I seem to be caught in the battle of the two impulses when trying to find subject matter for my paintings.
1. to paint from observation of 3d subjects, the impulse to use "real life" as a vehicle for emotion in paint
There's a romantic appeal to going out into the wilderness (could also be the "wilderness" of Quadra Village ;). I have had good experiences with responding / reacting with my paint brush when working from nature. I have also enjoyed still lifes in the past when I was really into Cezanne. The reason I resist going in that direction is because of the "so what" factor: everyday objects and scenes are pretty boring. Also, because I've been warped by art school (sort of kidding) I'm looking for "the big idea" that will launch a thousand works. The small ideas aren't worth the time and energy.
On the other hand, I can see myself giving this direction a try because of the same reasons, just the other side of the coin. Like the challenge that Cezanne made "I want to astonish Paris with an apple."
2. using 2d images as a vehicle for emotion in paint. questioning what is "real life", also for more formal concerns, helps to free myself from the tyranny of the image.
This direction I feel is more in line with "the big idea." I can see it appealing to the intellectual aspect of art appreciation. The downside is that it may lack the spark that would draw a viewer to the work and may seem cold and distant. Also, the flip-side being a good reason to try this vein.
ugh! it's just in my nature to be two minds about everything.
Here's an astonishing apple(s)