Last
week I met a painter in New Hampshire who had set up his easel beside a river,
though his back faced the water and he was painting the row of maples that paralleled
the nearby road. It was mid-morning on a clear autumn day. The yellow leaves,
when I looked at them more carefully, were not merely yellow but white and
green and almost silver as they shimmered in the breeze. “I’m painting light,
really,” he said. His canvas was small, about the size and shape of a license
plate, and he worked in oils. The trunk of the closest maple was on the right
side of the canvas. The middle was a muted patchwork of yellow, white, green
and pale yellow-gray simulating silver but not at all metallic. In isolation this
central part of the painting looked like an abstraction or the birth of a
galaxy.
I
asked him to name some of the painters he most enjoyed, and he mentioned Willard
Metcalf, who painted Early October, and
John Singer Sargent. I asked if he liked Fairfield Porter, one of my favorite
painters, and he said, “Oh, yes. You know him?” He seemed surprised. “Painting
light is the most difficult thing,” he said, “but it is also the most beautiful.”
He spoke with great seriousness and precision, editing each word before he pronounced
it. He never stopped painting but became more talkative. For years he had
worked for a marketing firm, until he retired early and started painting
fulltime. “I hate ugliness. It exists, but I hate art that celebrates it.” He
gave me his business card. On it is a detail from a larger painting showing a
branch heavy with red apples against a blue sky, like the one that morning. I
thanked him for his time, and he thanked me and said, “There’s really no need
to emphasize the ugly, is there?”
Several
days later, in a motel room in Boston, I was reading Bad Mouth: Fugitive Papers on the Dark Side (University of
California Press, 1977), a lousy title for a sometimes interesting collection
of essays. The author is Robert M. Adams, who has a sense of humor despite
having been an academic. In “Ideas of Ugly” he writes:
“.
. . ultimate ugly is in some way global and oppressive; it doesn’t simply
repeat a single element, but has a quality of infinite variation without change
that lays a weight on the heart. The novels of Theodore Dreiser, Marxist
political rhetoric, the landscape of northern New Jersey, souvenir shops in
airports—these have the special qualities of an ugly which is at once settled
into itself, varied in its particulars, yet bound to go on and on interminably.”
No comments:
Post a Comment