Tim Widener, Fine Artist

In searching for an “ism” that best describes my method and technique I have, for the past several weeks, emersed myself in other painting modes–past and present–that bear some similarities to my own.  It is true that no two artists paint the same way, but may share the same ideology.  This, to me, is paramount when trying to encapsulate one’s personal working methodology.  I am not trying to establish a “rule” system, feeling strongly that it should not be present in current art traditions. I do believe that an artist should at least have some commitment to a doctrine that does describe his motives for applying paint.  How else is one to establish goals for future growth?  How could one defend his work, or even talk about what is important to him as an artist?  For me, it is not enough to say “I just paint the way I feel at the time”.  What does that mean, anyway?  Is one to simply say “Today I feel like doing something with blue because the sun is hidden behind clouds” ?  Whether that works for some I don’t know, or much less care these days.  But I do believe one is selling oneself short when that road is taken.  An artist must know where he has been and where he is going, what his current beliefs are and left open to inspirations that may stimulate new growth.  I have often said that without change there can be no growth, but should qualify this to read change comes from growth and not growth from change!  This is so important to understand I encourage everyone to read and then re-read that line.  When an artist moves in different directions it is because he has grown beyond the old ones.  It should never be said that an artist changes his modis-operandi out of boredom or failure to master his current method of describing form.

For this reason I have here attempted to describe a somewhat new direction in painting.  I has its roots in tonal painting for the reason that the Tonalists did not abandon form but rather embraced it.  However, I cannot dismiss the Impressionists for it was they who described a spectral palette and its application on canvas.  Nature was now seen to be colour translated directily as light.  This is the closest to the way I paint historically.  There are differences, of course, and that is why I call my method new, or at least a new way of describing what I see and feel.  It is more than Tonal-Impressionism, because besides using colour to describe form as tonal representations of various degrees of light, I also employ subjectively to move the veiwing individual.  In this way representation can “transcend” itself in the mind of the on-looker, letting the artist surpase objective realism as pure mood.  This is why I cannot call myself an Impressionist, or Tonalist or any other previous “ism”.  What I am doing and will continue to persue has historical base but no current precedent.  When one treads new waters there is the possibility of triumph as well as danger of total failure.  However, that is where each of us should dare if we desire to scale upwards.  For now, I will call what I do Tonal-Spectralism, because I define colour less as dealing with the surface of things but rather with light, and colour harmony (subjective colour) to form the basis of visual mood.  I will continue to up-date these notations and try to cite some interesting historic parallels when they become available.  Tim Widener (Mar. 2009)