I’m sure that this is not the first time on which I’ve remarked on the perpetual and recurring problem of artists, namely, the question of what to call a work. Titles can be the bane of one’s life. It isn’t so bad if you are into portraiture, when the name of one’s sitter is enough. Places can be a high road to success also. I’m sure that Heaton Cooper never hesitated for long over what to call one of his superb Lake District views. Trees, however, are a bit more tricky.
My last four images have all been studies of trees, and they are sitting up on the pin-board in the studio, grimly nameless. I’m not even sure what species they are, and in any case there is no point in calling a picture Beech, unless one is making a particular point about the distinctive features of beeches. What (I try to remind myself) was the point of any of these images? Well: I know that in each case I was witnessing something of an “event”.
As we were finishing our game of Scrabble tonight, however, one possibility popped into my head. I think that I will entitle one of them The Odd Couple. It depicts two trees, growing very close to each other so that they almost seem to be springing from the same roots. Nevertheless, they appear to be of completely contrasted characters. One is straight and erect, but its neighbour is gnarled and distorted and inclined at a steep angle. It seems to me that there is an undoubtedly close relationship here, despite the difference. They are not just adjacent to each other: somehow they belong together.
Well: that’s one down. Three to go!
iDespite this difficulty I have to say that it is the most enormous relief to be back painting again. It is hard to explain, but when I am not painting I really do feel lost, or in some sense “hollowed out”.