What’s the difference between painting a site I had a touching experience with and a site I didn’t have a touch experience. For example, Zennor Quoit was a site I visited and felt something at. Whilst the cliffs below Kenidjack Cliff Castle in West Penwith was a memorable day, but I didn’t have a connection with the site, I wasn’t moved by it in any deeper way.
Multiple people have commented that the painting of Zennor Quoit has an atmosphere. Is that chance? Down to the lighting and the brushstrokes, or is it because I really felt something of this site, and that came through in my process of drawing, constructing, photographing and painting it? Or perhaps both? I will never know.
Are there any other sites I have been to which have that feeling to them? I could still have those experiences whilst I’m here. MORE WALKING! I could walk the pilgrams route from St Ives to Penzance? Then get the bus back? Do I want to also finish the final section of the Tinners Way? That bit in the middle.
I guess the more work I make the more I’ll understand whether how I feel about the site affects the painting made. It would make sense that if I felt more for a site that would come through in the painting. Perhaps I don’t want to admit that because then I have to seek sites that I am touched by? That seems strange, to construct something so organic! I do more walking, and also more paintings of Zennor Quoit perhaps. Perhaps that’s what I do the big painting about!?
Zac and I yesterday were talking about layering the detailed painting with the lived experience memory painting, thinking about me going in with ink or charcoal first onto the big canvas. It’s a very fun idea. My fear is that it would then all get covered up. I have more fears with big canvases don’t I!
For today I think another little painting is what I can manage <3.
marmont house – greenlaw
matt gallery – london gallery, links with st ives
Georgina Harris 