With apologies to Charles Avery, Walter Sickart and Archie Franks (my three chosen artists from this research) here are three paintings in their style:
Link 8 not working but I found this: The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo
Thoughts:
A very interesting read and fascinating set up for this Part 5 as The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo is a scientific rather than an artistic work. The drawings etc may have artistic qualities, and it was created at the very dawn of science which will increase the artistic element in the drawings… but the whole thrust and tenure of the work is scientific, not artistic.
In effect, Cassiano Dal Pozzo, 1588-1657 (later joined by his brother: Carlo Antonio Pozzo, 1606-1689) collated and printed the first visual encyclopaedia.
The collection documented and tried to capture in visual form (before cameras) the entire field of human knowledge. Whole colour and black and white plates were given to entries along with close up and wider views. The two brothers produced most of the plates but they also used existing prints from other publishers to augment these where helpful, and added written text documenting the production, collection and all available knowledge about the subject.
The subject was the focus of the entries (as in a modern encyclopaedia), unlike art where the subject is merely a vehicle for the artist’s meaning. If Cassiano had included an entry on Pope Innocent X – 1644 to 1655 – Pope Innocent X would have been the subject, the entry would have been lifelike and the supporting information factual – a piece of non fiction; but when Bacon painted, Study after Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X in 1953, Pope Innocent X (and Velázquez’s painting) was merely vehicle for Bacon’s ‘artistic meaning’.
Cassiano came from Pisa where he was educated and befriended Galileo. He moved to Rome in 1612 where he became influential in aristocratic and intellectual circles, becoming a patron of both star artists like Poussin and lesser artists. However, Cassiano was equally involved in science and was a friend of Prince Federico Cesi who founded the Academia dei Scientific (the first modern scientific society) where Cassiano was able to get ‘scientific’ drawings of plants to microscopic detail.
Rome was the centre of the 17th century world, the pope equivalent to the boss of the biggest multinational corporation today… its reach and power though political connections and ideological dominance akin to that of the USA after the second world war.
A whole thesis could be written on the church’s reaction to Cassiano’s work and how the collection has been split up and sold, and re-united over time.
The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo is undoubtedly a fantastic historical document giving unique insight into the developing culture and science of the 17th Century. But it is a scientifically produced and collated, rather than artistically produced and curated, document and has limited use to me as an artist engaging with my local environment on an artistic level.
I have A level Chemistry and Biology, studied A level Maths and Statistics and chose to walk away from a career in the sciences to become an actor because I found it difficult to engage with the natural world in a scientifically detached way. Wordsworth’s Daffodils moved me much more than understanding the chemical processes that drive the biology of plants.
Nor do I want to be, and have a strong reaction against, artists who are pseudo scientists.
I know enough science to know when somebody has done the 5-10 years training and has a lifetime’s experience, and the scientific rigour, to fully understand their subject and when somebody has read a few books and is skimming the surface. Which doesn’t mean collaborations between scientists and artists are not valuable, and artists can illustrate scientific processes in a way scientists can’t. But for my artistic voice it’s very definitely not a road I want to go down.
So, this has been really useful in focussing my mind.
I want my reaction to my environment to be personally and artistically driven. Not accurate drawings of plants/buildings and animals… I don’t want to ‘catalogue’ my local environment I want to capture its meaning for me.
Pick three artists:
1) Charles Avery or Mike Nelson (contemporary/take on personas)…
Quote from the Gallery: Since 2004, the Scottish artist Charles Avery (1973, Oban, UK) has dedicated himself to the invention of an imaginary island, new corners of which he continues to chart through drawings, sculptures, texts, ephemera and (more rarely) 16mm animations and live incursions into our own world. Known only as ‘the Island’, Avery’s wave-lapped realm is not only a vividly realised fiction, teeming with sights both strange and strangely familiar.

Mike Nelson at the Tate

Nelson seems to produce mainly installations – as I have no interest in making installations so I’m not going to choose him.
Charles Avery – I’m going to focus on his paintings.
Like:
I like that his paintings are fiction so he’s free to paint them from his head. He can be connected to the narratives and the environment without any reference to the outside world and put all his experiences and skill into his painting.
Dislike:
I dislike that he is stuck in his imaginary world. No artist’s imagination can create anything that even comes close to the complexities of real life.
The people in his world look like they have lives and stories but in a story the story world is merely somewhere for the story to take place – the world is not an end in itself, it’s the story that matters. In Avatar even though the world was wonderfully realised what made the film was the story and the characters.
And the way I read a book/watch a film is very different to how I read paintings. In a story book there is a beginning, middle and an end, it takes place over time, and it has a setting. There is an evolving story arc, character changes and a meaning (unless it’s pure entertainment). However, I’m not going to invest time getting to know Avery’s world.
As somebody’s fantasy world it holds no interest, as a context for a story it might be interesting, just as the environment in Avatar was interesting. But what would interest me is the story and the meaning. However, as single paintings (I’m not going to spend time getting to know his world and the lives of his characters) they are shorn of any meaning.
Strangely, the painting I picked is initially appealing, and I can start to read it… but as soon as I know it’s from a made up world and I don’t know the story I lose all interest.
By contrast Peter Doig’s paintings of imaginary dream worlds where I enter and ‘create’ the world are wholly satisfying as they work as paintings rather than book illustrations.
How view own environment through their eyes:
Well, he’s not taking on a persona as it says in the OCA materials, he’s inventing an imaginary world. Taking on a persona is like acting… taking on a different character and seeing the world through their eyes. In this sense every work of art shows us the world through a different persona, from Van Gough to Matisse to Elizabeth Peyton. Every artist (I’m not talking about copyists) would paint the same subject from their own persona.
If I pretended my village was not real but part of my imaginary world (apart from being seriously mentally ill) I could do anything I wanted – I would only have to follow the rules I made for myself.
So, I could have a go and just see what happens.
A painting in the style of Charles Avery: brush ink, art pen and oil on A3 drawing paper.
The Fen Drayton Monster

2) Natural artists in the 19th century: Anna Atkins; John James; Audubon; Walter Sickart
Anna Atkins (1799 – 1851)
Botanist and photographer. 1st woman to publish a book with photographs – she was a scientist. Below is one of her calotypes.

Although it would be possible to to copy this effect with fine drawing this is a scientific slide and I’m focusing in on my voice and medium. So I don’t want to research a botanical photographer.
John James Audubon (1785 – 1851)
American ornithologist, naturalist and painter. He painted birds in their natural habitats. His most famous book The Birds of America (1827–1839), is one of the most famous ornithological works in the world.
American Scoter Duck

I could paint a bird on Fen Drayton Lakes in this style as an ornithological illustration. But (I read he worked from stuffed birds and also observed in real life) I would have to work from a photograph and that is something I don’t want to do at the moment, until I can draw properly.
Also, this is like botanical art for birds. Highly skilful and aesthetic but not what I want to be doing… I don’t want to catalogue the local birds from books and photographs… or catalogue them scientifically at all.
Now, maybe sketches of diving turns painted up???
But I’m not going to be researching Audubon.
Walter Sickart (1860 – 1942)
He was a Post Impressionist and member of the Camden Town Group who often painted domestic interiors, often semi lit beds with naked women sprawled across them and public meeting places like cafes and music halls.
He started painting wet in wet but moved to painting in stages from drawings or photographs, often using newspaper photographs or Victorian prints which he transferred to canvas by using a grid. His aim was to complete the painting in two sittings… first an underpainting then overlaid detail.
Strangely given the atmosphere of his paintings he was known as being a detached painter shown both by using snapshots/press photographs and increasingly used assistants and took over the work of dead artists.
Mrs Mounter at the Breakfast Table exhibited 1917

I chose because Walter Sickart.
Like:
I like that he’s a painter and reacts to his environment in a painterly way with a distinctive artistic voice. This is how I’d like to react to my environment.
I like his suggestive blotchy use of colour which lets the eye dwell on the scene rather than the detail and take in the emotional and psychological whole. So, in a strange way, you’re reading it as you would real life rather than visually or aesthetically.
It gives you a distance, you are definitely an observer, but it’s as if you are actually before the scene that’s been painted.
Occasionally, as in this painting, I love his use of people who seem wholly contained and real. Here he captures the emotional distance between this divorcing couple. It reminds me of the way Hopper captures space and isolation with a cold clarity, as at a psychological distance, but also with a human warmth and compassion.
Dislike:
His obsession with naked women on beds, which seems a bit titillating as much as it is art.
His overuse of photographic cropping which work on photographs but somehow seem a bit tricksy and gimmicky in his work. When Monet uses photographic cropping as in his dancer paintings it feels integral to his composition, but in Sickart’s painting it feels like he’s taken somebody else’s composition.
Mostly his people seem like props, or at least not real people or people standing for types or functions.
How view own environment through their eyes:
I could try and paint suggestively leaving the detail indistinct, but as I live on my own in a village and don’t go down the local pub it might be difficult to include people, unless I can sketch my partner when she comes over.
A painting in his style:

Poor old Sickart would be turning in his grave but it wasn’t drawn, was painted wet on wet and has elements of suggestion… I quite like the big tiles and door handle.
It’s much too light and clean.
But I learned a lot from from the process and would like to use this way of painting for at least some of my Assignment pieces. If I painted it and let it dry it would be a lot easier to add details and highlights… but I only gave myself a couple of hours to
3. Other relevant contemporary and historical artists: Maria Sybylla Merian; Mary Delaney; Karston Bott; Christian Boltanski; Marcel Broodtaers; George Shaw; Lisa Wilkens; Lee Maeizer; Hayley Field; Nathan Eastwood; Robert Priseman; Kathy Prendergast; Tanya Wood; Cornelia Parker; Alex Hanna; James Quin; Archie Franks; Tim Stoner; Karen Densham; Terry Bond; Marrio Rossi and Michael Landy (Semi Detached at Home and Weeds
As there are so many I’m just going to have a very quick look at each and pick the one that appeals to me most.
Maria Sybylla Merian
(1647 – 1717) German-born naturalist and scientific illustrator

This could almost be a pastiche of scientific illustration (a visual cliche) – but no doubt it was cutting edge in its time. You could do some really interesting art based on the style, but it’s not for me.
Mary Delaney
(1700 – 1788) – letter writer and Bluestocking famous for her “paper-mosaicks”, botanic drawing and needlework.

Very interesting and not at all what I expected.
I love the style… it works on black… slightly naive (almost childlike), flat and it reminds me of Japanese prints. And in a strange way is hauntingly beautiful. It could be very modern… the foliage almost looks like it’s stuck on paper.
I might paint a flower from my garden in this style.
Karston Bott
Haven’t got dates but he’s contemporary and German… he collects and curates everyday objects, in 2007 he had 500,000. He photographs them and makes small encyclopaedia entries: for film he might have a photograph of an award winning actor and a popcorn bucket.

Fascinating from an anthropological (and even archeological) perspective and very though provoking.
And it’s a way of cataloguing the world around him it’s very effective and as time passes we all forget the reality and rewrite/mythologise the past (I might even use it in my Assignment).
But as a painter not where I want to go with my artistic career.
Christian Boltanski
(Born 1944) Quote from Wikipedia: French sculptor, photographer, painter and film maker, most well known for his photography installations and contemporary French Conceptual style.
The Reserve of the Dead Swiss, 1990

A conceptual piece where Boltanski took press cuttings from a Swiss obituaries over several years… re-photographed the grainy pictures… blew them up to bigger than life size (so they were unidentifiable), stripped away any textual reference, then framed and presented them as above.
Knowing that these handsome people are ashes and that we will all be dead, and anonymous is a conceptual piece. A transformation physically and intellectually (and of purpose) of the world around him. So, in that sense he isn’t ‘documenting’ the world around him he’s using the ephemera of the world to make a bigger point.
I think this is very valid and may include it in my Assignment, though as it’s an installation I won’t pick it to draw or paint.
Marcel Broodtaers
(1924 – 1976) Wikipedia: Belgian poet, filmmaker and artist with a highly literate and often witty approach to creating art works.
Though this doesn’t do justice or describe him very well from the little I’ve read. He was 40 when he made his first art after struggling in penury trying to earn a living as a poet, for his first exhibition he stuck 50 copies of his unsold poetry book into plaster.
For his first exhibition he wrote his ‘Introduction’ onto pages cut out of magazines:
“I, too, wondered whether I could not sell something and succeed in life. For some time I had been no good at anything. I am forty years old… Finally the idea of inventing something insincere crossed my mind and I set to work straightaway. At the end of three months I showed what I had produced to Philippe Edouard Toussaint, the owner of the Galerie St Laurent. ‘But it is art’ he said ‘and I will willingly exhibit all of it.’ ‘Agreed’ I replied. If I sell something, he takes 30%. It seems these are the usual conditions, some galleries take 75%.
What is it? In fact it is objects.”[3]
He used any objects to hand… so his raw materials were the ephemera of life… the offcuts and discards of society, a bit like his poetic career.
L’oeuvre (coquilles d’oeufs et coquetier), 1967

Sort of witty, but it doesn’t quite work for me.
The idea of using the waste around you to make ‘art’ is interesting and has a long history, but this has a different feel from Art Povera. Art Povera felt like artists using cheap materials artistically… this feels like a raconteur using materials like words. What he couldn’t do in his poetry he’s trying to do physically, but his ideas aren’t strong enough.
However, I’ve just found a 30 minute MOMA discussion about him which (for the purposes of my artistic education I’ll watch) may change my opinion?
Moma video. 2016
Interesting and confirms my initial conception that he didn’t understand visual language, he wasn’t an ‘artist’ if you consider an artist to be primarily visual he was a philosopher/poet using physical constructs to examine concepts.
Listening to the talk it was more that he gave a matrix for artistic critics to map their ideas onto more than that his work had any intrinsic artistic merit. The talk wasn’t really about his work but about the role of museums in modern society. Whether museums are to preserve artistic objects run by artists (as in the 19th century) or a bureaucratic tool run my historians to maintain the status quo (as in the 20th century).
As a trainee artist I don’t find anything in his work I can connect to, as an illustrated discussion about the role of museums in modern society it is very interesting.
George Shaw
(b. 1953) English painter noted for suburban subject matter. He uses Humbrol enamel paints and is noted for his naturalistic approach.
Scenes from the Passion: Late 2002

Don’t know the title… 2014 from Fusion magazine.

I included two as you wouldn’t think they were by the same artist. The first is technically very skilled, naturalistic and feels like it has a meaning. The second feels lazy, brushed off, meaningless and as if it could have been done a beginner painter in acrylics.
However, apart from by restricting his subject matter to his near environment (and therefore relating to Part 5) while trying to inject bigger ideas, at least in the first painting, his work is gimmicky.
He has branded himself by subject matter and media, which is a very effective way to stand out from the crowd and sell paintings, but is very restrictive to his development as an artist. I instantly think about how Picasso was constantly innovating and changing over his life… and sold paintings through artistic genius nit great marketing.
Which isn’t, as much as it may sound, a value judgement. He’s an artist and needs to sell his work and is providing a useful useful object for the market using his skills.
My take is that you can earn a living just painting what’s around you, and in a non scientific way… it’s a way of curating your memories and the environment around you. But for my practice, though it’s nice to know I can paint anything I don’t want to restrict myself to a single subject and media.
PS: The fact he’s still selling paintings when the quality has dropped is a testament to the power of brand and context. Has the second painting been in a local village art show I’m not sure it would have sold for £60. I know he’s not after that market, but I cannot see anything that would warrant a price tag in the second painting apart from the brand.
Lisa Wilkens
(b. 1978) She has a degree in Scientific illustration and an MA in Visual Arts.
Quote from Paper: Lisa Wilkens’ work is fundamentally based in drawing and the understanding and exploration of images, their reproduction and development through drawing. Her interest in images is connected to their political and historical context and function. The drawn image offers a platform to address present situations and developments and to imagine and discuss a possible future.
Reading about her work it is highly technical, highly skilful, process driven and conceptually based.
Head, 2013, Chinese ink on paper 67 x 80 cm 2013

I’m struggling to see how her practice relates to Part 5.
Artistically, the more I see of concept art the less I’m drawn to it. As a tool in modern society to examine how we communicate, how visual images are transmitted and transformed etc I think it’s invaluable. But as art it’s dry and barren from the head not the heart.
The irony is that what seems to differentiate art from craft (beautiful objects) is the meaning put in by the artist. But there’s a world of difference between intellectual, conceptual, word driven meanings and ‘human’ meanings.
For my practice, I’m definitely in the Peter Doig boat (early career) rather than the Lisa Wilkens’ treatise on sailing.
Lee Maeizer
She’s an artist working in London. A quote from her in Collateral Drawing says: “I am a painter and sometimes photographer and filmmaker, living and working in east London. I make figurative oil paintings, often very large, of ominous, mostly unpeopled spaces and the discarded objects therein. These comprise a body of work that relates to both a psychological and physical reality and celebrates the possibilities of the paint and surface.” Lee Maelzer
January 2014, Paper lining wall collecting marks from oil painting
Chair or step ladder holding paint marks
Take away tubs and tins on table

I’m beaten by this. I don’t understand it and can see nothing in it. I hope I’ve not misunderstood a photograph of her studio for a work of art?
Which is a whole different, Duchampion question.
The other question is who buys it and how does she earn a living and run a big studio?
It looks like the paper on my painting desk with some studio objects stuck on it?
I often look at random marks which are the residue of my painting and think how beautiful they are, and that they would make a painting and have a freedom and lyrical beauty I could never consciously capture… but I couldn’t possibly sell them/exhibit them as works of art as they are just artistic ‘waste’. But maybe I should stick some studio objects on them, like broken paintbrushes, frame them, and exhibit them?
I could certainly do something like that for Part 5.
Hayley Field
Contemporary artist… Here’s part of her Artistic Statement on Axisweb: I am an abstract painter. My work represents intense, personal responses to observations, events, or experiences. My focus is on colour, shape and composition. My paintings slowly emerge through considerable re-working, accumulating a history of marks, often surfacing isolated figures and shapes.
Paper ball, Oil on board, 30cm x 30cm, 2018

I chose this as part of Part 5 is to paint near monochrome waste packaging, which could be a screwed up paper ball. This is reinterpreted as a semi-abstract – I can see the small yellow balls and the large central ball, which with the name pushes it into a figurative painting.
However, I love the balance and composition and use of colours… and highly developed visual language.
If I can use something like this in Part 5, I will.
And, as I have lots of paper and canvases are expensive, a work on paper.
Across the river in the trees, August 2017 to March 2018 (ongoing)
36 x (20cm x 20cm) watercolour and pencil on paper

I assume the concept is to paint a scene by crossing a subject and making colour marks at regular intervals? A bit like a scientific grid where you map plant species, but with colour. We have to rebuild the scene using the colours. Each line might be a different day in different light – and that is one of my Exercises in Part 5.
So, I shall store this away and see if I can use the idea.
Nathan Eastwood
(b. 1972) He videos everyday scenes on his phone and then paints them, working in monochrome by glazing with enamel paint. On Wikipedia there is a quote where he says that he is re-examining kitchen sink realism.
He’s using a mobile phone, which is great… lots of artists over the centuries have used new technology as starting points. At the moment I’m not using photographs of any kind as I’m trying to learn how to draw, not copy photographs. But I may have to think about using them as source material (as Peter Doig does) if I can make sure I’ve broken the link with copying, use it as a stimulus, and continue to learn to draw.
Secondly, and potentially more worryingly, is that he has a unique process… a brand identity… a unique selling point. It may be the most wonderful art ever made but if he has to paint everything the same way because that’s his brand then I don’t see how he can grow as an artist and keep his work fresh?
That’s not my concern, if he’s selling and people are happy, that’s great. But in terms of taking artists as models of how I would like to grow my practice I would like the freedom of expression that experimentation allows not a mono-process approach – however commercially useful. Though, if I found something that sold I might bang them out in order to fund my practice while I develop a reputation.

You can’t see it on this small photograph but he’s gridded up his photograph and canvas and I can only assume he’s copying it across.
It produces a very naturalistic painting…

This is hugely skilful but I would argue that it’s not art as, apart from the selection and cropping of his original video photograph, it’s all about process not about meaning or ideas. It may produces naturalistic paintings with people ‘caught in life’, but it says nothing.
What it does show me is that you can paint anything and sell it. Here, the act of painting a photograph of no commercial value transforms it into an object he can sell and earn a living from.
Robert Priseman
(b. 1965) A summary of his Wikipedia entry: British artist, collector, writer, curator and publisher – read Aesthetics and Art Theory at university – started his working life as a book designer – moved onto portraits – in 2004 he embarked on a thematic series of works aimed to engage the viewer in dialogue on provocative psychological and socio-political issues.
It’s interesting how where he ended up relates to what he read at university… aesthetics and art.
An intensive care unit in a hospital. Oil painting by R. Priseman, 2004.

This is obviously a painting, in a realist style… but I can’t see the point. I’ve been in hospitals, it doesn’t say anything to me. I admire it’s skill but wouldn’t want to paint or buy it.
However, his earlier portraits are much more famous, and have meaning in the way he uses the religious iconography with the modern ‘tragic superstar’. This ‘portrait’ of Amy Winehouse immediately connects with me and raises all sorts of questions about how fame has become a modern religion.

I’ve seen this and the portrait is painted like fan art, which is obviously deliberate as looking at his other work he is highly skilful.
Kathy Prendergast
(b. 1958) Irish sculptor and artist.
Lost, 1999

Computer generated inkjet print, this is number 19 of 25 and is exhibited by the Tate.
The map appears completely normal but all the place names apart from those with ‘Lost’ in them, like… Lost Creek have been removed. This completely transforms a functional objective object into a functional artistic one. It repositions our relationship with America by stripping away our comfort blanket… we are suddenly lost in a vast land mass with no way of finding help, it reconnects us to reality… there are existential questions as well as practical ones. It may even remind us of the lost Indian cultures wiped off the map by the civilised invader… or war and ownership.
It’s a concept piece involving no artistic skill… though a lot of time erasing all the place names from the map.
However, I would say it’s art because I connect with it and it makes me think.
The cartographical skill, it’s a beautiful map, are supplied by the mapmaker, and the artistic skill by Kathy Prendergast. Which raises the whole question of whether an artist needs any skill themselves or can, like an architect, buy in somebody else’s skill (the builder’s). My answer at the moment is that as long as there is skill in it if the idea comes from the artist they don’t have to physically make it – is there a parallel with medieval studios where the master painter sold under his brand and 80% of his paintings were painted by his assistants under his direction.
My take for my practice is that I can take something commonplace and artistically meaningless and turn it into art… if I have the right idea.
Tanya Wood
(No dates but she’s around 30 so was born 1989 ish) On her website she says: Tanya is a Hampshire based artist exploring the nature of being through meticulous pencil drawing.

The first thing that hits me is the lack of context, Tanya hasn’t drawn the rest of the platform. Which makes me think about how we see, and how we often don’t ‘see’ much of what’s around us. If most people saw this scene in real life they’d probably remember the row of people, and maybe one person if they stood out, and not much else. The rest of the platform would be invisible.
So, that’s one thing to take on board for this exercise is that like Victorian specimens I can ‘pin up’ one thing out of a scene and don’t always need to paint everything.
Secondly, is how all her drawings (given the sometimes impossible angles and cropping) is that she must copy photographs. No doubt there is some looseness of interpretation which stops it being merely a transcription and turns it into an art object.
Thirdly is her consummate skill… tonal monochrome.
Sadly, though I can see why people would want to own it does nothing more, and in some ways less, than a professional photograph of the same scene. I travel on the train at different times of day and am endlessly fascinated by the different people and bits of beauty or abstraction that frame themselves… and this doesn’t feed me any more than real life. There is no ‘artistic transformation’, just a mind bogglingly skilful recording.
Cornelia Parker
(born 1956) – Cornelia is best know for her large part time sculptures (she builds them for an exhibition and then takes them down, they don’t exist in reality like Rodin’s, The Thinker but in potentiality in a box… then phoenix like they are constructed for an exhibition before turning back into ashes and put back in their box.
I like the idea that you can make an artwork that you can rent out, so it’s not like an object you sell… but you keep the box of bits, and then a museum phones you up, you negotiate a price and they send a big lorry.
One of her most famous works in Mass (Colder Darker Matter) (1997), where she got all the bits from a church struck down by lightning in Texas and suspended them in mid air.

This would be fantastic to see in real life and freezing a moment you would never normally experience, like walking into an exploding church, is really cool. The dangers are sucked out but your imagination can fill in the heat and light, which is fun and novel, but has as much the feel of theme park spectacle as art.
Also, the price tag, unlike a small painting, of collecting a burnt out church in Texas, crafting it into an installation, and assembling it in a museum – like a star turns they have in the Tate Modern Turbine Hall which travel the world – is beyond the pockets of 99.9% of artists.
Very good for museum footfall I would think… and I’d go.
Maybe I could adapt this idea for Part 5 and take a decayed plant, put it back into a living position on some kind of frame as a living thing and photograph that? Then print the photograph and put that in.
It’s all about using the traces of an event, like Pollack’s drips capturing his artistic dance.
Alex Hanna
(born 1964) – his Wikipedia entry says: His paintings display arrangements of disposable packaging and objects which have little or no material value. These objects are arranged in a traditional still life format and painted using process based and traditional painting techniques.
I expected the objects to be arranged like traditional still lifes format, multiple objects in a composition, but they are not. Looking at his work there is usually just one object, like a pillow or as here, a pack of tablets. And I would say the arrangement veers much more towards geometric abstract than still life.

This is a pleasing piece much more about tonal relationships and shapes than the packaging, which is the vehicle for his true subject… which is beauty. His work reminds me of Giorgio Morandi.
Still Life, 1946
Though Morandi used colour and had an arrangement of multiple objects it has the same ‘feel’.
His more recent work seems to confirm this:

The packaging has vanished and we have an impasto monochrome abstraction.
I like his suggestive brushwork so it would be fun to paint some rubbish, or wrapping, in the same or a similar style for Part 5. Though I think for Part 5 I’d need to keep the figurative element.
James Quin
(born 1962) – He’s a member of Contemporary British Painting and has a page on their website, but the bio doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t appear to match his paintings… of which there are a wide range, and lots on paper.
So, I’m going to look at some of his paintings, find some relevant to Part 5, pick one… and comment on that.
I’m really struggling… There seems to be no consistent style, on Saatchi Art online his work is either copies of photographs of famous people or abstractions… on Contemporary British Artists I found this:
38 x 42cm, Oil on board, 2010

It’s a style I could ape.
But I can see no purpose or point to the painting… nothing to recommend it.
Archie Franks
Have clicked around and he’s obviously quite young, and successful, but there’s very little internet information about his life or approach to art.
This is where a good library and contact with tutors/librarians would come in.
‘Still life with Monster Munch’ 2016

I absolutely love the style (if not the cost implications of using that much oil paint).n The loose unformed background is perfect backcloth to the star if the moment, Mr… (musical fanfare)… Monseterrrrrr MUNCH!!!!
The clarity, the crispness, the texture working in for tonal 3D, the mix of unreadable flatness and yet it is a packet of Monster Munch.
And it looks like it’s been painted straight onto the canvas from life.
I don’t want to copy anybody’s voice but I’d love to have a go at painting something like this…
Tim Stoner
(born 1970)
I couldn’t find a useful comment on his work but he has a nice website. Looking at his recent paintings, as with all young artists, he seems to be trying on styles and process like jackets at a jumble sale (only much more classy)… each one reminds me of a string of painters, a style, a genre, and then he’ll change.
I can see Hopper, cubist, Impressionistic, Japanese prints, simplified Gaugin, fauvism, a detail from Rueil Fields by Vlaminck which I have on my wall Richard Hamilton and Patrick Caulfield. It’s very interesting to see which the OCA have picked for the course material – a very loose sketchy one from 2014 not exactly typical of his work.
The one thing they have in common is a flatness of colour, and they seem to be getting bolder and less figurative as he goes on. Maybe that’s going to be his style.
Dia de los Muertos (Casares), 2016-19, oil on linen, 204 x 245 cm

This reminds me of paired down Gaugin and he still has the empty figure he uses as a bit of a motif.
It would be fun to try and simplify my nearby environment this much.
Karen Densham
No dates but she looks young… so is definitely contemporary. She works in ceramics, sculpture, photographs, drawing, painting and videos.
Her work is not contained by a brand and is an equally mixture of fine and applied art (craft). This leads her to an awareness of the the medium and art works evolving out of the medium… so the medium being a driver as well as the idea. Her recurrent themes are function, gender, class play and the poetic which she examines speculatively.
Which is all very good but her lack of brand and speculative approach can lead to a lack of clarity and connection for the viewer.
I liked her ceramics which were playful, like pot mice with human ears but (for me) more craft than art. And I had a look at the paintings on her website.
Confession. 2014

This is like a concept driven watercolour sketch. The upside down rose and title.
I am afraid it doesn’t touch me in any way so I can’t see myself using her work.
Terry Bond
(born. 1960) I couldn’t find much but he is humorous and works mainly with the everyday world around him from which he finds/composes photographs… so sleeping silver haired granddad with a fish tank behind and a silver fishing swimming towards his open mouth… or two trees next to each other and growing symmetrically, but different species. The sort of things we see in everyday life, make us smile, but we don’t capture.
I chose one of his photographs that looked like it could be a painting because I don’t think his photographs would translate into painting, and I want to paint. I photograph quite a lot as a hobby and semi professionally taking actor head and shoulders.
I like photography but it’s not where I want to go.
Dark Matter’ 2013-14. 61 x 50 cm.

I could imagine somebody having painted this but it has no meaning or appeal for me.
Marrio Rossi
(b. 1958) He’s obviously done a lot, and he teaches at St Martin’s, but I keep bucking up against the inadequacies of the internet for research as I can’t find much about him… apart from he’s Scottish.
Here’s one of his paintings.
Mario Rossi, Red Buckets, 2005, Acrylic on canvas, 30.5 x 20.3 cm

The sky’s imbued with red and the water’s purple, the red buckets make a splash and possibly give it a concept (container lost off a ship… world transport/pollution… currents… global warming etc) but apart from the sheer skill and time it must have taken to paint it’s flat. There’s nothing that grabs the heart, soul or intellect.
Sadly, another one I’m not going to use. Though this reserach has been amazing and I’ve found some stunning artists and lots of ideas.
(b. 1963) Known as one of the Young British Artists (The YBA’s exhibited together in London from 1988). Much of his work in line with commented on consumerism and society (and used the mundane as his medium) like an installation where he set up empty market stalls, or Break Down in 2001 where he catalogued and destroyed all his 7227 worldly possessions from his car to his odd socks and then destroyed them all in industrial fashion, this brought him to the public eye.
His next artistic endeavour was a solo show in late 2002, Nourishment. This was a series of intricate botanically detailed etchings of weeds. He then returned to large installations.
The concept of using the mundane to comment on consumerism, using rubbish to create art and critique capitalism is intriguing… maybe I could use the leaflets that come through my door to make a frame for some of my art might work?
His large installations aren’t relevant, neither (for me) are his botanical illustrations – that’s not what I want to do. But to respect the fact I’ve written about him I think I should include some of his work.
Creeping Buttercup, 2002

I chose Archie Franks because his work excites me.
Like:
The energy and the impasto. The dynamic of a loose curtained background and impastoed foregrounded star. The way the essence of the object is captured and yet the form is ambiguous… how the sculptural element is used to give the subject form over textural description. And how it is powerful without being loud.
Technically I like how he’s painted straight onto the canvas and captured the impasto first time without it being sludgy.
Dislike:
There’s nothing I dislike about it.
How view own environment through their eyes:
I’m not sure I could view the whole environment but I could take elements… for me it might be Pork Scratchings and paint the taste, excitement and focus of the slaty crunchiness and golden packet.
The style could be applied to anything in my environment that had importance but who’s commercial packaging and ubiquity had rendered ordinary.
Paintings in their style:
Oil on A3 Oil paper.

Not Archie Franks but a huge step away from my usual style. Each journey begins with a step and is to move from where I am, so I’m happy with this. It has impasto and is suggestive.
Lighting the eggs with two lights doesn’t work as the eggs have two reflections and it’s confusing, and the eggs are overpainted… but in terms of the impasto box, and thin loose background I think it’s beginning to work.
It’s frustrating because I would like it to be better, but hopeful for the future.