James Faure Walker at digital surface

CASE STUDY

Context

1. Work

I have been incorporating computer graphics into painting since 1988. I work with both physical and digital paint, playing on the contrast between the two. Alongside this visual work I have written on this theme, making the case for understanding digital art as an extension of the art of painting.

2. Process

Part of my job as a painter is to take in what I see around me, to observe and understand, even aimlessly. So I take photos, and I also draw quite a lot – storing images for future use. Much of the time my ‘drawings’ are ‘abstract’. Some are made with digital paint, some with watercolour or oil paint. Switching between these different modes keeps me on my toes when making paintings.

3.Digital

Another part of the job is what I would call visual engineering: making an image that works as efficiently as possible. Of course this begs the question, what it means for it to ‘work’. It is not a question that I can answer convincingly, except by saying that if you work at this every day, and immerse yourself in the discipline for a few decades, then you may pick up a few clues – if you are lucky. As to questions about how painting, or print, digital or otherwise, sits amidst so many other digitally mediated images – mobiles, iPods, TVs – I leave this to wiser minds. I don’ think it is an either/or. Clearly, there can be something distinctive about painting, irrespective of whether it is digital or not. It doesn’t need to be souped up, animated, excessively thick or thin, to hit the mark. It can sit quite still. It can suggest movement. It can trick the eye with clever illusions. By making the digital part invisible and seamlessly part of ‘painting and observing’, you can catch the viewer off guard. I had a large painting on show in Trafalgar Square, London, in October 2007. No one mentioned it was ‘digital’.

4. Surface

I would not normally think about surface at all. Not in the sense of isolating it from a long list of factors: such as colours, type of paint, type of brush or brushes, time frame, size of image, possible sources, light, complexity, direction of movement, distribution of accents, and so on. At a basic level I would be sure to use canvas, paper or printing paper that functioned as I wanted it to– I prefer Saunders watercolour HP 90lb because it buckles a bit when wet. I do not feel that because an image, or piece is worked out ‘on the computer’ – through a Wacom and using Painter X in my case, sometimes on screen sometimes via a projector – it is more or less ‘personal’, or personalized, than if it originated on paper. Nor do I think it maters one way or the other that traces of brush on canvas leave literal ‘marks’. Generally speaking, painting that makes a fetish of marks and surface – late School of Paris – doesn’t ring my bell. (Tapies is one huge exception.)

For more on some of this, see: James Faure Walker, ‘Painting the Digital River: How an Artist Learned to Love the Computer’ (Prentice Hall, USA, 2006). Some of the history, and process is also described at: http://www.dam.org/faure-walker/index.htm

Piece of Work:

Godwin

1. Size.

The size was fixed because it was a recycled stretcher of 60” x 70” (152 x 178 cms). With drawings/paintings originating in a paint program I determine the proportions, and size (e.g. in inches) at the outset, but can, of course, change this proportion, size, resolution, file size according to need. I use set sizes for watercolours and drawings, which feature as sources in this painting.

2. Surface

As mentioned before, I would not consider the surface in isolation. For every painting, digital piece, I begin with a ground colour, and some consideration of the requisite absorbency required (acrylic and oil-based grounds differ in this respect). The behaviour of paint and brush can also be fine-tuned in a paint program.

3. Factors about Surface

For my own proofs, and smaller size prints (up to 17” (43 cms) in width) I use my Epson Stylus Pro 4000, and use the standard Epson Smooth Fine Art Paper on a roll. Sometimes I work with a piece through several months without it ever being printed. As to the way the painting evolves, I am not aware of thinking much about surface, or surface quality. Other questions, such as what would solve compositional problem A or B, or bring out colour scheme C, are what hold my attention. I do not mind the painting having a printed, impersonal look.

4. Contrast digital, non-digital

I shall allude to the interdependency of all this by describing some of the stages of this painting.

(1) July: Two previous paintings had become clogged up and lacked a clear light. Having thought about a colour scheme of orange and green, and which brush to use, a few broad lines to feel out the space.
(2) August: After experimenting (digitally, and through a projector) with a dozen or so possible designs, drawings, photos, that might be superimposed, I opt for a zeppelin launch photo I used in Sept 2005. I have several similar paintings on the go, and at the time I had an early aviation theme worked out for each of them. In fact, none have ended up with that being at all explicit.
(3) September: Having transcribed the image, suitably reduced, in white, so that it is no more than a visual murmur, I try out possible variations, some with cut-up watercolour fragments.
(4) October: I add further components, some form ‘digital’ drawings, some from watercolour drawings, such as the tree/hand form which appears in the top right.
(5) I notice the whole painting has an Arts and Crafts feel to it. I have been researching drawing books of that period.
(6) November: I am troubled by the overall design, and know adding further similar components cannot pop it into shape. I have some polystyrene packing pieces (from IKEA), which I use to make temporary ‘drawings’ – this is another studio routine. I realise that some of the patterns I have been playing around with might do the job. Without thinking about it, I figure out on screen the precise position of the tree motif and transcribe it.

The painting looks like it might be done. Godwin will be the temporary title, after that fabulous sideboard in the V&A.