Barrett the painter. Thoughts and analysis?

[rememberaday]

Hi guys! It’s pretty well known that Roger (Barrett) was an avid and incredibly talented painter. So what are the influences of his paintings and art on his music.

Syd said once referring to the material based on which his bandmates would write: “Their choice of material was always very much to do with what they were thinking as architecture students. Rather unexciting people, I would've thought, primarily. I mean, anybody walking into an art s chool like that would've been tricked, maybe they were working their entry into an art school. But the choice of material was restricted, I suppose, by the fact that both Roger and I wrote different things.”

So- your thoughts?

[Stephen]

I can't say that I've seen anything to suggest he was an 'incredibly talented' artist even though he was a good one. Are we not just heaping more onto the Syd myth here or am I missing something?

[rememberaday]

Um, maybe. I’m a Syd fan, so I may naturally go overboard . Yeah, I will admit Syd was not a great painter like maybe Stuart Sutcliffe of The Beatles, but he did have an incredible mind as an artist. He was pretty innovative and original, and his way of thinking did make leaps which are quite uncommon in a logical and reason-it-out mind. His artwork had an atmosphere which is an important part of a painting since it “reaches out” to the viewer. This also reflects in his music. So yeah, maybe I sugar coated it, but I really didn’t mean too.

[rememberaday]

I’ve heard many times that Syd loved to be in art competitions and such (His sister said something like that). Now this is a bit hard to find, but does anyone know how he stood in those? I mean like did he win any competitions- was he a “developed artist” or was he just another “good and having potential artist”?

[J Ed]

are there any examples of his work on line we can link to?
all I think Ive seen is the Fart Enjoy book that came with the last Piper reissue, which I believe was mostly collages

[nosaj]

Some items on the official Syd Barrett site: http://www.sydbarrett.com/art.htm

[thefinalcut]

I always thought Syd would have loved 'Las Meninas' by Velázquez...very surrealistic piece of art!

[danielcaux]

Hi guys! It’s pretty well known that Roger (Barrett) was an avid and incredibly talented painter.

He was a painter, but an avid an incredibly talented one? I don't know.

What I know is that I like some of his paintings, they look similar to how his music sounds, more spontaneous and improvisational in nature, driven more by emotion than technique, more by raw feelings than complex ideas. I would say that you could classify his style as something like "Non So Abstract Expressionism"? But then again it seems like he was always searching/attemping very different styles based on other artist's works.

[rememberaday]

Rosemary said "I suppose people first realised there was something a bit special about him when they saw his paintings as a child. He would do pencil drawings that were just exceptional and he had what it took to draw what he saw."

That was the reason I said that he was "incredibly talented". Personally I don't find him so. Quite unique and different yes, but not incredibly talented. There are other musician-painters like Stuart Sutcliffe (check out his paintings) who were much more "talented".

[scarecrow]

I feel people are being a bit harsh. And maybe it is a bit fruitless to debate whether Barrett was an 'incredibly talented' painter or not.

I would certainly say he was very talented.

Has anyone read Will Shutes essay on Barrett's paintings which appeared last year as a magazine article and in the 'Barrett' art book? I wasn't totally convinced by Shutes' analysis that the narrative of producing and destroying paintings shortly afterwards provided some kind of conceptual framework for Barrett's work, but I think he drew a lot of other valid stuff out about the paintings as a body of work.

Did anyone go to the Art and Letters exhibition? That gave a much fuller impression of Barrett's painting than any website. Wandering around the exhibition, you could get the idea that Barrett's technical ability or capacity to apply himself to painting was much diminished in his later years, but then this idea is shattered by a series of very detailed watercolours of local scenes painted from memory.

I quite like Graham Coxon's analysis in this clip, which is fairly speculative but makes sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aQIWDwhkFQ

[my breakfast.]

I reckon his painting is sort of like the drumming of Robert Wyatt. Wyatt's drumming is somewhere between Buddy Rich and Ringo Star. He isn't a complete novice, had a lot of natural talent and obviously copped his influences very well. However Wyatt's drumming could often be classed as a 'pastiche' rather than a properly built skill. Barrett's painting is the same; clearly the product of his influences and sometimes little more.

[rememberaday]

Anyone know which artists influenced syd? I know that syd floyd recorded a track named John Latham (who was a painter), so he might have been one of them.

[rememberaday]

Does anyone also know about Syd's status as a painter after fame and his "decline"? I know he quit from art college to focus on Pink Floyd, what about after he was booted out? Did his paintings, decline like he did?

[scarecrow]

I reckon his painting is sort of like the drumming of Robert Wyatt. Wyatt's drumming is somewhere between Buddy Rich and Ringo Star. He isn't a complete novice, had a lot of natural talent and obviously copped his influences very well. However Wyatt's drumming could often be classed as a 'pastiche' rather than a properly built skill. Barrett's painting is the same; clearly the product of his influences and sometimes little more.

I don't concur with that... Barrett was technically very skilled - isn't this obvious from looking through a selection of his works? And he was able to work in a variety of styles very well. I don't really see where people are coming from on this. I think Barrett could paint/ draw as well as Gilmour could play guitar.

Of course, whether Barrett was a great artist and/ or a a good painter or whether Gilmour is an exceptional musician are different questions.

I think the skill at conveying vivid imagery and interesting associations with apparent ease was something present in both Barrett's painting and music/lyrics.

In terms of whether his painting 'declined' I don't think anyone knows for sure how much/ little Barrett painted in the 1970s. In the 'Art and Letters' exhibition the 1970s were represented by a single watercolour painting of triangular/ geometric patterns from 1978. Rosemary talked about her brother returning to Cambridge in the late 60s and painting large canvasses almost entirely in black, and how this indicated the hard times he was going through. Still I don't know if I would call that 'decline' or a visual representation of a particular outlook/ mood.

I think we can be more sure though that at some point in the 1980s, Barrett resumed painting and was more prolific, apparently sometimes painting ten canvasses in a day. Barrett threw his creative energies into painting/ gardening and DIY. As I already mentioned, Barrett was capable of producing extremely detailed watercolour paintings from memory in his later years, so I don't see his talent as declining.

It seems a shame that his later painting was such a solitary activity and that he didn't at least give away paintings to friends and relatives (as he had done in the past), if holding a local exhibition was out of the question because of the unwanted attention it would bring. I find it a bit intriguing that the paintings were seemingly not meant for any audience, yet they were all signed 'Barrett' as any professional artist would...

[my breakfast.]

I reckon his painting is sort of like the drumming of Robert Wyatt. Wyatt's drumming is somewhere between Buddy Rich and Ringo Star. He isn't a complete novice, had a lot of natural talent and obviously copped his influences very well. However Wyatt's drumming could often be classed as a 'pastiche' rather than a properly built skill. Barrett's painting is the same; clearly the product of his influences and sometimes little more.

I don't concur with that... Barrett was technically very skilled - isn't this obvious from looking through a selection of his works? And he was able to work in a variety of styles very well. I don't really see where people are coming from on this. I think Barrett could paint/ draw as well as Gilmour could play guitar.

I see that as a vast simplification of what it means to be a painter. We cannot be sure if Barrett painted what he saw in his head. He burned a lot of his own work which suggests he was unhappy with the results.

Barrett could paint in a variety of styles yes, but could he go beyond these styles and create new work or styles? I think he had a natural gift, could cop other techniques and learn quickly, but I think the band prevented him from finding his own style and technique that was greater than the sum of the influences. He was denied that chance by the success of the band. There is not the body of Barrett work that suggests he could have cut it as a professional artist. It is good, but it is good in the way his guitar playing is 'good'. He could cop Bo Diddly and Keith Rowe in equal amounts but it was in the same way a kid reacts in a sweet shop rather than as a planned and definite artistic statement. He got 'high' on these influences and churned them back out I feel.