I admire artists who begin talking about their work from the point of philosophy, method, approach ... it takes me a while to get there.
Philosophy being "The rational investigation of truths and principals of being, knowledge, and conduct"; or - "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs."
It seems most use the word according to the second definition, but let's save that for another day.
Before I can even begin to think of investigating aesthetic truths, I have to get through the apology first, for such self indulgence. Then find an excuse to justify taking such time when so many other matters should be attended to.
This of course, stems from having been brought up by a strict,
practical, bookkeeper who was widowed too young.
Finding an occupation to make ends meet was, if not encouraged, at least understood.
Her actual focus was more on a proper hospital corner-fold to the bedding and washing floors on hands-and-knees rather than standing while mopping - you miss too much.
Fortunately ... or unfortunately ... my instructors encouraged me to keep it up. And so I did. Today, however haphazard my approach, when the question, "Why bother?" comes to mind, it is answered with, "I am drawn to it." The excuse is - if I may borrow, "When it comes to the world around us is there any option but to explore?"
I am not a scientist, but I (still) define myself as an artist.
Tom McNickle is a painter who articulates well (it's a gift) what he has learned while seeing (being) and understanding (knowledge) what's in front of him. His translation of that eye-hand-brain conversation onto paper or canvas is a demonstration of his clear thinking.
What I've learned is that when I apply myself to the process of painting, diligently and with patience, only then do I come close to understanding what he has said.
Someone once said, "If we can write clearly about (fill in the blank), we will be able to think clearly about (fitb). Perhaps that it the motivation behind this effort. Anyway, that's where I stand.
