( 그림 공부 ) Realism 에 대한 생각- Carolyn Anderson

Carolyn Anderson, "Backstage Dancer," 18 x 14 in.

 

아침에 Carolyn Anderson 이란 미국 여류화가의 Realism 에 대한 의미있는 글을 읽고 글과 그녀의 그림을 옮긴다.

사실 내가 야외에 나가서 그림을 그리는 스타일도 Realism 이지만 카메라로 사진을 찍은 것이 아니고 내 눈에 보이는

그리고 내가 해석해서 그리는 것인데 어떻게 하면 더 회화적으로 멋지게 Realism을 구사하는가에 대해서

다시 한번 생각해 보는 계기가 된다.

 

( Realism Today Newsletter of March 28.2023에서 발췌된 내용으로 원문은 맨 뒤에 옮기고 한글 번역은

내가 번역하기 귀찮아서 구글 번역을 그대로 옮긴다. 여기저기 어설픈 번역이 있지만 대충 내용을 이해하는데는

큰 문제가 없을 듯 하니 ㅎㅎ )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

회화에서 사실주의를 선택하는 사람들은 수용된 상징주의와 개인적 비전 사이에서 미세한 선을 긋습니다. 그것은 

우리가 주변 세계를 인식하고 해석하는 방식의 한계를 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

오늘 아침에 사슴 몇 마리가 집 앞을 스쳐지나갔다. 나는 그녀의 다채로운 파스텔과 오일, 그리고 그녀의 많은 사슴 그림으로 유명한 예술가인 내 친구 Sheila Reiman이 생각났습니다. Sheila는 진정한 컬러리스트만이 할 수 있는 색상을 보고 

강조하는 능력이 있었습니다. 그녀가 가장 좋아하는 이야기 중 하나는 텍사스의 아트 쇼에서 그녀의 그림 중 하나에 

대해 토론하는 부부와 관련이 있습니다. 그 여자는 분홍 사슴을 본 적이 없다고 불평했습니다. 남편은 분홍색이 해가 

지기 직전의 빛의 성질이라고 참을성 있게 설명했습니다. 그래도 여자는 버텼다. 그녀는 분홍색 사슴을 본 적이 

없었습니다. 실망한 남편은 마침내 이렇게 대답했습니다. "예, 하지만 갖고 싶지 않으세요?"

 

Carolyn Anderson, “Three Yellow Birds,” 10 x 10 in.

회화에서 사실주의를 선택하는 사람들은 수용된 상징주의와 개인적 비전 사이에서 미세한 선을 긋습니다. 시야 내의 

모든 정보를 2차원 형식으로 기록하는 카메라와 달리 우리의 시각은 훨씬 더 복잡합니다. 우리는 공간과 깊이를 다르게 

경험합니다. 우리는 중심 비전을 향하는 곳마다 세부 사항만 봅니다. 그리고 우리가 보는 것은 우리가 기대하는 것에 

의해 타협될 수 있습니다. 들어오는 신호를 안정적이고 일관된 이미지로 해석하지만 단점은 해석 프로세스가 종종 

복잡하고 끊임없이 변화하는 정보의 단순한 해석에 종속된다는 것입니다.

아이들은 시각적 세계를 나타내는 2차원 이미지를 인식하고 만드는 법을 배웁니다. 생성된 기호는 표현이 지나치게 단순화되었습니다. 잔디는 녹색, 하늘은 파란색, 태양은 노란색, 사과는 빨간색입니다. 기호는 일반적이고 2차원적이며 3차원 

현실을 암시하는 가장자리 변형이 부족합니다. 우리는 차례로 시각적 현실의 압축된 버전인 "사물" 또는 사물의 상징을 

봅니다. 우리가 보고 있는 것을 정확하게 정량화하는 능력은 우리가 배운 지름길로 인해 손상됩니다. 우리는 우리가 

아는 것을 보는 법을 배우고, 아는 것이 종종 보는 것을 방해합니다.

예를 들어 빨간 사과는 항상 붉고 항상 "사과 모양"이며 색상의 뉘앙스, 모양 및 3차원 현실의 일부인 다양한 모서리를 

인식하지 못합니다. 우리는 거울을 볼 때 실제 크기로 자신을 보지만 빠른 측정을 통해 거울에 비친 이미지는 실제 

크기의 절반에 불과하다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 우리는 우리가 알고 있는 것과 우리가 보기를 기대하는 것을 봅니다.

예를 들어, 정물화를 그리려면 개체 이름을 지정하는 맥락에서 정보를 가져오고 각 부분이 다른 부분에 의해 정의되는 

전체 시각적 관계를 볼 수 있어야 합니다. 예를 들어, 그것은 더 이상 사과와 오렌지가 아니라 새롭고 다른 실체인 

"정물화"입니다. 그래야만 정물화의 현실을 진정으로 묘사하는 시각적 정보를 실제로 찾고 배울 수 있습니다. 

우리는 빛의 질, 그림자의 색, 패턴의 반복, 정보가 손실된 위치와 찾을 위치를 볼 수 있어야 합니다. 우리는 빛, 

그림자 및 기타 색상에 의해 수정된 색상의 가능성을 진정으로 이해하고 볼 때까지 지역 색상의 개념을 넘어 볼 

필요가 있습니다.

리얼리즘을 추구하는 과정에서 우리는 실제라고 생각하는 것 이상을 살펴보고 실제로 우리의 현실을 설명하는 

시각적 정보에 접근해야 합니다. 우리는 우리가 보는 방식뿐만 아니라 우리가 본다고 생각하는 것에 대해서도 

질문해야 합니다. 시각적 현실을 해석하는 것은 탐구에 관한 것이어야 하며 학습된 재창조에 대한 시도가 아닙니다. 

예술의 역사는 현실의 버전을 다루는 이미지의 진행입니다. 인상파는 빛과 색의 문제를 다루었고 입체파는 모양을 

다루었습니다. Sargent는 시각적 표기법과 암시적 현실의 대가였으며 Fechin과 다른 러시아 거장들은 추상 패턴의 

힘을 탐구했습니다. 좋은 예술은 관찰과 강력한 시각적 요소에 달려 있습니다.

 

Carolyn Anderson, “Frank Hagel,” 14 x 11 in

시각적 정보를 보고 비교하는 방법을 배우는 것은 성장과 탐색의 과정이 됩니다. 아이가 그린 나무 그림은 어른이 

그린 나무 그림과 크게 다르지 않다. 둘 다 상징주의를 사용하여 현실을 나타냅니다. 차이점은 시각적 언어의 복잡성과 

뉘앙스와 변화를 인식하고 풍부한 정보를 개인의 표현으로 구성하고 편집하는 예술가의 능력에 있습니다.

시각적 언어, 선, 모양, 가치, 색상의 기본 요소는 그 가능성이 무한합니다. 그것들은 단순한 공예 도구가 아니라 

창의성이기도 합니다. 상징에 대한 우리의 의존이 얼마나 제한될 수 있는지 받아들이고 우리의 언어가 시각적 경험의 

가능성을 어떻게 방해하는지 이해할 때, 우리는 명백한 것 이상을 보는 법을 배우기 시작할 수 있습니다. 

예술은 현실이 아니라 예술가의 현실에 대한 인식입니다. 예술은 사실 보는 것이 전부입니다.

 

Carolyn Anderson, “Father’s Morning,” 14 x 11 in

 

( original text )

Those of us who choose realism in painting walk a fine line between accepted symbolism and personal vision. It helps to understand the limitations of how we perceive and interpret the world around us.

by Carolyn Anderson

Several deer grazed their way past the house this morning. I was reminded of my friend Sheila Reiman, an artist known for her colorful pastels and oils, and her many deer paintings. Sheila had an ability to see and emphasize color as only a true colorist can. One of her favorite stories involved a couple discussing one of her paintings at an art show in Texas. The woman complained that she had never seen pink deer before. The husband patiently explained that the pink was the quality of light just before the sun went down. Still, the woman persisted. She had never seen pink deer. The husband, frustrated, finally replied, “Yes, but don’t you wish you had?”

 

Those of us who choose realism in painting walk a fine line between accepted symbolism and personal vision. Unlike a camera, which records all information within its field of view into a two-dimensional format, our vision is far more complicated. We experience space and depth differently; we only see detail wherever we direct our central vision; and what we see can be compromised by what we expect to see. We interpret the incoming signals into a stable and coherent image, but the downside is that the process of interpretation is subject to often simple interpretations of complex and ever-changing information.

Children learn to recognize and create two-dimensional images representing the visual world. The symbols created are oversimplified in representation – grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, and apples are red. The symbols are generic, two-dimensional, and lack edge variation suggesting three-dimensional reality. We, in turn, see the “thing” or the symbol for the thing, a condensed version of visual reality. Our ability to accurately quantify what we are seeing is compromised by the shortcuts we have learned. We learn to see what we know, and the knowing often gets in the way of the seeing.

We see a red apple, for example, as always red and always “apple-shaped,” not noticing the nuance of color, shape, and the variety of edges that are part of three-dimensional reality. We see ourselves as life-size when looking in a mirror, but a quick measurement will prove the image in the mirror is closer to only one-half actual size. We see what we know and what we expect to see.

Painting a still life, for example, requires being able to take the information out of the context of naming objects and seeing the visual relationships as a whole, each part defined by the other. No longer is it an apple and orange, for example, but a “still life” – a new and different entity. Only then can we actually look for and learn to see the visual information that truly describes the reality of the still life. We need to be able to see the quality of light, the color of shadows, the repetition of patterns, and where information is lost and where it is found. We need to look beyond the idea of local color until we truly understand and see the possibilities of color modified by light, shadow, and other colors.

In our quest for realism, we need to look beyond what we think is real and access the visual information that actually describes our reality. We need to question not just how we see, but also what we think we see. Interpreting visual reality should be about exploration and not just an attempt at learned re-creation. The history of art is a progression of images dealing with versions of reality. The Impressionists dealt with issues of light and color, while the Cubists dealt with shapes. Sargent was a master of visual notation and implied reality, while Fechin and other Russian masters explored the power of abstract pattern. Good art is dependent on observation and strong visual elements.

 

Learning to see and compare visual information becomes a process of growth and exploration. A drawing of a tree done by a child is not that far removed from a painting of a tree done by an adult. They both use symbolism to represent reality. The difference lies in the complexity of the visual language and the ability of the artist to perceive nuance and variation and to organize and edit that wealth of information into a personal expression.

The basic elements of visual language, line, shape, value, and color are unlimited in their possibilities. They are not just tools of craft, but also creativity. When we accept how limiting our dependence on symbols can become and understand how our verbal language stymies the possibilities of visual experience, we can begin to learn to see beyond the obvious. Art is not reality – it is a perception of an artist’s reality. Art, really, is all about seeing.