Rich's Art Journey

As I have mentioned before, I often do sketches while I am commuting on a train or when I am sitting waiting for something such as a doctor's appointment. For the most part, these sketches are just for practice. However, from time to time, one is a special image that I would like to take further. The problem is that the sketches are small, pocket-size images done on a note pad or on a piece of scrap paper. Their size and the quality of the paper preclude trying to make them into a series piece of art. My solution has been the traditional one - - I hand copy the image onto a larger, better quality piece of paper. Once the image has been successfully transferred, I can add color, change it or otherwise develop the work. A problem with this method is that sometimes something gets lost in making the copy. An image can have a certain something that cannot be re-captured no matter how hard you try. A random line or two may be what gives the sketch its character

 On a recent visit to the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia (ADNS), I was introduced to the works of Maud Lewis. Maud was a talented Canadian folk artist with a compelling story. Indeed, her story is so compelling that recently a movie, “Maudie,” was made about her life. Maud Dowley was born in 1903 in rural Nova Scotia. She was born small and with hardly any chin. These difficulties were compounded when she was stricken with juvenile arthritis causing her joints to swell and deforming her hands. This condition worsened throughout her life. Most likely to avoid the taunts of other children, Maud spent most of her childhood by herself or with her immediate family. She was introduced to art by her mother who painted Christmas cards to supplement the family income. Painting became a passion for Maud. After the death of her parents, Maud lived with her brother and with her aunt for a time. But then in 1938, she married Everett Lewis, an itinerant fish peddler, who she p

Peter Le Vasseur is a native of the Channel Islands. At a young age, his family fled the islands to escape the Nazi occupation. In the 1960s, he achieved considerable success in the London art world including several one-man shows at the Portal Gallery in Mayfair. The Beatles and several film stars are among those who purchased his works. In 1975, Le Vasseur returned to the Channel Islands and took up residence in Guernsey. “Consequences” is a temporary exhibit at the Guernsey Museum's Greenhouse Gallery. It presents 16 paintings by Le Vasseur intended to provoke change and raise awareness. The works are realistic, highly detailed, almost illustrational. The colors are bold but warm. This lulls the viewer welcoming him or her into the scene. It is only when you have gone beyond the first glance that you notice that there is something wrong with these idyllic scenes such as pollution on a beautiful beach or a fish deformed by atomic radiation cast up on a shor

 When I was in Dublin, Ireland recently, I had the good fortune to see a small retrospective exhibition of the works of Margret Clarke at the National Gallery of Ireland. Margret Clarke (1884-1961) was a woman artist who achieved s th century. I mention the fact that she was a woman because in those days there was a great deal of prejudice against women and thus for a woman to have achieved success in those days is impressive. uccess as an artist in the first half of the 20 Ms. Clarke began her artistic training at Newry Municipal Technical College continuing on to the Dublin Metropolitan School of Art (“DMSA”). Her goal was to become an art teacher and she obtained an art teacher certificate in 1907. However, she won numerous scholarships and prizes thus enabling her to embark on a career as a professional artist. Two paintings in the exhibition by her teacher at the DMSA, Sir William Orpen, show Ms. Clarke as having an intelligent face with lively eyes. Th

I find that the more I work on a picture, the less I am able to see it. No, I don't mean that my eyes become blurry. Rather, I mean that I am less able to see the picture objectively. This can lead to three problems. First, I can't see the mistakes that I have made. The eyes in a portrait can be positioned at different levels making the subject the look like something from a horror movie. Yet, what I see is something that Leonardo Da Vinci would envy. Second, I go on working even though the picture is finished. A picture can easily be ruined by overworking it. Third, I go on working on a picture even though it will never be anything worthwhile. Some pictures are just failures. There is a tendency to think, if I just make a few more changes it will be a masterpiece. However, in reality, you're just wasting your time. Better to start something new. The inability to see a work objectively occurs because the mind has a tendency to see