Several deer grazed their way past the house this morning. I was reminded of my friend Sheila Reiman, an artist known for her colorful pastels and oils, and her many deer paintings. Sheila had an ability to see and emphasize color as only a true colorist can. One of her favorite stories involved a couple discussing one of her paintings at an art show in Texas. The woman complained that she had never seen pink deer before. The husband patiently explained that the pink was the quality of light just before the sun went down. Still, the woman persisted; she had never seen pink deer. The husband, frustrated, finally replied, "Yes, but don't you wish you had?"

Those of us who choose realism in painting walk a fine line between accepted symbolism and personal vision. Unlike a camera, which records all visual information within its field of view into a two-dimensional format, our vision is far more complicated. We experience space and depth differently; we only see detail wherever we direct our central vision; and what we see can be compromised by what we expect to see. We interpret the incoming signals into a relatively stable and coherent image, but the downside is that the process of interpretation is subject to often simple interpretations of complex and ever-changing information.

We see a red apple, for example, as always red and always "apple-shaped", not noticing the nuance of color, shape, and the variety of edges that are part of three-dimensional reality. We see ourselves as life-size when looking a mirror, but a quick measurement will prove the image in the mirror is probably closer to only one-half actual size. We see what we know.

Young children learn to recognize and create two-dimensional images representing the visual and sensory world. The symbols are simplistic in representation - grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, and apples are red. The symbols become an important part of visual recognition, a short-cut to interpretation. As adults, this Reader's Digest condensed version of reality can compromise our ability to see differently. We learn to see what we know, and the knowing often gets in the way of the seeing.

We need to learn to look beyond what we think is "real", and learn to see the quality of light, the color of shadows, the repetition of patterns, where information is lost and where it is found, and how everything is connected. We need to look beyond the idea of "local color" until we truly understand and see the possibilities of color modified by light, shadow, and other colors. We need to question not just how we see, but also, what we think we see.

Interpreting visual reality should be about exploration and not just an attempt at re-creation. The history of art is a progression of images dealing with versions of reality. Renaissance art was driven by advances in science, both in artists' materials, and in the physical sciences such as anatomy and the exploration of visible light. The Impressionists were motivated by the transitory effects of light and color. Cubists explored form and dimensional reality. Visual notation, implied reality, and abstract pattern became part of our visual language.

A drawing of a tree done by a child is not that far removed from a painting of a tree done by an adult. They both use symbolism to represent reality. The difference lies in the complexity of the visual language and the ability of the artist to organize and edit information into a personal expression. The basic elements of line, shape, value, and color are unlimited in their possibilities. They are not just tools of craft, but also creativity. When we accept how limiting our dependence on symbols can become and understand how our verbal language stymies the possibilities of visual experience, we can begin to learn to see beyond the obvious.

Art is not reality - it is a perception of an artist's reality.

Pastel by Sheila Reiman

Cottonwood by Sheila Reiman