ART ANALYSIS >>>

I met painter William Quinn at an art opening and we talked a lot about art. Quinn is 83 years old. He's been around the block a time or two and knows of what he speaks. It's nice to talk to a painter about painting - a painter who is knowledgeable and sensitive and perceptive. I've found that there are very few around. I can think of only one other of my acquaintances who can carry on a long and detailed discussion about what makes a particular painting work or not, and that is Olympia artist Ron Hinson. Two or three times a year we get together and converse over coffee, and I always learn something from Ron. Even through college and when I was teaching, I met very few fellow artists with whom I could have enlightening talks. One was Thornton Willis, a successful New York artist who was my mentor and studio mate back in the '60s. The other was Jim Meade, a fellow teacher at the University of Southern Mississippi.

The opening where Quinn and I met was for "Azul: Contemporary Interpretations In Primary Blue Mood" B2 Fine Art Gallery. We looked at some of the other art on display and discussed it in depth. I pointed out a painting by Judy Hintz Cox that I thought was one of her best. I particularly liked a dark shape at the bottom of her painting that had a triangle wedge cut out of it with a blue dot nestled in it like moon in the sky that by happenstance lined up perfectly. He agreed that he liked that too but pointed out a circle with a dot in it, the only other point of color on a white background, and called it an eye, saying it was a gimmick. I just saw it as a circle and a dot, but now I'll never be able to look at it again without seeing an eye, which really detracts from an otherwise excellent painting.

We looked at moody and atmospheric landscapes and seascapes by Susana Rodriguez that I kind of liked but felt not fully engaged with. He said they looked unfinished and too safe. They needed something audacious. And he was right.

I wondered as a critic how critical I should be. I talked to him about being perhaps overly careful when subjecting local artists to criticism. I said that sometimes I see an artist as outstanding in relation to others in local galleries, but if I compare them to a Rembrandt or a Titian they're pretty weak. He responded with a baseball analogy saying they can't all be Babe Ruth but maybe they can be pretty good in the minors. You have to take them where you find them.

When I mentioned the concept of painting intuitively he said underneath intuition must be a lifetime of studying and learning. This is so true.

He also expressed some disappointment in the current art scene and disdain for the art magazines, grousing that young artists and the hip scene seem to be all about photography and installations and that painting is not respected. My take on that is that art nowadays seems to be all about content, with little appreciation for the visual aspects. The critics all talk about what it means instead of what it looks like. He said that's because it's easier to write about what it means. Formal visual analysis ain't easy.

It was refreshing to talk to another painter who has reasoned and educated opinions.

Please note that I am paraphrasing his statements, not quoting, and I am relying on memory; I didn't take notes. I hope I didn't misinterpret any of his ideas.

LINK: Alec Clayton's Visual Edge Column