Despite
all that he has come to be known for in contemporary
painting; John Comer is an artist who escapes
classification. “There is no particular
school of painting I identify with”,
he insists, “except maybe ‘landscape
painting’ as a whole, or possibly ‘realistic
painting.’”
And
Comer’s words hold true. For many of
his viewers, subject is perhaps all that
they can decisively distinguish in Comer’s
work; he does paint on-location but also
spends much time in the studio working from
mental images and improvising as he progresses
with a painting. Comer adds: “There
is a tremendous amount of value placed in
painting on-location, but it’s not
exclusively for me.”
The
result is then a finished painting that is
resilient to a particular label both on the
principle of Comer’s unique compositional
techniques and the process by which he realizes
the piece He elaborates: “There has
been a lot of publicity glitz and romance
placed on painting plein air, but all painting
is painting no matter where it takes place.”
For
him, if various works are said to be interrelated
whatsoever, it is not by their physical similarities
but rather by the shared principles that
have propelled the artists to produce. As
an example, Comer cites an earlier movement
in painting: “The Impressionists were
all very different and, arguably, the only
binding ingredients were degrees of rebellion
to Salon painting and it’s power structure,
and even to the label “Impressionist.”
But
for all of his no-nonsensical views, the
profound relationship that he holds with
his craft can be measured at the same depth
of the passions of those pivotal, late-Nineteenth
Century painters. Naturally, painting is
a very intimate thing for Comer and he makes
personal associations with it that the viewer
simply might not be able to read in his work: “What
an artist’s path really is, it’s
to become himself. I looked at Georgia O’Keefe’s
work for years and it never bowled me over
but something kept pulling me back to it.
I finally realized that she had become herself,
and that is the highest principle anyone
can achieve.”
And
just as the common observer can easily neglect
Comer the person in his breathtaking landscape
paintings, so can Comer’s wide range
of influences and his unique relationship
to them go unnoticed as well. Certainly,
O’Keefe would not be the first artist
that one would associate with Comer, but
she like numerous others, have offered him
something very lucid and very private.
Comer
first met the versatile Julian Ritter in
1985 while living in Maui. Ritter, the father
of one of Comer’s closest friends,
also nurtured Comer’s artistic progress
for some ten years. Says Comer of Ritter: “He
was sensitive and innovative and he painted
nudes extraordinarily well…..Julian
told me that I was a landscape artist and
that I needed to study (American landscape
painter George) Inness. I said I’d
seen some of his work.” Ritter’s
response to the young Comer: “You need
to breathe it.” As a testament to Ritter’s
passion for art, Comer fondly recalls his
mentor’s consequent expulsion from
the Sistine Chapel after dropping to his
knees and “rapturously” praising
Michelangelo’s work in expletives.
And as testament to the effectiveness of
Ritter’s direction, Comer likened the
relevance of his own pilgrimage to an Inness
exhibit; “It was like the Sistine Chapel
for me.”
In
1988, Comer met Ray Strong through fellow
painter Michael Drury, and the point in Comer’s
career at which he met Strong proved to be
instrumental in furthering his development.
The artist recollects: “Ray came into
my life about the time I was becoming more
interested in making more formal compositions,
of orchestrated new compositions based on
the principles of ‘flying by the seat
of your pants.’ Dynamic symmetry, the
concept introduced by Strong, offered Comer
an antidote for compositional uncertainties.
Comer came to call this his “trump
card” and describes it as a “theoretical
organizational tool that really works well
when it’s used intuitively, maybe even
impulsively. It’s based on the idea
that symmetry is static and doesn’t
move visually, whereas asymmetry is off-balance
but does move visually.” Importantly,
this particular technique helps Comer “pull
all of those man-made forms like roads, buildings,
cars, and land and sea forms into a cohesive
whole.”
In
addition to the creative energy that he draws
from Strong, perhaps the most important trait
that they have in common is what Comer describes
as a “feel for the natural world.” He
recalls: “I’ve seen Ray in his
studio with his eyes closed, waiving outstretched
hands, divining what the clouds are doing
in a clearing wind.” And for Comer,
this liberty of Strong’s has made a
great impact on him: “Ray gives everyone
permission to be himself. Think of that.
No pressure. Just feel it and paint it.”
Comer’s
other mentors throughout the years have left
him with the various impressions that he
still carries with him today. He remembers
how his high school and college instructors “would
offer cryptic remarks at times, things I
wouldn’t understand until years later.” And
still, after considerable success, Comer
insists, “it was all true. When you’re
lost, you hold onto every scrap of information
you can.
