It goes something like this

likeness, expression, and harmony.

In likeness you paint it to make it look like something else.

Expression is using the colours and quaLITY OF LINES to make it express a feeling, however subtle or cliched (red for anger, or red in a ironic way amongst a pattern of happiness)

Harmony is the aesthetic principle. The attempt at balancing colours, picking colours for the purpose of harmony and of what looks right and beautiful.

I have no intention of painting abstract, so likeness is important to me. All three are motivations, and it's difficult to pick one over the others. Do i paint the jumper green because it expresses something only green can do? or do i do it because there's a really nice red there in the background which would set it off nicely.. It depends, usually it won't matter what the colour of the jumper really is; i'll pick a better colour. So likeness is probably least of my concerns when dealing with colour. But Likeness is definitely important, without it the harmony and expression would have no meaning. What would red mean if it didn't have a jumper or a tree or a landscape to cling to? It would mean nothing specific at all. And if it's an attempt at grandiose generalisations about the nature of man or art, or whatever, it usually blunders into cliched territory, so no, i'll stick to specifics.

In picking colours, harmony and expression don't necessarily fight it out amongst themselves, as compromise. That face needs to be shaded with red, or black, or blue, because that expresses (not what i feel while painting it, but) what the character or landscape or still life is meant to express. So maybe it needs a red outline, but because that red is there, it means i'd like a light orange over here next to this green, not because that orange expresses something, but because it helps make the complimentary "one-two" of red and green less obvious.
It goes something like that.

you have your reasons

"You have your reasons for which pieces you like most, I'd never try to change your mind (the creator knows best). But, had I the chance to buy a piece of yours in the future (which I really hope to and I'm not blowing smoke), this would be high on the list. Though I don't come from a city with an art scene, (other than the one my friends and I are attempting to create) I've had the chance to visit galleries all over the U.S. and some in Europe, though mostly only the big name ones, I've seen shit and movement art which is all fine and well, but painters that paint for the love of the craft with such a broad spectrum of works and talent are few. You, my friend, are such a painter."

He was talking about this painting;

Of my own work it's not my favourite, though i may admit it has something, some viciousness to it which i like, which i harbour and cultivate at times. But the comment was perhaps one of the nicest i've ever received, mainly because it's exactly how i would like to be viewed. TO have the work free from constraints, transcending money worries, not pandering to any particular audience. Just being, from me, to whoever wants to see it, you.

This was today's work, that is all.

unweaving the rainbow

Read the first chapter of Richard Dawkins River Out Of Eden. A science book, a biology book which goes into other areas of science and technology, and even grasps at poetry and philosophy (with an underlying claw at organised religion).

I've always been interested in science, in school i wasn't interested in anything, i was bored, unimaginative, unhappy, and didn't get much in the way of comfort or inspiration from either teachers or students. And when i did i started to listen, and express interest, hence my favourite, and well graded school subjects are (or were) English, Maths and Science. Not art, which i have always had a skill for, not drama, which i have always leaned towards. But since leaving school, that's where i have learnt the most. The science books i've read are mostly popular, i've watched tv series on space and 'life'. And i always find myself feeling all homely. Maybe that has something to do with my dad always watching them when i was a child, maybe not.

But i fail to understand how other people (even other artists) aren't inspired by science, by something which attempts to understand and express what we are. Many of the artists i do know are much more interested in spirituality and supernatural occurrences (which possibly explains why they also have an interest in conspiracy theories.) No, at such times i don't feel like i fit in with arty types at all. But maybe i just don't fit in with crafty types, maybe i just havent met many real artists yet. Leonardo, there was an artist, and a great scientist. Lately i recall (for my 21st birthday) my dad taking me to Elgar's house in Malvern, i remember on his shelves, there was the complete works of Shakespeare alongside an amateur chemisty kit..:)

I feel like science is what i should become entwined up in, the direction i should take my artwork. After all, painting is like alchemy, it is definitely chemistry, and when we apply it to canvas the shapes we make and the attempts we have to express ourselves, or to copy life, or to give impressions of life, that is closer to science than anything else. So i don't understand why artists feel they need to ignore it. Art spans out like a web, making connections between science, poetry, philosophy, love and memory. It span out to encompass anything, but these i think are my choices.