Drawing the paper mache sculpture

   
HB – 2B Pencils

Detailed drawing. Transferring dimensions back onto paper.

I then traced this drawing with clean newspaper paper, and cut around it so I had a template for the next drawing.

Black and white thinned acrylic paint

I reduced the detailed painting down to lines.

It’s interesting how this drawing is so different from the original design for the sculpture below. The new drawing is far more organic than the design.

The problem with drawing this sculpture looking straight ‘up’ at it, and not including any shading, is that the shape loses all of its dimensional qualities that are so crucial to these structures. I thought drawing things looking straight up would help me work out the design of the structures better, but it now appears that just drawing the sculptures looking straight up misses half the point, since these sculptures are meant to be drawn from angles and have real dimension I shouldn’t just be drawing the sculptures like this.

Acrylic and a white POSCA pen to outline the structure

I had one more go drawing the sculpture looking straight up. This time I wanted to block in areas that the sculpture would cover of the sky / canopy above. (The painting underneath is also of looking straight up at the sky / canopy) This shows how much of the sky the sculpture covers! In my next design for my next sculpture I need to make sure there is less planes that block out the sculpture.
Also, adding lines as if the legs branched out was useful in imagining the sculpture standing up high. I definitely need to add legs to my next sculpture.

Learnings

Draw the sculptures from different angles of standing underneath, not just looking directly up – this is why I’m making these sculptures!! – to paint from angles and create dimension in my paintings, so PRACTISE THAT!

Less coverage of the sky and trees above the sculpture with finer coverage and more just lines.

Add legs! – This will mean I can draw the sculptures from angles more easily. And also photograph the sculpture in the woods!

I want to experiment with blocking in white areas in drawings when drawing the structure from different angles. Would it add or subtract from the finished painting? I haven’t done that before so would have to see.

Wire and Paper Mache Sculpture (#3)

  

After a tutorial about my work I wanted to try out paper mache. It sounded like it had the potential to be a lot finer and more delicate than clay, and also much stronger than clay and not subject to cracking.
I designed the shape being far more precise than I have made designs in the past. This shape was inspired by Emma Kunz’s drawings, and also by the Cathedral architecture imagery from the books I had been looking through.

Using a very accurate design with shading to demonstrate depth, and knowing how I wanted the finished product to be, was a much clearer way of working than I have worked in the past, for example with the clay sculpture where I did very rough sketches and then finished the sculpture off as I went. Having a detailed plan meant I didn’t waste time, and I added the full wire armature before I started adding paper mache.

I started with this octagon shape, using wire criss crossing the centre to keep the shape in position. It’s been a bank holiday this week so I couldn’t go out and buy thicker wire! So I made do with the bendy wire, wanting to get started with this process instead of delaying it.

I knew that the paper mache would dry very firm, so I thought if I start laying down paper mache early, it would act as a support even though the wire was thin and bendy. But, the problem I didn’t anticipate was the drying time of paper mache – it’s sloww. So I would have had to have waited hours for this initial frame to dry before I added the next layer – too slow. It seems there’s no getting round having wire that’s too thin!

The Paper Mache

Half flour half water. Mixed to a smooth thin glue-like consistency. Not too thick or it’s too gloopy, dries even slower and is sloppy to work with. Not too thin or it doesn’t have enough sticking power.
I used newspaper thin paper, which I luckily already hah yey. This worked really well – it was thin enough that it applied really thin layers, but not too thin that it disintegrated when trying to work with it.
I would rip strips of paper and then soak it in the paper mache on both sides before removing it, scraping off the excess glue with my fingers, waiting a couple of seconds and then applying it.
At first I really struggled wrapping the paper strips around the wire – it’s harder than it looks! But eventually I got to know the right angle that you wrap the paper around the wire.

I should have taken more progress photos along the way!

To get to this ^ point, I made the outer hexagon and the inner hexagon shape and then attached them together with wire connecting corners to corners and sides to sides. Then I added the curved shapes.

Then I covered it all in paper mache. I was surprised at how easily the paper mache held its shape when I applied sheets of it to the curved shape. I then waited for the shape to dry.

The sculpture dried a nice light colour but once it’s finished I intend to paint it white so it matches the colour I would be painting it.

I went in with a second layer of paper mache on the underside of the sculpture. Unlike my previous clay sculpture, I wanted both sides of the sculpture to be finished. I used a small brush here to get into all the small areas, and lay down more paper and glue to smooth over any gaps.

I now realise I didn’t do the bottom part of the sculpture! This bit:

I just didn’t notice that I hadn’t added this part of the sculpture in. It would have been hard to differentiate between the part I left out and the bigger plane because I am not using black lines to separate sections. So I could have left the bottom part of the sculpture empty that might have been good.

Leaving this out has proven that the more detailed the structure the better.

The finished sculpture after two coats of white acrylic paint! I decided not to add legs to the sculpture because I would have had to have added them before using any paper mache, plus I don’t think this sculpture, as my first try has been successful enough to bother putting legs on.

What works

The sculpture translated well from drawing to finished piece. Using a very geometric and accurate design was very helpful. It was really cool seeing the sculpture transform from a drawing to a 3D object. I had to change the design slightly when I was making it, my intentions on paper weren’t realistic for manipulating wire in real life, but that way of thinking will come with more practice.

Paper mache is better than clay. For these delicate structures paper mache has such potential! I really enjoyed working with clay, and how you can add textural detail and streamline every form. But working with paper mache allows for such fine shapes, it is the perfect in between of the delicacy of wire and the form of clay. And with more practice I can make the paper mache smoother and more clay like in its streamlined-ness.

Painting the sculpture white. I need to bring some salt into the studio for my next piece so the glue doesn’t go all browny/green! But I would have painted it anyway. Painting it white highlights the form of the shape, and removes and distracting texture and colour.

I can see this sculpture translating well into drawing, but we will see!

Measuring things with a ruler as I’m working

What doesn’t work

The thin wire is once again an issue – it is too bendy! Any angular, straight precision is lost because the wire was way too bendy to control. I’m not using this again. The sculpture looks too loose.

Design is lacking legs duh. Next sculpture I’ll add some.

Too simple a shape I think.

How effective the shape is will be revealed once I have made some drawings of the sculpture. That’s what I’m doing next! I’m excited to do more.

Emma Kunz similar to cathedrals looking up

   

I was doing the sketches for my paper mache sculpture and was using the book The Cathedrals of England by Clifton-Taylor as well as images of Emma Kunz’s drawings for reference. As I was looking through images I found two that were SO similar!

!!!

The left image on my laptop is of a drawing by Emma Kunz and the right image is in the book, of the ‘Central tower vault’ in Lincoln Cathedral.
Similarities:
– Both have square shapes with the centre exactly in the middle, multiple square shapes in different sizes surrounding this middle point
– Both have lines all converging at the centre
– Both have four arrow shapes that converge at the four corners of the outermost square.
– Both have an ‘x’ shape that is the backbone of the rest of the shapes.

When I saw Kunz’s drawings in person and imagined them being transformed into 3D ceilings, I didn’t expect that to be found so exactly! I would love to go and visit some of these cathedrals to see how these shapes play out in real life..

I wonder if it is a coincidence that Kunz’s drawings are so similar to Cathedral architecture! I know her work was about the universe and spirituality? But I don’t know too much more than that. I think I need to do some research on her work.

Reading: The Gothic Cathedral by Christopher Wilson

  

P.67 ceiling photo

P.115 cross section diagram of the intricate columns curving.

P.198 amazing photo of Ely Cathedral

There are incredible images in this book. Photos of interiors that really capture the sense of height and the canopy tree feeling.

There is so much text in this book, heavy writing about the history of these cathedrals, comparing gothic churches and examining the different periods of gothic architecture in cathedrals. But I’m not interested in reading it more than skimming over parts. I don’t think it will help me with my work sooooO yeh.

Drawing from the clay sculpture

The reason I want to do these sculptures is to understand how I can better add dimensional shapes into my paintings. So once I finished the clay sculpture I wanted to draw it, to see how it would translate back onto paper – how easily could I translate the clay back into simple lines? This process would give me clues for how to make my next sculpture better.

I began with this pencil drawing, drawing the sculpture looking down on it as delicately and accurately as possible. I wanted to do a drawing like this because that would mean I had translated the drawing onto paper.
I am really happy with the rendering of this drawing, it is rare that I draw so finely and delicately! But it forced me to scrutinise the sculpture and translate it to a 2D image, which helped with the second drawing.

My original plan was to just do a simple pencil sketch on plain paper, like the last drawing. But after starting the sketch on plain paper, I realised the simplified structure is intended to be applied in thin white lights on a darker background, so it made sense to do this drawing in a simple version of that.
So I applied ink to the background. Then I used thin newspaper paper to trace around the detailed drawing and then relay those dimensions onto this new drawing. I did this because I wanted the two drawings to have the same size and dimensions, I wanted them to be as accurate as possible to the sculpture as well. Since I spent so much time carefully plotting the dimensions in the first drawing it made sense to transfer that shape across to the second drawing.
Once I plotted shapes in pencil I went over in white acrylic with a really fine brush.
The aim of this drawing was the shapes to be reduced to lines that represented the structural qualities of the drawing, and any important features that were part of that. I straightened the lines out slightly as well, and generally cleaned the sculpture up.

I wanted to see what this reduced shape would look like on an actual painting. I went outside and painted the colours looking directly up at an opening in a canopy of trees, intending to place the drawing in the centre. I made sure to layer the brushstrokes under and over the drawing as I have done in the past.

The outcome is okay. The simplfied shape does a good job at describing a canopy that is converging in the centre and reaching up. But the problem is the white lines look so flat, even with the layering of the brushes under and over. Perhaps it is the angle I am drawing it from?

Overall

I am happy with the process of drawing the shape, then refining the drawing, then applying it to the canvas. It is helping me to improve my sculpture but at the moment it is not producing successful paintings. Where is the great space, height and depth!?

Reading: The Cathedrals of England by Clifton-Taylor

 

Clifton-Taylor, A., 1986. The cathedrals of England Rev., London: Thames and Hudson.

I want to understand Cathedrals more – their history both architecturally and culturally. This seems like a good book to start.

“Not until the development of iron and glass for building purposes were Englishmen to see still vaster spatial envelopes” not partitioned by supporting walls. Cathedrals were, for hundreds of years, the tallest buildings in England.

A cathedral is a building in which the principle man in the diocese, the bishop, has his chair of office. It need be neither large nor fine… England has always favoured large diocese, and not many of them; this made the cathedral, as the mother-church, a natural focus… and so enabled it to grow both in size and power.

P.15

Most cathedrals were built from the middle ages onwards and range greatly in style of architecture.

‘Romanesque’ was the style of art which came before the ‘Gothic’

Pages 34 & 35 – two photos of Norwich Cathedral and Ely Cathedral. The main roofs are strikingly different. Norwich Cathedral has delicate fan vaults which flow up and onto the roof, carrying the eyes up across and back down again in a sweeping glance. Ely Cathedral has columns on both sides that stop abruptly on reaching the ceiling, and the ceiling instead of being curved, is made of three flat angles and detailed flat decoration on the ceiling. Ely Cathedral may be just as tall as Norwich Cathedral, but Norwich Cathedral has so much more energy and magic.

Exeter Cathedral looks amazing. It is the longest church roof in England. P.150

The glory of Exeter is beyond doubt the vault. The effect has often been compared to an avenue of stately trees.

P.153

P.160 Wells Cathedral: The Lady Chapel vault – geometric and converging at single point in middle. Reminds me of Cassell’s sculptures. Lots of really useful images in here that I can use when designing my sculptures.

Wells Cathedral in Somerset – want to go.

P.176 – Image looking directly up at Lincoln central tower vault – Looks so much like a simpler version of one of Emma Kunz’s drawings! This is great inspo for my next design which I want to be influenced by her work, and this.
This type of tower is called a ‘polygonal corner-butress type of tower’.

P.182 – Another incredible tower called The Octagon (!!) at Ely Cathedral.

P.231 – Best example of fan-vaults yet at Peterborough Cathedral. Good image of looking directly up. This is the work of gothic architect John Wastell.

P.242 – I should make a trip to St.Pauls Cathedral when I am next in London, the interior dome is very like those heavenly paintings and baroque architecture I saw in central Europe (not very tree like but STILL).

Thoughts

I hoped this book was very much focussed on the architectural details of each Cathedral in England, but not so much on cultural or historical details. The images will be useful in considering shapes in my own designs. It just made me want to go see some of these cathedrals for myself!

I keep expecting to look at this architecture and have some breakthrough with my project and work. But I’m not. I’m thinking cool they look good, they’re amazing etc etc but not, wow this is really affecting my practice. Perhaps that is because these are pieces of architecture not paintings or sculptures! I have a few ideas of artists I want to look at, perhaps I should return to fine art more now, I have had lots of architecture inspiration, but I’m making fine art so that’s where I’ll be.

Architect: Antoni Gaudí

  

A Spanish architect who made the designs for the Sagrada Família in Barcelona. I realised I need to look at cathedral architecture more closely if I am to base my sculptures on them.

I listened to a podcast episode on the Sagrada Familia and how Gaudi came to design it. It discussed how Gaudi was very inspired by perfect structures in nature such as the tree, this was because he believed all these objects had been perfectly designed by God, and so he should use these shapes in his Cathedral to celebrate God’s designs.

Book: Solà-Morales, I.de. & Gaudi, Antonio, 1984. Gaudi, Barcelona: Poligrafa.

I picked this one because it includes lots of photos of Gaudi’s sketches and finished works, I want to know what else he designed and how his sketches translate to a finished work.

An essay the beginning of the book describes Barcelona at the time Gaudi started designing the Sagrada Familia:

Any relationship with nature had become difficult and remote, while the dynamism of the urban world was chaotic in its constant change. All security and order seemed to have vanished, giving place to an aggressive, competitive atmosphere, in which no amount of decorative magnificence could conceal the disturbing presence of the uncontrollable, the irrational and the contradictory.

P.7

This is interesting – the link between Gaudi’s architecture, nature and (urban) society.

Gaudi’s plans for a hotel in New Yorks towards the end of his life are magnificent! This incredible dome shape at the centre with smaller domes around it. Inside great cavernous rooms with dendriform shapes throughout. If it was ever built it would have been monumental.
The dome shape of the building is similar in style to my structures – in their tall height and dome shaped top.

On p.26 there is an amazing image of scale models for the Chapel of the Colonia Guell (which was built). These models look SO LIKE the ink structures I was making last term!!! A link to a similar image online:
https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/crypt-in-colonia-guell/#cripta-colonia-guell-modelo-estereostc3a1tico
The finished chapel doesn’t have quite the same dramatic structures as the model, but you can still see the dendriforms and canopy shape.

The idea of centralism is Gaudi’s spaces was a theme which grew to be more insistent as his architecture matured. However, the centre which his forms of architecture needed to specify was not, according to academic tradition, a geometric site defined by abstract symmetry. On the contrary, his utilisation of space is the result of an effort to aim programmes and structures in the direction of that cosmic and stable order which a centre has represented in almost all cultures. For Gaudi, the church had to be the site of centralism and of hierarchy.

P.27

Gaudi’s buildings as living organisms.

Gaudi was always interested in “the vertical development” of his buildings.

‘Parabolic dome’ the dome shape I made in my clay sculpture. Turns out there are lots of different names for different dome shapes! There’s a wikipedia page with the dome types listed with images, I’ll use this page when I’m thinking about structure designs in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome

The Palacio Güell in Barcelona built by Gaudi has a gorgeous dome ceiling with small concentric hexagons going all the way to the top, with concetric holes in some of the hexagons and a bigger window and the top of the dome. The hexagon shapes remind me of Ross Bleckners paintings. I wonder if I could incorporate these ideas and shapes into my sculptures more?

Image no.67 in the book has a lovely simply roof that looks so organic and could easily be sculpted in clay. Shows how a simple, clean design can be very effective.

1st Clay Sculpture

  

I decided to do a clay sculpture, to experiment with building an armature and then adding clay on top to create more intricate shapes than I have ever made before. The design was influenced by :
– the columns and ‘fan vaults’ I had seen in cathedral architecture, with peaks and troughs.
– Ink sketches I did in my big sketchbook last week of simplified leaves of canopies which I wanted to represent in marking the clay with little dents.
These two influences create the design of my first attempt at combining trees and architecture into these shapes.

Building the armature

I used wire, masking tape and tin foil to build a supporting structure that the clay would be put onto. The wire was a little thin, but still did the job.
The tin foil wrapped around the wire is there because clay doesn’t adhere to clay at all, using tinfoil bulks thickens the lines and I can do some initial shaping (creating rough curved shapes) but also the rough texture of the crumpled tinfoil is a good base for the clay to stick to.
I used a donut shape of tinfoil to support the structure. In retrospect this tinfoil support wasn’t symmetrical and so the symmetry of the finished experiment suffered, that is definitely something to bear in mind in the future.

Working with the clay

I then began to build up the clay on top of the armature. Building the rough shape first and then using a selection of tools and my hands, keeping the clay wet and malleable. This was SO ENJOYABLE. Sculpture is so tactile and absorbing and way less frustrating than wire! Hmm.

I then added the in-between sections of the four main columns in the sculpture. I should have made the armature for these bits at the start before adding any clay! But alas. I just made my job a little bit tricker. So I added the sections, and completed this side of the sculpture.

Before painted white
Finished sculpture

I’m happy with the outcome of this sculpture as it is, for my first clay sculpture in a fair while! I have only done this side of the sculpture, and that is all I can do until the clay dries. I do want to work on the other side though, at least on the bits you can see from the side.
This shape is designed to be turned upside down and be the inside of the structure that can only be seen by standing inside and looking up. So the outside roof which I haven’t worked on would be just as important. I can’t decide whether I want to work on the outside on a new sculpture and leave this one, or finish this one as much as possible… I’ll think on it.

What works well

Having gaps in the ‘roof’ / sculpture. This would allow the sky / canopy to be seen through it.

Concentric shapes – having a point in the centre of the shape that everything points towards. Even in a flat photograph there is a suggestion that the shape recedes backwards in the centre.

The symmetry – okay so the shape isn’t perfectly symmetrical, but you can see the design was intended to be. For example having random shapes on one side but not the other would definitely not be as effective, the feeling of a grand shape wouldn’t come across and it would feel more whimsical instead.

Details! Having all the lines in the centre meet up and make sense. Having ridges separating parts of the sculpture, defining them. Refining the shapes makes a difference.

What doesn’t work

The shape isn’t exactly symmetrical because some legs of the shape are longer and wider than others! This has two causes:
– the wire was quite thin so would easily bend out of shape as I was shaping the clay
– the donut shaped base made of tinfoil I used to rest the sculpture on wasn’t even on all sides, so the sculpture was pushed out of symmetry whenever it rested on the base.

The dotty indents. They don’t look bad, however I think the shape could look better with shapes that are more uniform and geometrically ordered.

Conclusions, thoughts, moving forward

How much tree inspiration do these shapes have to have? The small indents in the clay are inspired by looking up at a woodland canopy of leaves, but aren’t these shapes supposed to be inspired by the architecture of the trees and of the cathedrals, not of the textures and decoration inspired by trees. Using the indents reflecting trees takes inspiration from something that is important to my painting outside – the movement, texture, sound, light of the leaves, not the solid structure I paint on top.

Saying that, I still want to see what this shape in a painting. So next, before I move onto another sculpture I want to paint this one. See how the shapes transfer into lines on a drawing/ painting. This will allow me to discover how I could improve my sculpture for the betterment of the paintings.

What do I rest this shape on to present it? Wooden supports cut to shape and glued to a base? You could just having the sculpture resting on the wood so you would be able to see both sides of the shape. A smaller base that’s less ugly that the shape could be lifted up from?

I want to try another sculpture with more geometric folds and angles, like the one I sketched for the Kunz drawings. That should be fun – maybe wire vs clay one.
Also I want to add legs!!

1st Wire Sculpture

  

I made my first sculpture!
Made completely out of wire, with clay to support the feet and stuck to a board.
This is the first time I have worked with wire like this in a couple years, I am not very familiar with having to think about a work in 3D.

Reasons for making it

Based on this sketch in my sketchbook, which was inspired by trees I painted outside with the same curly ink shapes. This shape is neither symmetrical or precise, however I thought it would be a good starting place. because the shape has lots of freedom and was a chance for me to become familiar with the materials.

Also, the shape is such a contrast to the angular, precise and symmetrical sculptures I want to make next, I thought this piece would serve as an interesting comparison, and to make sure these free structures aren’t what I want to make more of.

What works

The thinness of the wire gives the structure a really delicate touch, which suits the curly shapes it makes. The thin wire also means that this sculpture would be easily paintable in the way I have done – white thin lines. The shape doesn’t take up too much space so painting underneath it wouldn’t be too covered up.

The dome shape works really well (instead of a flat roof or pointy one). They nod to cathedral domes.

The curly shapes look as good in the sketch as it does in the sculpture from the side. It suits the material very well.

The sculpture is separated into three bits, each with two legs that support each other. This means once the clay bases are stuck down the sculpture wobbles but is in no danger of collapsing.

What doesn’t work so well

The wire was so thin and delicate it has been hard to manipulate one part of the wire without disrupting the whole thing. I assume with thicker wire this would be less of a problem. But this was the first time I have worked with wire in aages so that’s worth baring in mind as well.

Linking with the above comment, not being able to isolate one part of the wire and manipulate it, meant it was really hard to get the wire to define an exact dome for the ceiling. There was one curl that I would manipulate into the right place, but then the rest of the wire would then be out of place, and it went on and on! HMM.

The lines are a bit wobbly. This is again down to the thickness of the wire I think. Thin wire is easier to move around and a slight move makes the legs of the structure not straight.

Taking a photo underneath of the structure and looking up reveals the shape if it were to be just a drawing. The curls are interesting; they look organic, but the shape from this angle is I think too abstract and not structured enough to even slightly resemble a cathedral interior. This proves that symmetry and more cleaner shapes will probably suit these sculptures more for my purposes.

Improvements if I were to work like this again

Try with thicker wire. This I assume would mean you could isolate parts of the wire without disturbing the whole shape more easily. This could mean straighter legs and smoother curves.

I could try soldering part of the wire together. This might make it self supportive, and join the three pieces together.

Better ‘feet’ – less ugly! Perhaps having the base made out of wood and making small holes in the wood for the wire to sit in, then glue filled so that the legs just appear out of the wood instead of being obviously secured down with clay.

Overall

This was a good starting point! I feel more confident moving forwards now, onto designing a second sculpture, this time with a design more relevant to cathedral interior roof and column shapes.

I want to try painting this sculpture into a sketchbook painting. Since this is the idea of these sculptures – that they are pieces in their own right but also tools for me to add better shapes into my paintings.

Reading ‘Cezanne’s Doubt’ by Merleau-Ponty

I looked at this essay for my art theory and was struck with how ideas about Cezanne’s painting process struck a cord with my own painting practice. I decided to read the essay fully and consider it in relation to my work.

Cezanne was abandoning himself to chaos of sensation… for example, the illusion we have when we move our heads that objects themselves are moving—if our judgment did not constantly set these appearances straight.

P.3

‘Chaos of sensation’ – reminds me of my paintings, the colours and layers of brushstroke are chaotic, but they are based on the experience of being in the landscape, so ‘sensation’ feels like a fitting word.

Cezanne was always seeking to avoid the ready-made alternatives suggested to him: sensation versus judgment.

P.3

‘Sensation versus judgement’ – this certainly reminds me of my process when painting outside. I am marrying judgement of the depth, shapes, sizes, colours of the landscape with my sensations of movement around me, weather, comfort, energy of the space.

“But aren’t nature and art different?” I [Cezanne] want to make them the same. Art is a personal apperception, which I embody in sensations and which I ask the understanding to organise into a painting.

P.3

Cezanne did not think he had to choose between feeling and thought, as if he were deciding between chaos and order. He did not want to separate the stable things which we see and the shifting way in which they appear. He wanted to depict matter as it takes on form, the birth of order through spontaneous organisation.

P.4

Yep I think this nicely aligns with my intentions! I have just never expressed it in this way, but it makes a lot of sense.

Cezanne wanted to paint this primordial world, and his pictures therefore seem to show nature pure, while photographs of the same landscapes suggest man’s works, conveniences, and imminent presence… He wanted to put intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective, and tradition back in touch with the world of nature which they were intended to comprehend.

P.4

I’m not sure how I feel about this ^. Photographs suggest man’s work yes, because the camera has been built my a person, taken by a person, and developed by a person. But how could a painting not also show a ‘man’s work’? If anything a painting suggests a persons presence more because the paint is a material recording of a person’s movement, gesture and process.
Perhaps by ‘man’s work’ Merleau-Ponty means more artificial human prescence. A painting is certainly purer and closer to nature than a photograph.

By remaining faithful to the phenomena in his investigations of perspective, Cezanne discovered what recent psychologists have come to formulate: the lived perspective, that which we actually perceive, is not a geometric or photographic one.

P.4

^ Yes! to the ‘lived perspective’.

when the overall composition of the picture is seen globally, perspectival distortions are no longer visible in their own right but rather contribute, as they do in natural vision, to impression of an emerging order, an object in the act of appearing, organising itself before our eyes.

P.4

The idea that paint is emerging into an order before ones eyes is interesting. The brain is trying to make sense of the shapes and define them into some natural appearance. With my work, I aim for the structures to define the space and height and depth of the painting – the structure is helping the eye to find ’emerging order’ within the painting. The scale of the painting means that the dimensionality has to be defined when you step back, and then the painting re-emerges as one steps closer or further away.
This is an interesting concept!

He would start by discovering the geological foundations of the landscape; then… The task before him was, first, to forget all he had ever learned from science and, second, through these sciences to recapture the structure of the landscape as an emerging organism.

P.6

Again, idea of growing form, I like. It fits with my work and the arranging of moving brushstrokes and colours really well.

he was not God and wanted nevertheless to portray the world, to change it completely into a spectacle, to make visible how the world touches us.

P.7

Ooooh.

Conclusions

Reading this text has been really useful for thinking about my work in a new way. I can better understand the purpose of the structure in my work and the abstract paint work, and better articulate my process.