts matter:
they guide our learning process. We master that process by practicing skills. The process of practicing makes the skill work more easily for us.
During the practicing, our skills becomes automatic so that we no longer have to figure it out or think about how to make them
work. That gives us freedom to express how we feel. So I would argue that both reason and expression play an important role in art making.
Each of us is born with an individual uniqueness. That uniqueness is where our authenticity lives. When we give enough
practice to our skills, who we are gets expressed automatically. How we feel comes through without our trying to force it, and when we have mastered our skills, our authentic creativity is free to flow within the stream of good craftsmanship.
Stay well and enjoy a healthy weekend!
You can access the archive of all my newsletters at anytime by going HERE. |
|
|
|
