Excuse the pun in the title of this post; I couldn’t pass it up.
David’s description is very good. I am of course most interested in the later description, where the painting paints itself, and process takes over. This is a kind of intimacy, isn’t it, and it involves a subject-object reversal, in the sense that the object is the doer. But this is still a bit too narrow. It is not the object that does (because that would perpetuate the structure of mutual pointing). It is the whole.
 There is the scene in nature, or better, a place in nature. An observer appears, someone with the right physical faculties and with consciousness. There is a canvas, paint, brushes, etc. There is an intention that has oriented the whole situation. A painting happens, and happens in being transcended.
And then there is the possibility of a second transcending. I just saw a movie yesterday that has the following exchange (condensed), at the end, between a father and young son who have walked out on a jetty (pier):
Father: No camera! Then you will just have to remember. Can you do that?
Son: How long do I have to remember?
Father: Forever! Remember that you and I came to a place where there was nowhere further to go.
The movie is The Namesake. I admired it especially for the literary sensibilities. It makes me want to read the novel, but I doubt I will have time.
Nice.
Jack