Precedents, Reflectance and Improvisation

Da Vinci learned early in Verrocchio’s workshop that  observation, practice, composition and finally, improvisation were the keys to an effective painting.  But even Leonardo relied on historical precedents as a platform for discovery and improvisation. In his time the application of an improvisational  approach was referred to as fantasia – 
that is, the departure from expectation and originating observations.  When Albrecht  Altdorfer decided to react to the natural world as his motif concurrent with Da Vinci’s early explorations of the  landscape in his native Tuscany, he discovered a new territory for invention within the forms of  old schematizing models, traditional designs. Fearlessly, he experimented with his new subject, the forests of  his native Germany. Well, almost fearlessly; he kept many of his new landscapes to a small personal scale working in watercolor and in oil on paper (parchment) rather than on more expensive and larger wood panels. Like Altdorfer and Da Vinci, Monet would experiment with new motifs while still recycling historical models of design.  I too, find myself inextricably caught by the limits of  my vocabulary of design, of motifs, of methods just as every architect, poet, painter,  and musician also must inevitably speak in the language they were taught.  Any relationship to personal, free expression  comes from indifference to expectation by pursuing  improvisations on old themes, on familiar melodies.  I experience moments of subtle recognition as my work reveals the traces of art history.
Recently, while painting this work 

( an oil on linen, 18×18) during a demonstration before a group of artists I realized that my subliminal reference was Monet’s “Impression Sunrise” (1872) which you see here.

I had not been aware of this painting as a model for my motif until I was at least half through my demonstration. Curiously, This painting of mine is the second version, which is closer in palette to Monet than my first. This first version did not spark my recognition with Monet because the palette did not match Monet’s work.

By painting the motif  twice I was able to explore with greater improvisational freedom. The repetition enabled me to more easily disappear into the activity of painting.  Yesterday, I was again demonstrating  painting on bare aluminum in oil. I intended to show  the effects of  the high level of  reflectance of  the aluminum through thin layers of translucent paint .  These paintings are difficult to photograph because, their  reflectivity changes the appearance of the painting depending on your viewing angle. Here are two examples of the same painting  as seen from two different angles.  Observe the variable  lighting effects. It’s as though the light appears to come from alternate directions depending on the viewers angle.

(version one)

(version two).
While painting this 18×18 oil on aluminum using, ultramarine blue (Old Holland), Sanguine red (Charvin), gamboge yellow (Old Holland), Scheveningen Blue light (Old Holland), and very little white, only in bits of revealed sky (Charvin), I recognized a subliminal reference was Albrecht Altdorfer’s work, especially his small oil on parchment, “St. George and The Dragon” painted in 1510.

Again, my realization of  my kinship to Altdorfer’s work  came after I was half  through the demonstration.  Once  I recognized the relationship I could take even more liberties with my improvisation.