Oxford Trip

On the 1st of October 2014, I once again had an opportunity to visit three Museums in Oxford.

The first Museum I went to was the Oxford University Museum of Natural History as well as Pitt Rivers museum. Differently than the other two museums I went to later on, this one was mostly full of natural specimens, fossils, and other subjects. 

(Outside and inside the Museum)
Because my theme is abstract landscapes, I had to think about the sort of things I could be looking at that relate to my theme. However surprisingly there were surprising objects there that actually strongly relate to my artwork and inspirations.

Before visiting the Museum, quite a few times I have mentioned how bright colours are not seen as 'natural' or 'earthy' and look artificial, especially whenever my artists that I study (Scott Naismith and Vytautas Kasiulis) paint landscapes and other subjects in lively bright colours.

However I was quite wrong, in fact I discovered quite a few natural specimens that consist of beautiful, bright and sharp colours, that the earth has produced, so in fact my idea of a 'natural colour' is deceiving.
I noticed a lot of the beautiful colours are from materials that we don't necessarily see everyday or in typical surrounding we may be in. For example a lot of minerals, crystals and metals have very intense, clear and in depth colours. Here are some examples bellow:

Not only do these crystals present amazingly bright colours, they also have very unique textures and surfaces.

There were also colours of those who were once 'living' like small birds and fish that have bold and vibrant colours on their bodies;

However what fascinated me the most were minerals that fluoresce in the dark due to UV light creating very fluorescent and vivid colours. This surprised me because I was not aware at the time of this sort of minerals and the fact that they can glow. Meaning this once again proved my idea that organic object colours are mostly neutral and muted wrong.
Here is what they looked like bellow:

I believe these minerals match and relate with the my work and theme the most is because in the dark they don't show precise lines or details, they stand out through the powerful illuminating colours. Similarly with my theme, I am not trying to focus on landscape details, but the colours of the whole surrounding, which is exactly what the minerals in the photograph represent. I want to achieve the whole principle of viewer to questioning the actual subject matter they see in front of them but still be fascinated by the flow of colours presented. They also remind me of Vytautas Kasiulis's painting 'Loušas Elgeta' ('Lame Beggar') where Kasiulis uses a black oil paint background in order to make the colourful oil paint stand out more sharply.

(Above, Vytautas Kasiulis - 'Loušas Elgeta', oil on canvas, 1950's, Lithuanian Art Museum)

During the visit I also got a change to observe and in some instance feel different textures of old specimens of which some seemed misleading at first. For instance the two specimens bellow; the picture on the left side is of a mineral called 'Pyrite' which is a Iron Sulphide. It is 10,000,000 years old, It is known as fool's gold, because it has often been mistaken for gold due to its resemblance. In fact its appearance is delusive, when I first looked a Pyrite I thought its texture would be very metallic,and due to its texture the edges on the metal would be quite edgy and sharp. However I was wrong, in fact the texture of Pyrite was very smooth and the edges were worn down, hence the texture overall felt bumpy. Generally when looking at it doe to its shiny appearance, the Pyrite looks as if new, hence knowing that it is 10,000,000 is quite unbelievable.

Similarly the specimen on the right side appearance wise looks bumpy and quite rough, however the surface of it is quite smooth in texture. 

Here are some other interesting textures and surfaces I managed to find:

What I find interesting about the objects above, is the fact that the majority are of an organic source, and not man made, hence they are not in a perfect shape or form, which makes them unique. The fact It took these specimens thousands of years to develop, wear down and form into the way they look now, (which in many cases is probably very different as to what they looked like originally) reminds me of the work of Joseph William Mallord Turner. As from studying Turner I learnt he also often altered his paintings, making them completely different as to what they used to look like originally. He achieved this by painting over them, building a layer over another layer of paint on the canvas. Which in return for the long run has caused the paintings to crack and chip and wear down, just like the specimens above have due to the years of weather,and other factors. 

I also had time for a few observational drawings, I firstly looked at a skeleton of a dinosaur and tried to focus on its shapes using charcoal, as this choice of media seemed to be the best to represent what is now a fossil.

Here is what my sketches turned out as:

 It was quite hard to draw it in proportion and the right shape, however I tried making it more free flowing as it was a sketch hence there wasn't a lot of time to draw it. However because charcoal smudges, the two pictures above smudge the pages in front of them, creating very interesting marks of the same picture but more vague which I really like, due to its slight uncleanness of fine detail.

I also observed a crocodile as I found his skins texture very interesting, it had some resemblance to the way Scott Naismith layers his paint in small round patches. For these observations I used a variety of media such as pen, pencil, charcoal, however once again I though the charcoal was the most effective as it was the most convenient medial to use for a more free flowing style.

We then travelled to Oxford Modern Art gallery. At the time there was a Stuart Brisley 'State of Denmark' exhibition. Sturat Brisley is a British Artists, born in Surrey in 1933.

In particular I found two of his art pieces most relevant to my theme (images bellow). These two pieces of artwork are very textured and visibly layered with mixed media to create a very strong and rough feel for both the chair and the canvas. The only downside for this artwork in my perspective is the work seems a bit off putting because it looks like its been burnt and covered mud. However it is most likely what Brisley is trying to express with his work, some sort of damage or a example of neglect. Although saying that, I do like the fact that the artwork especially the canvas is very naturalistic, and does not have specific detailed drawings , but rather is full of textural detail.

(Above, on the left, Stuart Brisley 'Chair'  1996 - 2011 Wooden chair, paper mache, PVA, acrylic paint, hardwood parquet floor, tar. On the right, Stuart Brisley 'Royal Ordure' 1996, Mixed media on canvas 60"x48".)

Another similarity I have noticed is that 'Royal Ordure' looks quite similar to a painting by Niki de Saint Phalle called ''Shooting picture' which I viewed in the London Tate Museum (image bellow). This gives me and idea of considering trying to experiment with applying layered media all over the canvas, page or other type of media that I can use for the base of my artwork.

Another interesting thing I noticed in whilst in the Oxford Modern Art gallery, was the inside of the building as it looked a lot like and experiment I have created before. 

Here is what the ceiling looked like:

I like how the ceiling has patches with parts of the white paint cracked off or discoloured,its like the layers of paint built over years finally reveal what's always been underneath.

Bellow is an image of my work which I think looks a lot like the ceiling because of the colours and smudges of light paint, also the other side of the page has layered oil paint on it, and the page we see in the image bellow is just the paint showing thought from the other side, hence it fits the paint showing through concept and idea.

Lastly we went to the Oxford Ashmolean Museum, there I found a few paintings of landscape however, although the paintings are of landscape they do not carry out the same ideas and goals as I want for my artwork. Firstly the majority of the paintings I have seen there are very detailed with clear lines and subject matters, created using thin layers of oil paint on a canvas, using naturalistic tones and colours, also in size they were relatively small compared to other artist paintings I have seen before, and for a landscape painting a small canvas does not look effective, especially if an artist is trying to pass on the feeling of what it is like being in that moment, Whereas a large scale painting makes the viewer fell more like they are at the place of the painting. Whereas for me it is more interesting to examine work which shows passion for expressing colours of the atmosphere around the artists and texture that adds depth and 3D form to paintings. However I still think the oil paintings I have seen in the Ashmolean were helpful in order to allow for me to distinguish what type of artwork style is for me and suits my theme and ideas the most.

(On the left Pierre-Auguste Renoir 'Landscape with Trees' oil on canvas', on the right, James Abbott Mcneill Whistler 'The Shore, Pourville' oil on panel.)