For a few years when I was studying music in Stockholm, among the many different instruments that I learned how to play, was the double-bass. Rummaging through some old photos, I found a photo of a bass player I shot at a live gig.
As an homage to the noble instrument, I decided to try and paint my impression of what it feels like to play the bass, to walk through the chord changes, to be the instrument that holds the foundation of a piece of music, because that is what the purpose of the bass is. (Most of the time)
As a painter, one of the decisions one has to make is to decide how detailed one wants to make a painting, and this can be a struggle. What is more important? To capture the essence of something or to paint a detailed representation of it? Is it to be a photographic snapshot of an event or the experience of it?
Details, in my view, can at times prevent us from being able to see the 'bigger picture'.
(As in 'not seeing the forest for all the trees')
I am an avid reader, I prefer to read books by authors who offer me enough details to get a big picture but leaves some out in order for me to use my own imagination: "It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, the door flung open." These words provide me with enough information in order for me to conjure up all sorts of dramas, horrors, thrillers, etc. etc.
But, that's me, I am sure that there are many people who prefer more details to be included in good story telling, and perhaps also when it comes to "good" paintings.
More often than not, being a details-oriented person is viewed as good personality trait to have but is it always so I wonder?
Are there times when a penchant for details can be a hindrance?
Can a song still be great if the singer sings a wrong (not the word the lyricist used when he/she wrote the song) word? Can a portrait painting still be great even if some of the features of the person it depicts are not exactly as a photo image of the person? Can a person still be great although he/she may have some flaws in his/her character? Can a book still be great although it has some dubious passages/facts/information in it? Can a movie still be great although one of the actors in it is less than convincing? And so on......
It seems to me to be quite possible to become hung-up on a mere detail and by being so miss out on a potentially wonderful experience.
Some years ago a friend of mine came here (Australia) for a visit. I brought him to one of our wonderful beaches and urged him to join me for a swim. "But you have sharks here don't you?" he said. "Yes, there are sharks in the ocean but we have shark nets, life guards, and I have never seen one here", I answered. My friend was here for three weeks but I never managed to get him past the "little" detail of sharks, so he never ventured any further into the ocean except for to the level of his ankles.
Pfft. Such a shame. (hehe)
I guess at times when we may encounter a "detail" that in view of the bigger picture may be of less importance, it may be a good idea to let go of the detail so that perhaps something wonderful may come from us seeing beyond that detail?
Or if we can't see beyond that detail, perhaps we can find a way around it, over it, or under it?
The above painting is not supposed to be a realistic depiction of a bass player. (Worth to mention perhaps is the fact that I did not use a brush, but only a cloth to paint the painting. I first did an under- painting with a number of colours, then covered that under-painting with black paint, and when the paint was almost dry, I removed the black hue with a damp cloths to reveal the image. As a detail-oriented person, I have to say, that this was a challenge for me to do.)
I purposely left out most details and instead tried to capture a sense of a dimly lit nightclub, the air filled with music, and a man and his bass engrossed in their dance together.
In order to see the forest, we need to let go of staring at the trees.
In order to see the bigger picture, we need to let go of the smaller one.
No comments:
Post a Comment