Layers of layers
In Stephen Gardiner’s biography of sculptor Elisabeth Frink, a recent article about David Hockney, also in Andrew Graham-Dixon’s film about the spectacularly marginalised English painter Edward Burra, mention is made of layering, and I felt that this is what non-superficial painters do (I can only respond to sculpture as a viewer because I know very little about its methods).
By 'non-superficial' I mean painters who do not rely on slick surface image... (click Read More)
– of which there are plenty – but who get beneath the skin either of the subject (that which is depicted) or object (the very painting itself, see also comments under entry Surfaces on the next page.
So can we agree that depth in art has a lot to do with layers? Layers of layers; three genera: i. the thought which inspired the work, ii. the processes involved in its evolution, and iii. the viewer’s response - ‘eye of the beholder’.
In connection with this, a big question which occupies many is: ‘Are the words of painters of any interest?’ or should we shut up and let the pictures speak for themselves à la Edward Burra? Should we give our paintings titles or discuss their conception?
I’m afraid for me, as I say elsewhere (Biography), “As a writer too (12 books and >100 articles not to mention a 100,000 word thesis) I'm intrigued by the images and ideas carried in words too (hence often the importance of titles)” so I admit that I love reading about other painters’ methods, their ideas and inspirations also of course their letters.
Your own take on this would be of great value to me, please contribute if you have time. Thanks.