It is only after years of preparation that the young artist should touch color - not color used descriptively, that is, but as a means of personal expression.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I guess what all artists want is for their work to touch someone or for it to be thought provoking.
Knowing how to paint and to use one's colors rightly has not any connection with originality. This originality consists in properly expressing your own impressions.
It's only when an artist becomes a master that they are fully able to express themselves.
The artist must ask you to think of the world in a different way, and sometimes it's a more abstract way; sometimes it's a completely different kind of colouring.
Nothing, indeed, is more dangerous to the young artist than any conception of ideal beauty: he is constantly led by it either into weak prettiness or lifeless abstraction: whereas to touch the ideal at all, you must not strip it of vitality.
It is not an aesthetic misstep to make the viewer aware of the paint and the painter's hand. Such an empathetic awareness lies at the heart of aesthetic appreciation.
There are people who don't respond to color. That's what painting is. It's color.
What an artist is trying to do for people is bring them closer to something, because of course art is about sharing. You wouldn't be an artist unless you wanted to share an experience, a thought.
At first I had some idea that the absence of color made the work more physical. Early on I was very involved with the notion of the painting as an object and tended to attack that idea from different directions.
Art brings a message into a room. It should make us perceive in a new way - either through color, form or narrative content - something we had not perceived before... and perhaps reveal something to you about yourself.
No opposing quotes found.