Granted that I regard art instruction dvd's as good excuses for not getting on with my own painting, of course I do watch them now and then, and have derived benefit from them. Not from the "watercolour tricks" kind of display, or from those designed to flog a range of "special" brushes, with which you'll be able to paint just like Cuthbert P. Flowbrush, celebrity artist, of which there are rather too many - but let me not side-track myself into a rant! I do, sometimes, watch art instruction dvd's. And one of those I keep in the cupboard for occasional viewing (actually, I've had it a good few years, and it's a video) is by Alwyn and June Crawshaw, made on a visit to County Kerry. Both of them are what I would call good, solid, honest painters, and convey useful information. One of Alwyn's concerns is that he hates to "fiddle"; we shouldn't do it, he tells us, while sheepishly admitting that he often does. And so do I.... And I just wonder if it's always quite such a bad thing. We all know that sometimes a painting just goes well from the first brush stroke, but (actually, I hope it's not just me...) we also know that most of them don't. With watercolour, I confess that I'm entirely with Alwyn. I hate overworked watercolours - they can be very skillful, but the transparency and clarity are so easily lost. And if you want to do highly-worked, elaborate paintings, there are better media to do them in. I don't like the use of masking fluid, either; not because I'm a purist, but because I think some make a big virtue of not using opaque colours, and certainly never Chinese White, but are quite prepared to use masking fluid instead. I just don't get that, I fear - I would always rather use paint than other substances; and so often when I look at painting demos, I wonder why the masking was necessary - why not just remember to leave white paper where you want it? Why always, automatically use it without pausing to consider whether you actually need to? But there we are. Each to his own: the fact that I don't use it doesn't mean that no one else should, and I do know I need to remind myself of that. But it does strike me that "fiddling" in the opaque media is another man's finishing, completing the painting. I look at a lot of websites and books, go to exhibitions when I can, and look at other people's work. Often, I will see paintings which actually AREN'T finished - (OK: in my opinion) - the paint is thin, no bad thing in itself, but it's also just a stain, not saying anything. It's hard to demonstrate this without actually pointing to a picture, but although I know, of course, that not all parts of the painting need to be finished to the same degree, it also seems to me that the painter has become so indoctrinated in the "don't fiddle" decree that he/she is actually leaving the work when a few more touches, even a few more layers of paint, could hugely improve it. It's a bit like the advice you so often used to hear, "always use a bigger brush than you think you'll need". What, when you think about it, does THAT mean? How big do you think I think I need a brush to be? I might think the ideal brush for my little 8" x 10" effort would be a 10" flat ... I'd be out of my mind, of course, but the point is, it's a daft thing to say... (What it really means, I suspect, is that the artist is saying to himself, "now, I always use a far too small, fiddly brush, so must remember to pick up a big one": well, fair enough but that, pal, is your problem, not necessarily mine.) I'm really not sure that a tutor can, or should expect to, correct a problem with his/her own painting by suggesting to students that they mustn't commit it in theirs, when the chances are that they wouldn't have done anyway. When I look at the paintings on this site, I find beautiful, loose yet controlled watercolours, rich oil paintings, lively, assured acrylics - taking three very different artists on the site, Ade Brownlow, Paul Beattie, and Phil Kendall, Ade certainly doesn't fiddle: he paints on a generous scale, his work is strong, detail is there but is suggested in colour and tone rather than in brush calligraphy. I love his paintings for their sheer gusto. Paul and Phil on the other hand both like detail; in every area of Paul's paintings there is something happening, eg in his Kingfisher painting - the paint is applied thoughtfully and carefully, and to superb effect. Phil concentrates his detail on the object he wishes to make prominent - there is nothing unconsidered: in many of his paintings, every brick or stone is carefully rendered and delineated. Is that fiddling? I think plainly not - and I love Paul's and Phil's paintings too, for the clarity of their colour and for their intricacy. They've had to fiddle, at least a bit - haven't they? You can take any argument to extremes - of course I know what Alwyn Crawshaw meant, and I've certainly seen (and done!) paintings that have been worked to and beyond the point of terminal exhaustion - I got a bit carried away with the vegetation in one of my paintings: a friend who had seen me start it, and then came back when I was well into it, drily remarked "hit the Baby Bio again, have we?". So witty .... But anyway, in summary: there are those whose work I've seen lately who seem to me to have taken "don't fiddle" a bit too literally, in consequence of which their works look abandoned rather than completed. Or they've heard "less is more" once too often - a piece of advice which I think I understand, but - if it were literally true, our best works would be those we never actually started.... And now I come to think of it .... No. Stop. Dangerous territory....