Skip to main content

Risky Business

An artist must be willing to risk everything when creating a work or art. He must be willing to make that additional brush stroke, or draw that new line, or try that other color even though it may possibly ruin the entire work, or at the very least take it in a different direction than what he intended.

No matter how far in advance a work is planned, there are always unknown elements, or unexpected surprises that arise, and which force us make a new decision on a color or element halfway through the painting. It is this very act that is so risky. What if it doesn't work? What if it throws something else off balance? What if it ruins the rest of the painting? But the artist must take the chance. If he doesn't the work will flounder, and he will always wonder, "What if I had done it?" At least for his own peace of mind he must take the chance.

If the new element does ruin the art rather than help, it can sometimes be undone (if you are painting in oils). But many times it cannot be undone (e.g. watercolor). That is just the risk of being an artist, though. No one ever said being an artist was easy.

Comments

Anonymous said…
sounds nerve-wracking; I imagine, though, that the sheer exhiliration that leads up to the making of that fateful stroke could be like waiting for the bottom to drop in the chute at the top of the 100-foot bananna slide at wet-n-wild. you just hope to make it to ground-level unbroken.
August 16, 2007 at 12:38 PM
J. Gordon Anderson said…
It is nerve-wracking! In years past, one wrong brushstroke, or something that I did which ruined the painting, used to send me into a spiral of depression and despair!
August 20, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Tale of Two Cathedrals

My wife and I just returned from vacation. While away, we got to visit the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore, which had recently undergone a huge renovation. The last time I was there was to see the famous "Timla Relic" a few years ago. Unlike some horrific church renovations that have gone on in recent years that were supposedly meant to "update" the church, this restoration was meant to "return" the interior of the building to its original Federal-period design. And I must say that it a very tasteful renovation. They did a really good job. It looks almost like an old early Episcopal church - white washed interior, minimal designs, etc. The interior is now very bright because they removed the stained glass (dark blue Willet windows), and uncovered the original skylights in the dome. They kept all of the good stuff (the high altar, altar rails, etc.), and brought some cool old stuff back (e.g. the nation's first RC epi...
8 comments
Read more

Priest, Psychologist, and Art Critic

The other night on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel proudly proclaimed that he had never stepped foot in the MoMA , because he couldn't stand looking at all of the ugliness and disorderliness of "modern art". Apparently while he was doing his doctorate in psychology he took some courses in art history and art criticism. I couldn't disagree more with what he said. There is definite order in modern art - it might just not be readily apparent with some artists. Certainly the early work of people like Frank Stella, Leger, and many others, is very rigid and ordered. There is even order in Jackson Pollock paintings as Francis Schaffer showed in How Shall We Then Live . And besides that MoMA has many other paintings in it that are done in a more traditional style that he would probably enjoy. For example, I believe now there is a show of Lucian Freud prints and Seurat drawings. So I don't know what father was talking about in that interview. It really makes no sense to me.
5 comments
Read more