After Bird Impressions I started working on larger paintings in opaque media as a response to different influences. I have always looked outside the wildlife art genre and admired the great painters at the beginning of the twentieth century, notably Sargent, Monet and Klimt. When I visited art galleries and museums it wasn't the delicate watercolours that stayed with me. Most often, it was the large canvasses, full of vibrant colour and texture, that I admired most. I wanted to stretch my paintings, and attempt to portray the wildlife spectacles I had witnessed, and not just the wildlife species. No number of small watercolours of birds preening and resting, no matter how well they were drawn, would convey the spectacle of masses of shorebirds, gulls and terns at a high tide roost. No small sketch could come near to capturing the clamour of gulls and shearwaters around a feeding humpback whale. Sometimes size matters. Acrylic and oil paints allow me to work on a larger scale, and edit and manipulate groups of birds with more ease than watercolour. Texture can be created by using bold brushstrokes at the initial blocking in stage, with the subsequent layers on top sometimes breaking up on the uneven surface. These techniques give an interest to the paint application and the extra body within the pigment can make for a tactile experience when using the brush. Sometimes it's as if I'm sculpting the subject with successive brushstrokes.
For some people familiar only with my watercolours these large paintings seem a shift in style, but I see them as an extension of my portfolio, and a chance to portray some of the spectacles I've had the opportunity to observe. I've been asked why I don't stick to watercolours, as these are affordable and collectable, but restrict an artist and his vision will be lost. I sometimes wonder what the great artists would make of the natural wonders that we can see nowadays. Go on; team up a past master with a wildlife spectacle - a sort of 'fantasy wildlife art' if you like. Imagine what Monet would come up with, if he went whale watching? Without stugeron, no doubt a colourful impression all over the deck - boom, boom. It may be a crass proposition (and a rich vein of humour to be tapped), but my point is a worthwhile one.
Until relatively recently, we have not had the facility for watching wildlife so intimately. With telescopes we can eavesdrop into the lives of animals and study them to a sophisticated degree, and as wildlife tourists, we can benefit from decades of field craft to get close to some of the true natural wonders of the animal kingdom. It's no surprise that lots of artists now are connecting with nature at a level that previous generations could only imagine. Further, I believe some truly gifted artists are choosing wildlife as a primary theme and working within the animal art genre.
So, am I happy with the wildlife artist label? Describe yourself as an artist and the world thinks you have a high opinion of yourself. Describe yourself as a painter and someone will offer that their dining room needs a coat of emulsion. My paintings concern my encounters with wildlife and relate to the circumstances that I viewed the subjects. For many people, this pretty much defines wildlife art, but I'd argue that it is a very human characteristic to celebrate nature, and my work documents a personal emotional and visual response to the world around us. Yet, if I'm stuck with the wildlife artist label, then I cannot complain. After all, I am an artist that, for the foreseeable future, will no doubt choose wildlife as a theme. No doubt too, that for a while to come, there will be more juggling the worlds of painting, both studio and field time, wildlife tours and oh-so important family time. At times I know the balance is not as productive as it could be, for it's a somewhat inexact discipline, but hey, it beats having a proper job. DR