Proof of the pudding

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Forums spawn debates and discussions quite naturally. Indeed one may argue that such discussions afford artists not only a chance to voice an opinion but forums can also be a place for other artists seeking answers early in their work to listen to advanced conversations regarding materials and methods. I've always thought that when the argument comes down between philosophy and good old empirical evidence in these talks about chemicals and methods etc. fact wins out over theory.

I also consider the author's work when a concept is being propounded. The old adage, "the proof is in the puddin" comes to mind. Another adage, "talk is cheap" comes to mind. If someone tells me how wonderful their working method is to depict color and form the first thing I do is look at their work. The work should underscore and endorse the espoused method.

What we do is visual. Verbal statements are pointless ramblings unless the ideas result in impressive paintings. I have come to know several wise non-painters through the years that really deeply understand painting and the time-tested procedures used by thousands of artists over 6 centuries. These rare folks can read a painting and spot the underlying techniques even though they don't actually paint. Yet still the methods discussed are evidenced in the quality of these said paintings.

Painters can sound a bit overbearing when they tell you there is but one way to produce art, great or routine. Art history would say otherwise. After all the verbiage, the paintings ought to be powerful, have good color, composition, drawing and, for goodness sake, have a clear and profound raison d'etre.

C. Beaux, "Man with a Cat."