My aim in painting has always been the most exact transcription possible of my most intimate impression of nature.
If you could say it in words there would be no reason to paint.
Maybe I am not very human - what I wanted to do was to paint sunlight on the side of a house.
What I wanted to do was to paint sunlight on the side of a house.
If I had the energy, I would have done it all over the county.
More of me comes out when I improvise.
No amount of skillful invention can replace the essential element of imagination.
Great art is the outward expression of an inner life in the artist, and this inner life will result in his personal vision of the world.
The only real influence I've ever had is myself.
In general it can be said that a nation's art is greatest when it most reflects the character of its people.
It's (the lack of communication between the people in his paintings, ed.) probably a reflection of my own, if I may say, loneliness. I don't know. It could be the whole human condition.
Painting will have to deal more fully and less obliquely with life and nature's phenomena before it can again become great.
If the technical innovations of the Impressionists led merely to a more accurate representation of nature, it was perhaps of not much value in enlarging their powers of expression.
In its most limited sense, modern, art would seem to concern itself only with the technical innovations of the period.
The question of the value of nationality in art is perhaps unsolvable.