Experienced painters are often confronted with the problem of what to do with their early works whose originally unnoticed flaws have become more obvious with the passage of time.

Some professionals suggest the slash-and-burn option which consists in carrying out literally what the words mean. One should get rid of anything that could blot one's otherwise brilliant portfolio. Some artists already held in high esteem find this a sensible solution to avoid damage to their reputation or a plunge in their market-value. But, in this age when the dividing line between mediocrity and excellence in art appears to be non-existent, this suggestion seems extreme.

The majority, of course, recommend keeping them as is. One should not be ashamed of one's humble beginnings. If anything, early works are testaments to the artist's hard-fought struggles to achieve perfection or fitting preludes to a story with a happy ending. This is fine as long as one is willing to be reminded constantly of one's previous mistakes.

A few propose a third option: extreme makeover. Old paintings need not be discarded and one need not be stuck with past mistakes for the rest of one's life. Defective paintings can easily be improved with minor retouches or rescued with a complete paintover. Houses are renovated, articles are rewritten, and wrinkled faces are ironed out; there's no reason why paintings should not undergo the same corrective measures.

I think this is all up to the painter's choice, a matter of taste, if you will. Personally, I wouldn't consign an old artwork to the bin no matter how imperfect it might be, but, neither would I just sit idly by if I have the time to rid it of its shortcomings.

Lately, as I was rummaging through my collection, I couldn't help but notice the glaring defects of some of my early paintings. At the time of their completion, I considered them masterpieces, but, having gained more criteria during all these years, I now feel like locking them in the closet forever.

At some point recently, while waiting for inspiration for a new painting to pop up in my mind, I decided to reanimate these lifeless paintings instead.

This still life with silverware is one of them. I painted this in 2003 in The Netherlands using some household items as main elements - yellow-blue throw pillows, a silver jug, a sugar holder, a salt shaker, a mini-vase, etc. The small ceramic white houses with dark green roofs were KLM freebies with liquor content.

I really find no major problem with this piece. Likeness is not an issue. It's in the composition where the uncertainty creeps in. My goal then was to portray some neutral metals against a backdrop of colorful fabrics, hoping the contrast would make the silverware stand out. It's now doubtful whether this is indeed what happens when this painting is viewed. I now feel the yellow background is so intense that there is no way the observer's attention will not be trapped in there from the very first moment.

A change of background and slight modifications in form and perspective will certainly remedy the situation.

The following are some of the stages of the transformation.

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

Stage 6

Stage 7

Final Stage

The focus of this still life is the circular area enclosing portions of the silver jug, sugar holder, glass of wine and wine bottle. After the makeover, there is a stronger chance the viewer's attention will gravitate more to this main center of interest. The other items are also interesting but not too interesting so as to compete with the focal point. And, there is greater harmony, unity, variety and balance in terms of form, color and perspective.

After this project, I am no longer compelled to junk this painting. I am sure it still has flaws that are not so obvious to me now. But, I can always come back and give it another facelift if necessary.

Step-by-step Progress

 

 

Munting Nayon News Magazine