I have always been of the opinion that painting is all about depth of field.

   Whether realism, abstraction or pure non-objective expressionism, it seems that great painting from Perugino to Pollock always accomplished the challenge of turning a two-dimensional surface into a window.

   Some of the Minimalist School sought to "acknowledge the surface of the canvas". While I can respect the intellectual aim there, the reason behind it and the results of it always seemed rather pointless. The two-dimensional surface seems to do a pretty good job of acknowledging itself. What purpose then does the painter serve?

   Monochromatic work can be brilliant in achieving depth, and given our natural and even subconsciously primal tendency to interpret depth on the basis of color, represents a noteworthy accomplishment on the part of any artist working with a monochromatic palette.

   My facination with solving the problem of understanding color is rooted in landscape observation.

   If your first love is abstraction or non-objective expressionism or even still-life, and you do not feel as if you understand as much about color as you would like, try going out on a pleasant afternoon and doing a small plein-aire landscape. Forget about detail and drawing and just mix and apply the colors you see to a small panel.

   Whether or not you ever paint another landscape in your life, I can guarantee that you will return home that evening understanding more about color and how it can be made to advance and to recede than you will learn from just about any color theory class you will ever take.

Arley