Andrew Wyeth drew this "preliminary" study of a sycamore tree in preparation for a landscape painting.
 |
| Andrew Wyeth, 1941 (30" x 40") |
Every artist has to be prepared to sacrifice their only wealth-- hours of their life-- on the altar of the Great God of Art. Still, one might be excused for wondering: was this guy nuts?
Was this drawing a wise sacrifice of the artist's time? What did he learn? What did he create? Could this image have been better handled by photography? Or AI?
On the other hand, even a true believer gets no guarantee that the deity will reward his or her faith. After Wyeth dedicated a week in fealty to drawing that tree, what if he miscalculated by adding some additional detail such as that twig at the bottom? What happens if the detail turned out to be a misjudgment?
The great philosophers from Thomas Aquinas (in his 1265 Summa Theologiae) to John Locke (in his 1689 Labor Theory of Property) have schooled us that labor is the ultimate source of all economic value. Still, when it comes to deciding how much of your life to sacrifice on a picture, there are special lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided. Deadlines alone are enough to save most illustrators from making imprudent investments of time. What kind of return on investment could Wyeth have expected from the insane act of devotion that is this sycamore tree?
Perhaps the more appropriate philosopher for the sycamore tree is the fox who taught Antoine de Saint- Exupéry's Little Prince:
On a background of bare paper a mistake can't be erased, nor can a misspent week of an artist's life. There's no going back to reclaim that week and spend it playing Grand Theft Auto V and drinking beer.
The great philosophers from Thomas Aquinas (in his 1265 Summa Theologiae) to John Locke (in his 1689 Labor Theory of Property) have schooled us that labor is the ultimate source of all economic value. Still, when it comes to deciding how much of your life to sacrifice on a picture, there are special lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided. Deadlines alone are enough to save most illustrators from making imprudent investments of time. What kind of return on investment could Wyeth have expected from the insane act of devotion that is this sycamore tree?
Perhaps the more appropriate philosopher for the sycamore tree is the fox who taught Antoine de Saint- Exupéry's Little Prince:
It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important....Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox "but you must not forget it.
I'll say this for Andrew Wyeth: he never forgot it.
 |
| Sign on the door of Andrew Wyeth's studio |
18 comments:
He was trying to top Durer's 'Great Piece of Turf'
I think there is a moment when artists hit the pause button and simply cannot stop the impulse to go further. The sketch stops being a sketch and becomes a work in itself. On the other hand, I have always believed that the sketch is the true work of art, although I don't know how to explain it very well, it is as if the final painting is nothing more than an outer layer that hides the true idea of the artist. It is the seed of something great, but the essence is that seed.
David, in answer to the question I think you are implying in your post:
Mary Griffiths (one of whose paintings I own) in a recent exhibition catalogue appropriated the words of Dylan Thomas in the introduction to his 1952 edition of collected poems. She wrote:
Thomas “read somewhere of a shepherd who, when asked why he made, from within fairy rings, ritual observances to the moon to protect his flocks, replied: ‘I’d be a damn fool if I didn’t!’”
Griffiths continued:
These paintings, with all their crudities, doubts and confusions are made for the love of Man and in praise of God and I’d be a damn fool if they weren’t.
The above comment was by me - forgot to sign in properly!
As a fellow Mainer, I'm SO ashamed!
This reminds me of a joke I heard from a Mane Humorist, Richard Skoglund; "Those Wyeth's are so cheap they won't even send a Hallmark card at Christmas. They have to draw their own."
NC, late in life, wrote that he was quite envious of Andrew's ability to pursue and capture the integral physical reality of the things that he drew. NC said that if he could go back, he would try a similar path.
It happens that proper painting training requires some very detailed work before the painter can properly loosen up. This is not just a technical issue, but also a matter of internalizing reality as it is and structure before poeticizing it. A sort of demand to know what you are talking about before daring to summarize it to an audience.
There's every chance that there's something circumstantially/historically special about this particular piece by Andrew. In the Fall of 1941, when this is dated, NC Wyeth died. October 19th to be exact. For all we know, this was made the very next week. It is said that Andrew Wyeth's work lost all its color after NC's passing.
What was Andrew Wyeth thinking? The world around us is filled with detail, and he wanted to capture that in his artwork. That was his M.O. for every painting by him I have seen. From what I have read about him, he was quite secretive about his methodology. Maybe this "preliminary" started out as a full blown drawing, and he decided to make it into a painting after the fact. Perhaps he used photography for reference like many modern artists do. Hard to say. It would be nice to see the landscape painting this was the preliminary for, for comparison.
Sure, to most people it does seem nutty to spend the required time to produce such level of detail. And Andrew was pretty prolific, so he must have spent a LOT of time in the studio. Apparently it was all satisfying and worth it to him. On the other hand, most people spend their precious time on this earth working thankless unfulfilling jobs just to survive. Who is the nut?
Personally, I find Andrew's work a bit dry and sombre. Although his most famous work, Christina's World, is a compelling piece. I like his father's work far more. Interestingly, N.C. Wyeth's style was almost the opposite of Andrews. Certainly two different takes on art, despite the genetics.
I noticed the brief reference to AI in the article. That is pretty out of context for this subject, but maybe that controversial topic would be a good angle for a future article here.
David—I am shocked that you asked this question. I don't believe you meant it to the taken seriously.
Laurence John-- That Durer is an extraordinary piece, to be sure. I always figured that Durer had exceptional eyesight, like Ted Williams, and that came to dominate the aesthetic priorities in his work.
Albert Campillo Lastra-- I agree with you about sketches. Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin & Hobbes, said, "Every line you draw drops your pants." Nowhere is that more true than with sketches.
chris bennett-- That's a nice quote from Dylan Thomas, as enhanced by Griffiths. Of course, the slippery part is that you can be a damn fool for making those pictures, as well as a damn fool for not making them.
Kev Ferrara-- I don't know if that's the explanation, but it would be quite poignant if was. I do know that NC had a lot of misgivings about his life as an illustrator, and he envied Andrew's career as a fine artist.
Andrew wouldn't have had that opportunity as a gallery painter if NC hadn't paved the path for him. I'm a big fan of Andrew's work, but I also share Joel Fletcher's view about the comparative value of NC's work. I think NC's best work (such as his work for Kidnapped and Treasure Island) was superior to Andrew's work.
Joel Fletcher-- As noted in my response to Kev Ferrara (above) I share some of your views about NC Wyeth. My reference to AI (and photography) was an attempt to isolate the reason(s) why it made sense for an artist to spend such a large part of his or her life drawing microscopic details. If an artist takes a week to make such a hyper realistic image but he or she could capture the exact same detail (and later manipulate it into a final image) within 5 minutes using photography and / or AI, that suggests it's time to refresh the cost/benefit analysis for that kind of time commitment. If an artist is an illustrator working on deadline, that suggests one kind of answer. If an artist is a "fine" artist with no deadline, that suggests a different kind of answer.
Joel: "It would be nice to see the landscape painting this was the preliminary for, for comparison."
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpUo783TAu2Bcuymqvc7qX2_7t9eBxzuOitz6Uwhyv727H3E6RcirTrp_N3bmP8msQWTx16zfVmY4t03jfGFeHz_5iix6_ahU_j0kZ8K0bbZqQNofZg0yl4ibztTbIEKeq7diMm4G2o6A/s1600/Pennsylvania-Landscape.jpg
Apparently the total view (with house and river) isn't possible from that vantage point, so the image is a composite of various separate views.
Is really nobody is going to mention pleasure?
the above is by me, Jeanne. Same sorry as many others
Andrew was 24 years old in 1941 when he produced the drawing of the sycamore tree we have been discussing. In 1942 Andrew produced "Pennsylvania Landscape”, an egg tempera painting featuring this same sycamore tree—minus the interesting pattern of its leaves.
Could it be Andrew was traveling a different path? Could it be Andrew was exploring the detail he planned for the 1942 egg tempera painting? We have been discussing a drawing as if it was an end in itself. When we look at the final painting, many of our questions are answered. The painting is a stark statement of the struggle of light and dark, with the painting deliberately divided horizontally. Out of all the detail there emerges a frightening simplicity.
\
Could it be Our Boy has done something rash?
Anon: "... Out of all the detail there emerges a frightening simplicity"
Ai has entered the chat.
Laurence John-- Thanks for making the effort to track down the finished painting from this drawing. I wouldn't have known where to find it. I see the painting doesn't conform precisely to that meticulous drawing. Wyeth changed the branches and bark around. He didn't need to do the complete drawing in order to make the finished painting.
Looking at the painting, with the farm houses and other components arranged in the background, I'm reminded that when Wyeth painted the picture, "Trodden weed," he painted a million little blades of grass beneath his feet as he walked those hills of Chadds Ford wearing Howard Pyle's boots. Those insanely detailed and repetitive brush strokes must have been like therapy for him as he mulled over some truly large issues. The same may have been true of the drawing of the Sycamore tree.
Jeanne-- Pleasure is surely relevant, but that is one heck of a marathon slog for sustaining pleasure.
"I also share Joel Fletcher's view about the comparative value of NC's work. I think NC's best work (such as his work for Kidnapped and Treasure Island) was superior to Andrew's work."
N.C.'s best images are works of wonder, in every sense. They have a magical ability to transport the mind into reverie. Andrew's works have a quieter mischief and a lot of study to them.
Post a Comment