It's a funny thing about ideas, I mean how important are they to the success of a painting?Yikes, that's a question.
I was thinking the other day (uh oh) that I used to have more ideas than I do now, partly because when you're young you're trying out new possibilities and as you get older I think you start to realize that a lot of the possibilities you think about just won't work.
You have gained eggs-perience.
But I remember having a million of ideas. It makes me wonder what I would have painted if I was painting then.
But that's water under the bridge, doesn't pay to think about that too much.
I was reading an article in Modern Painters magazine recently about the big show in Amsterdam, the Caravaggio-Rembrandt To-Do. The author said that after looking at the paintings she felt that really the most unimportant part of the whole thing was the subject matter, that these paintings were GOOD no matter what the people in the paintings were all about. I think that's what she was saying and I think she's right about that.
And you can imagine that Rembrandt probably spent hours thinking of a particular subject matter to paint, that he went through many different options before settling on Samson and Delilah say.
And that the subject matter is in many ways the "idea" of a painting. You can hear Leonardo Da Vinci now saying to himself, hmmm, I'll take this Madonna and I'll paint her half-length and I'll put her in an insipid landscape. Maybe I'll have her smiling enigimatically.
Or you can hear Picasso saying to himself, "Pablo, you're the best! And that idea you had about putting some prostitutes in a painting with masks on them and I'll put them in a circle, with grapes on a table in front, that is something to pursue!"
I mean, that's how a painter gets started, thinking about his subject matter coming up with ideas.
But maybe there are ideas and there are ideas. Ideas that are more important to the success of the painting and ideas that are less important.
Perhaps the most important idea when it comes to producing a great painting is to have an idea as to the way the painter connects to the world, has compassion for the world and loves the world, and in particular the idea of how the painter uses that connected self to portray the world.
That's a pretty good idea.
And perhaps this "idea" is not really in the form of a traditional subject matter idea, one that is thought about, reasoned about and then acted upon.
But maybe it is. Maybe that's what makes great painters great.
You just wonder if a painter's greatness is something he/she thinks about or is it something that is just there. I can understand that Rembrandt could've painted ANYTHING and it would have been great, but did he know that?
I think that the great painters do know that, that they come to understand that what they paint isn't as important as how they paint and make an effort (have an idea) to do art in a particular way.
You look at a guy like Andy Warhol where the idea of the painting seems so important to the painting, the Campbell's Soup Cans for instance. The idea of the soup cans is brilliant, the BEST, but more importantly he had the idea to think about the world in a different compassionate loving way, a way that would connect with his audience in his era.
As I mentioned, Rembrandt probably DID stay up nights thinking of ideas to paint, and you can't disassociate that from the process that led from A to Masterpiece. But I think that the great painters had an idea about what they were doing and how they did it that they knew was more important than what they painted.
So the next time you (or me) starts to worry about that, about WHAT you're going to paint, just remember that your process can be just as good as Rembrandt's if you can manage to live in the world, and love the world and have an idea to show that love and compassion in whatever subject matter you choose.
