The following biography was written by William P. Andrews, Gallery Director, Mississippi State University
George T. Thurmond was born in 1949 at Hollandale in the heart of the Mississippi Delta, the son of a third-generation sharecropper who later became a carpenter. He began studying plein-air/colour painting in 1968 at Delta State College, in Cleveland, Mississippi, with Sammy Britt, a former student of master colourist Henry Hensche. While studying with Britt, Thurmond made the pilgrimage to Hensche's Cape School of painting, Provincetown, Massachusetts, in 1969, and for other short periods until 1973 to observe the master first hand. During those early years, Hensche students Charles Miller and John Hamrick, as well as former Hawthorne and Hensche student George Copeland, were also instrumental in his visual education. After working on his own for over 10 years, Thurmond renewed his personal association with Hensche at Hensche’s winter studio in Gray, Louisiana in 1983. Thurmond returned to Provincetown in 1985, 1986, and 1988 to paint with Hensche not only as a student, but also as comrade and friend. To Thurmond, Hensche was not just a teacher but also mentor and master. Hensche called him his bastard stepchild as well as a painting experiment, having guided him over the years through a course of study uniquely his own, having studied landscape light keys in depth before applying that same level of effort to studying form through still life (the reverse of the usual process). Thurmond has now been a student of nature and colour painting for nearly four decades. Since Hensche's death in 1992, Thurmond has rededicated himself to a more complete understanding of the ideas, principles and ideals Hensche taught and stood for as well as passing this knowledge on to others. Along with his studies in oriental philosophy, and comparative religion, Thurmond is also an amateur botanist and gardener, his garden being inspiration and source for many of his paintings. He has also been a student of zen meditation for all of his adult life, the awareness engendered by meditation being critical in the process of refining observational skills and being open to nature’s infinite variety.
A full-time professional since 1977, he has had numerous one-man shows in New Orleans, Dallas, Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Nashville, New York City, Cape Cod, and Washington, D.C. His work may be found in private and corporate collections in England, Europe, Africa, South America, Japan, and throughout the United States and Canada including in Mississippi; the Lauren Rodgers Museum of Art, Laurel, the Meridian Museum of Art, Meridian, and Delta State University, Cleveland, and in Florida; Northwood Institute, West Palm Beach, and Lynn University, Boca Raton. His works are also to be found in the prestigious Lerner Foundation and H. B. Heidelberg Collections.
Thurmond's interview with the curator:
What place can you see for landscape painting in a contemporary art environment where painting seems to be increasingly marginalized?
That wholly depends on the landscape painters, many are simply illustrators, others are technique junkies, etc. those as well as all commercially oriented painters will always have an audience because their works appeal to the lowest common denominator of vision, a regimentation of facts (like a snapshot) or a regimentation of skills (representing a specific “style”) will always appeal to the decorator mentality hidden within many. the painter of vision, those who have the ability to look into nature and see her as she is (in essence as well as substance) will be understood only by those few who look at art with a similar vision of that penetrating sort, people not interested in superficial effects or superficial likenesses. but that part of the art viewing public which actually has vision are as rare as are the landscape painters with insight.
Which artists or individuals have had the greatest impact on the development of your own work?
Henry Hensche, Charles Miller, Cezanne, in that order
What role can the painted image have in a culture where visual media has become increasingly devalued through mass reproduction?
A landscape that is produced through the painters insight into his subject acts as a meditative talisman, an iconographic reminder of that which has been lost and for which even the most sophisticated human heart secretly yearns, Eden!
It could be said that every painting is autobiographical and reflects the character of the artist. How important is the relationship between objectivity and self-expression in your work?
Objectivity and detachment are paramount, without them emotional consciousness makes people/painters slaves to sentimentality and to nostalgia, if I have expressed what I set out to in a landscape then there should be no recognizable expression, it should say nature firstly and nature lastly, expressing nature without man. Like Cézanne, one might wish to show a world without man, but that perception can only be had by a silent mind and a disciplined body. So, often times, there is the presence of unwanted expression.
Contemporary art is becoming increasingly eclectic - the playing field is leveling in terms of the relevance of various movements and ism's. Do you think this will allow landscape painting the opportunity to be recognized again as an important and vital medium within contemporary painting?
pictorial illustration as well as narrative storytelling are what the vast majority of people who look at art/landscapes are interested in lately, the more mechanical, the more photographic or “illustrationy” the better as far as that is concerned, so if landscape is to revitalize itself painters of insight must paint for motives or non motives which in no way intersect with the perception or expectation of the public. That was once the function of an “ism,” to bring the group along together so that progressive and collective knowledge was of more importance than the individual or their ego. With only “individuals” vying for the upper roost in this eclectic arena there is no telling what will be stooped to arrive at the top. Anarchy is a good thing but chaos is a bad one, remains to be seen which we will get.
How would you describe your painting technique, and what are you trying to achieve through this approach?
In study and in painting I have tried to subjugate technique to a non technique so that it is not noticed, as one views a study they should see nature first, paint second, and painter last, all in their proper order of descending importance.
The point between abstraction and realism can be subtle within the painted landscape, how would you describe this relationship?
In nature they are one and not two, so in following nature’s lead, in a painting they should be one and not two. It is all a matter of perceptual emphasis, it is the power of selection within the painter’s mind that brings order to chaos or vice versa. So it is the painter who makes them two and not one.
What draws you to a particular subject when choosing a place to paint?
Unity of light key, visual structure, and rhythmic grace
It is a particular choice to be a landscape painter in this day and age. Why did you make that choice?
Because I was never removed from nature (from birth) it became a natural extension of our relation
How fundamental would you say that the visual arts are to our western culture?
There is nothing that is not “designed” but the vast majority only notice this when it comes to cars and clothes
Have you a favorite quote that would sum up a particular aspect of what you are trying to achieve as a painter?
“everything we look at disperses and vanishes doesn’t it? Nature is always the same, and yet its appearance is always changing. It is our business as artists to convey the thrill of nature’s permanence along with the elements and appearance of all her changes, painting must give us the flavor of nature’s eternity.” Cézanne
What place does 'gesture", the vitality of mark making, play in your own work and what can this express to the viewer?
Since I have made a conscious effort to avoid both linear draughtsmanship as well as technique (in the traditional sense) in favor of colour alone, the marks are generally restrained. But when they are there they should be as a natural extension of ones physical makeup, an unconscious action as natural as breathing or it becomes specious, intentional expression is no expression at all only a personal mannerism and this is something that should be diligently guarded against.
What can the painted image express that the photograph cannot?
Mind has the power of selection as well as emphasis, the other is simply a mechanical rendition of facts and is without the ability to “perceive” the underlying unifying force which binds the scene together. Machinery is not capable of an insight as is a cultivated perception, it has always amazed me how few painters trust their insights and rely on the camera to “select” their materials for them. Here again it is only the painter of insight/vision that can express the non-mechanical view of nature.
