People are sometimes surprised by the names artists give as influences because they can’t see any obvious connection between the works of the two. My citing of Maurice Prendergast as an influence and a favorite might be such an example.
Painting at around the turn of the 20th century, Prendergast’s paintings in oil and watercolor were dense compositions usually filled with figures and motion. There is a busy, swirling feeling to his work that seems the antithesis of the quiet I seek in my work. Even his skies are usually churning and filled with multiple colors. Yet for me there is a great harmony in the compositions that creates a sense of stillness for me.
I’ve wanted to show his work for some time on this blog but I could never find images online that capture the brilliance and visceral impact of his work when seen in person. The captured image doesn’t capture the depth or texture of his pieces, the luster of the surfaces. And while they are still lovely and interesting, they don’t have that same oomph as when seen on a wall before you. The work of some artists suffer from this and I’ve often wondered how many artists have had their widespread popularity hindered by this factor.
But, for me, how an artist is ranked by anyone doesn’t counter the sheer imapct of their work on my gut. There is something in Prendergast’s work that is pure brilliance, something I would like to see in my own work. But what that is in his work cannot emerge the same from my hand, my mind. It can only come out in my own vocabulary of imagery, color and texture and whether anyone would ever see anything that suggests Prendergast to them is doubtful. Even though it might be there.
Redtree Times 