All painting, beginning with Impressionism, is antiscientific, even Seurat. I was interested in introducing the precise and exact aspect of science, which hadn't often been done, or at least hadn't been talked about very much.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
'Art or anti-art?' was the question I asked when I returned from Munich in 1912 and decided to abandon pure painting or painting for its own sake. I thought of introducing elements alien to painting as the only way out of a pictorial and chromatic dead end.
For an Impressionist to paint from nature is not to paint the subject, but to realize sensations.
Art is made to disturb, science reassures.
My early paintings weren't that good - I was very influenced by Francis Bacon. But there was a kind of intensity there. And however influenced they may have been by other people, even my earliest paintings were recognisably my own.
Painting is, I think, inevitably an archaic activity and one that depends on spiritual values.
Painting is a faith, and it imposes the duty to disregard public opinion.
Painting is not for me either decorative amusement, or the plastic invention of felt reality; it must be every time: invention, discovery, revelation.
My aim in painting has always been the most exact transcription possible of my most intimate impression of nature.
Impressionism; it is the birth of Light in painting.
Nature engenders the science of painting.