Since Cezanne, there has been a tension in painting between academic rendering of the subject in the Renaissance tradition and expressionistic direct painting that "respects" the materiality of the paint and the picture plane. That is of courwse too sinmpmed and in time, I hope to post notes from a humongous book on this topic called Cezanne and Beyond.

The tensions I'm interested in are between the closure that happens when a painting is "resolved" and the degree of openness required to invite the viewers into "completing" the work in their imaginations. I have killed many poaitniungs by leaving no air, no unanswered questions and such consummately "completed" paintings sometimes repel me as much as I can appreciate their technique.

So far, this painting from last year is the closest to what I have in mind for the tolerable degree of unfinish. It has all the information it needs. It's ambiguous but also iconic. The paint handling is good but not "seductive".

My problem is that this level of directness and simplicity runs against my equal desire for lush, intricate, baroque and sometimes wild paintings.