What Painting Is

Dear Prospective Readers: I just finished rereading "What Painting Is." It is a wonderful book! The first time I read it years ago, I liked it a lot, but this second time it hit my heart harder. I suppose the knowledge and experience I have accumulated since my first reading have made me that much more sensitive to what Elkins had to say about painting. In particular, I think he precisely describes how a painter's thoughts transmute the paint into something other than grease, and more importantly, how the paint and the process of painting transmute the painter's thoughts. I take for granted at times that paint is changed from something liquid to something solid when it dries; thus making immutable these otherwise fluid and transient transmutations. The Painter's Stone! Thanks for reminding me about this Dr. Elkins. The book's chapter about the psychosis of the studio was very meaningful to me, especially the section about how painting could be interpreted as --pardon me--masturbatory or `incestuous' because it cannot help being so self-referential. I can remember when I was a student how hard critiques were to take because of how close I was to my work. I must confess, I still find criticism hard to take even though it is often in a context that is meant to be constructive! From my student days I remember my work being criticized for being `self-indulgent' because my painting surfaces got so thick and clotted. I was a huge fan of those thickly painted, black and white heads by Auerbach and Kossoff, done early in their careers. I still struggle with this to this day, regardless of whether I work in oil or casein. Last, the chapter on steplessness really got me, too. As I understand it, `steplessness' refers to the impossibility of there being steps-to-make-a-painting. Dr. Elkins legitimately casts doubt as to whether even the old masters from the Renaissance-first half of the 19th century actually worked in steps and had a formula. Moreover, Dr. Elkins dashes--rightly I think--the hopes of there being a formula to making a masterpiece. Understanding painting in steps seems like a non-painter's understanding of how a painting is made, when in actuality the best-laid plans often go awry and become chaotic once a painting gets underway! I apologize for the length of this note. I write it with some nervousness because, I must confess, I don't think I'm much of a writer! At any rate I feel "What Painting Is" is marvelous as well as brilliant. It so eloquently describes the painting process and thoughts from a painter's perspective. After reading this book, a non-painter or someone who is not at all involved in art, would have insight into what painters do and how they think `through substances.' I'm going to make "What Painting Is" required reading for my painting students. Also, I will buy copies for my brother-a dentist, my mom-a former high school English teacher, my dad-a retired high school algebra teacher, and my wife-a

I have been painting for nearly 20 years and this is the first book that I have encountered that has accurately described the material act of painting itself from a painter's perspective. I agree to some extent with other reviewers who complained that the discussions of alchemy were too long and obscure. However, in an age of digital images this foray into obsolete and arcane mucking about is absolutely necessary to explain why paint remains a vital medium. Even without the metaphoric parallels between painting and alchemy, delving into the alchemists kitchen seems like an excellent introduction into the mind of a painter. I have one serious reservation about this book: I do not think that it would be useful for inexperienced painters. It is all too easy to be utterly seduced by the descriptions of lush thickets of paint and exquisite glazes. These must remain a means to greater understanding rather than an end in themselves. Elkins is aware of the problem and devotes a later chapter to self-reference and narcissism. I am keen to try this book out on non-painting friends to see what impression it makes on them...

Elkins uses alchemy to interpret and read paintings. It sounds strange, but the way he explains it using such an odd device helped me to expand the way I think about art and paintings. It also is a book about paint- not conceptual or computer art or even theory. It is more concerned with the physical act of pushing paint, the solid matter of pigment, and the artisan-like way a painter opperates in the studio. If youre a person who is interested in the hands-on experience in art, and like thinking about new ideas, this book will be a lot of fun. If you dont like getting your hands dirty, you may want to look elsewhere.

The central premise of the title arises from the authors assertions that Painting and Alchemy are linked. It dealt with the notions of how painting like the scientifically naive Alchemy is rife with guesswork. No joke. It compares (as one of many examples) certain passages of Monet's paintings with the sort of haphazard experimentation that goes on in Alchemy. This is a well-researched book as far as I can tell, but then again I'm no expert on Alchemy.*pause* The book attempts to educate the forlorn and lost artist/art student such as myself on the lost pseudo-science of Alchemy.*pause* I had arrived at the idea that painting and alchemy are analogous in my own artwork; which led me to this book.*pause* I cannot stress enough in this review the extent to which he uses the Alchemy/Painting contrast as a springboard to jump into a bastardized survey course on the history of Alchemy. If you want a speculative art book that attempts to concentrate on the physical act of painting (as opposed to art history & criticism of content) this maybe worth checking out. I do have reservations about the book. Elkins compared the painter's studio to a 'jailhouse' and ascribed to painting self-reflexive connotations of the painted picture. The notions of a painters awkward methods of experimenting with media and it's spiritual connection are liken to the arcane pre-sciencitfic experiments of an Alchemists laboratory. "What painting is" really helps a student or artist ponder their personal feelings toward the actual experience of painting rather than the intellectual side of the content. Recommended simply because this book is really a new type of art book that concentrates a descriptive position paper around the actual activity involved in a favorite artistic media- Not AN ARTSPEAK book, coffee table glossy, "how-to" or technical manual!The only possible negatives: It can drag on a bit when dealing with "Alchemical history". It can be slavish to the metaphorical relationship of painting to alchemy to a fault, at the expense of discussing the working life of a painter... Bare in mind that the author mentions the life of a painter is lived in oils.

This is a serious book for painters. If you are having a problem with what or why you're painting, this book may help. It seeks to explain painting from a truly unique viewpiont. Elkins does an excellent job. A fasinating book. An intellectual exercise.