Pencil History

We often don't think  too deeply about about the tools and materials we use as artists but reading  about the recent death of Anton Wolfgang von Faber-Castell made me realize there was a person behind the name seen printed on pencils and I decided to look a bit into the "pencil story". In the picture above, the Faber-Castell pencil is the carmine red one second down. It says "best for print marking" on it and also notes it is "Thin Color" - number 7490 Germany- then- 626 Dark Carmine, so well labelled. Faber-Castell is the oldest pencil-making firm, established as a company in 1761. However, some pencil-making had occurred even earlier. Nuremberg had strict rules governing the trades so when Kaspar Faber (1730-1784), a cabinet-maker,  began making pencils in his spare time, he was stretching the rules as he shouldn't have been working with  metal as well as the wood. Rules were not as strict in surrounding villages and by the time his son took over the firm, they had a workshop in Stein - which is still the headquarters today. Competition from fine Cumberland graphite used by Derwent resulted in Faber buying the mineral rights to a graphite mine in Siberia. The graphite lumps were transported out on the backs of reindeer. I can visualize a whole line of reindeer packing out the graphite-so now I feel a debt  to reindeer. The factory itself was a model of responsible management with male and female workers segregated. The women did lighter chores such as packaging. Management was forward-thinking in other ways as they set up quality housing for workers, created company health insurance and a pension scheme and established a kindergarten in Stein - and all of  this around 1844. Napoleon was so impressed he made Faber a member of the Legion of Honour.  Castell was added to the name through marriage into nobility. There is more to the story of pencils that I may blog about later - but I have found out that there are even collectors of vintage pencils. I found, however, that  a search of  my "junk" drawer failed to turn up  even one posted on a collector's illustrated "wish list". Maybe I will include a pencil in a painting one of these days, but a whole collection of them, as in the photograph, is not a painting subject that appeals to me. However, I am happy to have pencils available for writing and for art - and all at a reasonable price. I hope the reindeer are well-fed!

Careers for Cats

Sometimes it is fun to be silly. I was reading about a book by Ann Dziemianowicz called "Careers for Your Cat" which seems like a great fun book to have ... although I think I may be spending my money on kibbles and litter instead. Without the book's Meowers-Brigg Career/Personality Test, I had to just think of the cat's natural inclinations. I don't know if these occupations would be in the 34 suggested in the book- but I had fun with these. My drawings are not as clever cartoons as the ones in the book by Ann Boyajian but I felt there were limits to Digby and Isabella's appreciation of humour and I didn't want any feelings to be hurt.  Isabella is a natural for a massage therapist as her "pummeling" is unparalleled. Surely she could get clients if she posted a sign. Digby's loudness would make him a natural for a Town Crier but I am afraid that job may no longer be available so his desire to greet everyone would translate nicely into a paid job as a doorman.  I drew these in ink while waiting for a car oil-change and then I used coloured pencils to colour them in.  Digby was born without a proper tail - I didn't just forget it. Getting an intense black can take awhile in  pencil crayon so I did a first layer of blue-violet for richness and then used a blender to finish. These are just "play" pieces in the current sketchbook- just for fun - although the serious side is that play is actually important to keep creative ideas flowing

A Concept but not Conceptual

This is a painting from a series I did of close-up views of garden flowers. I call this one "Cleome Squared" because I had an idea - a concept, if you want to call it that- of making a bit of a grid be part of the design of the painting. It is easier to see in the actual painting, but even then you have to look for it. Colours change slightly on the grid. It was rather fun to do and I think adds an extra dimension of interest to the painting, I did a variation of this idea in my "Finn Slough Patchwork" painting - and I may very well play with this idea again - but I would plan on having a finished painting - not just the idea as is so often the case with "conceptual art". The idea is enough,  say "Conceptual Artists", you don't have to see it through.and actually produce something.  I read about a teacher brought in to do a course on conceptual art at an art school - no names mentioned to protect the guilty. Instead of teaching, he spent his time digging a hole - and the administrators thought this was brilliant and put it  down as a high point in conceptual art. There is no mention of what the students who paid for the course thought about the non-instruction. I think you have to have an idea behind a painting  to have a good painting. There has to be a reason for painting the subject. The thought behind the painting may, or may not, be conveyed to the viewer since the viewer also brings his or her own thoughts to the viewing - but I think it makes a stronger painting. Once you know there is a grid to this painting, it becomes a bit of a challenge to find where it is and look for colour changes beyond what light and shadow might be doing anyway.

Flowers for February

     This is a  new one just completed. I used it on my February newsletter but it doesn't show it all, because of the shape. Originally, I wanted to have blue and white stripes in the background but the piece of cloth I was *sure* I had, couldn't be found so I ended up with plain blue instead. The stripes probably would have changed the whole mood of the painting, so maybe it was all for the best.
    I've just been reading that sales are down in some areas at the high-priced art auctions. I think it is unfortunate that people often don't trust their own eyes and follow what they personally like. According to the article, the really rich are still buying as "every collection has to have a Picasso, a Richter, a Warhol". Buying by "signature" is sad, I think. There is a lot of good art out there- a lot of it very affordable and something that a person can continually enjoy.  There are Picassos I like, and lots that I wouldn't want on my wall if I was among the very rich. Why not just have what you like?

Investments

     This is just over 2 hours work on our "long pose" which we have every couple of months at Life Drawing. I drew this last night. Our model wore street clothes and we had her sit a little sideways to get away from the more usual head-on pose. I was reasonably pleased with the results - although her right hand is a little confused - maybe the shadowing has to be clearer so the viewer knows there is a thumb on the other side of the newspaper!  I was able to take a photograph for further reference in case I decide to do a painting based on this pastel piece. Interestingly enough, when I looked at the photograph, all the colours that I found appealing in the pastel were just not there. If I was to do a commissioned portrait of a busy person - say too busy for regular "sittings"- I think I would want to do a pastel for reference as the photograph seems to almost deaden colour.
     I'm not sure what she is reading in the paper- probably not news of investments that are on such a roller-coaster right now. People also get uptight about buying art and worry that it is not an "investment" - or else buy something because the signature would seem to indicate it *is* a good investment. Like a lot of artists, however, I can't guarantee a growth in investment - but is that important? Art that you enjoy is a great investment in the pleasure that you get from looking at it. It  will keep paying you back every time you look at it. A lot of art today is more for shock value- think shark in a tank of formaldehyde- and the more traditional idea of art being about beauty seems to be forgotten. If  a person wants something to bring them pleasure, then it would seem we have to return to the more traditional values in art.  Just buy something you want to look at- and it will pay you back in happiness dividends.

looking at fine art auction catalogs

     This painting was begun last year but recently completed. The model held a guitar with no strings so I had to complete that later with references. I'm not quite sure what to call it-- "Castles in Spain"? "Far away Places"? Hmmm- something to suggest that she is thinking about travel, inspired by the poster and wishing she was elsewhere.
     I've been looking at catalogs from "Fine Art Auctions". They are all Canadian art - some I love and some I wouldn't want at any price, let alone what they are listed at. There are some outstanding Emily Carr ones - and some dreadfully dreary ones. She should have had a clean-out before she died. She did leave the sorting task to Lawren Harris - but then her sister rescued many from the "destroy" pile. You have  to do the destroying yourself, like  Robert Genn did. I have had more than one clean-out. A fellow artist I know finds it very hard to get rid of anything but I think that you have to look at your work and ask yourself if you were to die, would you want those left to represent your work? Let's face it, *everything* is not a masterpiece. Some pieces are experiments, some are learning efforts that could lead in new directions even if they don't quite make it except as #1 in the series, some are lacking in some basic element- "weeding" has to be done. Yet, there is also a lot of good work out there that gets little recognition. I was looking at some nudes in one of the catalogs and thinking that a lot of the work produced in our group sessions is certainly the equal....it just lacks the signature of an already-recognized artist.  Too bad people don't trust themselves and buy what they like as it would be possible to have a very fine collection at very reasonable prices - fractions of prices in the catalogs.
     Catalog information is not always accurate- there are two Krieghoff's with obviously the same reference used for the male figure. The write-up for one paintings notes that the size is out of proportion to the other figures- but, in the other painting, there is the same dis-proportion with no mention. Then there is "Dorabell Lee", a watercolour by Emily Carr. The description refers to the figure as that of a child - but, it is obviously a doll -probably belonging to a child where Emily was staying to study in France. The proportions, the way it is lying down, the shapes of the arms, the face- it is a doll with a bisque head, probably bisque forearms - smoothly round-, and very slender legs . No doubt someone carved the sabots for its feet - and they are a bit large. If you look at other figure studies of actual people- and some are actual portraits- there is no doubt that Emily Carr was capable of doing a good figure or portrait study. No,  Dorabell Lee is not a child- it is a doll lying on the grass. Even the name is like a child's  made-up name for a doll, not so likely that of a real child in France. I wonder who bought the painting over 6 years ago- and I wonder if they realize the Dorabell Lee is a doll?  I haven't done any actual paintings of dolls, although I have done sketches. I'm a bit afraid of producing something on the sentimental side, so I have to admire the casualness of Dorabell Lee- just left on the ground. I think it was just an experiment with colours, using a subject that just happened to be there. I wonder if the owner ever knew that her doll was immortalized and would end up in a catalog with an estimated price of $30,000 to $70,000 ?

The big square- making a statement

I just sent off my newsletter for January and I put this painting in it - only the format cut off some of the top and some of the bottom - so here is the "full square". It is 36" square, acrylic on canvas. It was created from a photograph. We had been painting in Queen Elizabeth Park. I had done another tree- working in pen and ink and watercolour. Then, as we went back up the path, the light was shining through this tree and I snapped a photograph. I felt it was an inspiration for a new beginning. There are actually words painted on the canvas - now obscured but still there. It is up in my newly redecorated bedroom where I am enjoying it. At one point, I had the focal point as the flower bed at the left, but after discussing it in a critique, realized that I had veered away from the original inspiration of the light through the tree. Lesson learned - remember what made you want to paint it in the first place! So some more sky came down into the painting and the front flowers were subdued and a little more variation happened in the tree limbs. Now it says what I wanted it to say.