I paint flowers because they are somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between still objects and live models. I don’t want to paint live models anymore at this point because I can’t escape empathy with the model. I don’t want to paint inert things because I want to sense the breathing and movement of things, I like the natural organic forms over the human made ones. Flowers are a great compromise for where I am in my painting process. With flowers I can concentrate on colors, forms, movement and energy, which I want to combine in my paintings. Flowers allow me to navigate more freely on the spectrum of object identity (I am not a botanical specialist so I am free). Flowers allow me to work with the elements and the big picture at the same time (bouquets can be considered a sum of flowers or multiple individual flowers, and I alternate between the two experiences). Flowers are colors and shapes by themselves (reminds me of Matisse). Flowers are a great excuse for experimenting with paint handling (various textures). Flowers have other dimensions, which is great on a synesthetic standpoint (smell, symbol, esthetics..). Finally, flowers allow me to reflect on empathy, which is my relationship with what I am looking at, whether it is a human being or a thing. I have more empathy with a human body than with a vase, but I do have some intermediate level with living things like trees and flowers. Thus, while painting flowers, I can navigate on my own spectrum of empathy in regards to painting in general. Empathy fascinates me: how it works, how we can ‘t resist to it, how it affects how I see and how I paint, from the visual integration of information to the output of the touch of the hand. It is a core question in my neuroesthetic quest. Bouquets are complex enough in terms of structure and color to fulfill my needs of multidimensional paintings. I develop both my sensorial and analytical approach of painting, in a way that is finally relevant to me because I care about both dimensions. 

 “The fact that for a long time Cubism has not been understood and that even today there are people who cannot see anything in it means nothing. I do not read English, an English book is a blank book to me. This does not mean that the English language does not exist. Why should I blame anyone but myself if I cannot understand what I know nothing about?" -Pablo Picasso.

It is easier and faster to look at a painting that looks like the subject matter. It is harder to appreciate a painting where the abstract qualities themselves are the subject matter. I would like to investigate that further.

Close observation implies rendering onto the paper what the painter sees in nature, whether this is human figure, still life or landscape. The nature of the subject matter, and thereby the genre of painting, influences the way the painter observes it and renders it. Painting from observation requires grasping abstract qualities from the subject matter, as a fundamental principle. Looking at a human figure in an abstract way may be particularly challenging, due to the nature of the subject matter and our physiologic empathy with it. Some theories suggest that the human brain has been positively reinforced during evolution to recognize a face instantly for what it is. From the other side of the mirror, some visual tracking studies have shown that the viewer preferentially looks at the eyes, then the mouth then the rest of the face and its surroundings when looking at a figure painting. Compared with figure models, still lives and landscape subject matters are less stereotypical. Therefore the viewer looks at them from a more global and a specific perspective, and may concentrate on the abstract qualities themselves more easily.

I think that the same is valid from the painter’s point of view: it is more challenging for a painter to free him/herself from object identity and focus on abstract qualities when painting a human figure versus a still life or a landscape. It requires a different effort, led by a willingness to go beyond realism, and that should be teachable by experience.

​“The fact that for a long time Cubism has not been understood and that even today there are people who cannot see anything in it means nothing. I do not read English, an English book is a blank book to me. This does not mean that the English language does not exist. Why should I blame anyone but myself if I cannot understand what I know nothing about?" -Pablo Picasso.

Neuroesthetics. I have a hard time pronouncing this word. When I do, they all make me repeat, spell out, clarify. I am still working on a convincing elevator pitch. Instead I find myself giving examples of studies of neuroesthetics. Like the pigeons who are able to differentiate the paintings of Monet from Picasso and make us question the specificities of the human artistic brain; or Mona Lisa whose lips appear to be smiling or not depending on whether we use our peripheral or central vision to look at her mouth. 

However I don’t do pigeons nor do I work on retina. What I do instead is trying to merge my whole experience as an artist with my neurology knowledge. When I started to be seriously involved with experienced artists, I was surprised by their ability to describe visual phenomena or concepts, using a vocabulary foreign to me. Initially I thought it was a gap in my own English vocabulary (English not being my primary language). But it soon appeared to me that they had in fact developed their own vocabulary to describe their own complex and mature visual experience. I could easily understand some of these notions, for example “analytical” versus “intuitive”. But they were also using unusual terms like “sensate” instead of “sensory”, which was confusing to me as a neurologist. They were questioning contraries like “abstract” versus “representational” work, while I initially thought I kind of knew what it meant. They were also describing with a lot of assertiveness certain subtle nuances like “object identity” versus “imagery”. With a bit of training I was able to grasp and adopt all these terms in my own vocabulary, and link them to my own knowledge of how the brain works, it was just a matter of translation, at least initially. 

Then, as I was becoming a dedicated artist myself, I experienced and felt these concepts in a much more personal way. I played with them when practicing, extending my intuition, refining my analysis, or developing my personal sense of color, manipulating hues and values. I ended up understanding what they meant better, and learned how to read and speak the visual language.

I am convinced that painting needs a brain. I am with Prof Zeki on that. Eyes, limbs and fingers can help too but without the brain they are useless. Even the most emotional or intuitive phenomena originate at some point from the nervous system. Observing and listening to painters advance our understanding of how the nervous system works. I also think that a certain degree of neurological awareness can inform the painter. That is why I am now focusing on neuroesthetics, and I do it primarily from an inspiring place: as a painter.

My two dear colleagues from studio 346 will participate in MOS at the same time as I will. Check them out online, their paintings are strong:
Susan Aulik and Louise Victor