I guess you never really stop fine-tuning your artist statement. Here's another go that reflects a shift in my interests in artmaking.
My painting explores the structure of looking. Using the mark as a building block, my work seeks to challenge the viewer’s relationship to the picture plane. This manifests itself in obsessive weaves of marks that create disorienting optical effects.
Short and sweet :)
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Statement
Here's a look at the first statement for my exploration into disrupting the structure of looking.
This statement is largely about the trouble in locating the picture plane on a translucent surface, enhanced by a weave/pattern of positive/negative marks. The fixation of where the plane is located shifts continuously to the surface of the coloured cellophane to the back wall, which you can see through the negative spaces in the pattern weave. I wanted these works to reference painting more than drawings so I thought it might be a good time to use colour as a spatial device, not so much as expressive colour, but atmospheric colour. I wanted the hues/tones of the marks in each statement to illicit difference levels of optic buzzing, just to see what would happen at lower intensities. Because there are a lot of optic elements at play here, I was worried that this work could be too easily lumped in with that of Op Art. To deny this association, I wanted to stress the hand-made quality and inevitable failure by creating such a pattern by hand. Making the work by hand references the gesture as per the abstract expressionists, but because I'm taking the heroism out of the marks, it speaks to the diaristic aspect of making that is different than the ab exers. I think it might be more in tune with post-minimalism, think Chuck Close. So that's an association that I'm more comfortable with :)
One last point was that I chose to show these works in the concourse of the VA Building to see how they would act in a transition/thoroughfare type of space. Would these works stop people in their tracks? Judging from my personal observations (aka spying) I would say about half of the people who walked by would stop and interact with the work, a few minutes each, but those minutes count as gold. It takes a minute for the disorientation/reorientation to have that embodied experience that I'm seeking to offer the viewer who is open to it. I received a lot of positive feedback from my profs, peers, profs from other classes, and building support workers. I love making these works because I can harness the obsessive weirdo in me so I think I'm off on the right track.
This statement is largely about the trouble in locating the picture plane on a translucent surface, enhanced by a weave/pattern of positive/negative marks. The fixation of where the plane is located shifts continuously to the surface of the coloured cellophane to the back wall, which you can see through the negative spaces in the pattern weave. I wanted these works to reference painting more than drawings so I thought it might be a good time to use colour as a spatial device, not so much as expressive colour, but atmospheric colour. I wanted the hues/tones of the marks in each statement to illicit difference levels of optic buzzing, just to see what would happen at lower intensities. Because there are a lot of optic elements at play here, I was worried that this work could be too easily lumped in with that of Op Art. To deny this association, I wanted to stress the hand-made quality and inevitable failure by creating such a pattern by hand. Making the work by hand references the gesture as per the abstract expressionists, but because I'm taking the heroism out of the marks, it speaks to the diaristic aspect of making that is different than the ab exers. I think it might be more in tune with post-minimalism, think Chuck Close. So that's an association that I'm more comfortable with :)
One last point was that I chose to show these works in the concourse of the VA Building to see how they would act in a transition/thoroughfare type of space. Would these works stop people in their tracks? Judging from my personal observations (aka spying) I would say about half of the people who walked by would stop and interact with the work, a few minutes each, but those minutes count as gold. It takes a minute for the disorientation/reorientation to have that embodied experience that I'm seeking to offer the viewer who is open to it. I received a lot of positive feedback from my profs, peers, profs from other classes, and building support workers. I love making these works because I can harness the obsessive weirdo in me so I think I'm off on the right track.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Thoughts on Beauty
What is beauty and why does it matter?
In my opinion, beauty is a standard or ideal that is agreed upon (consensus) outside of the individual (social). Its twin is ugly or non-beauty.
If I were to say if beauty had a function, it would not only bring pleasure to our senses but make us feel connected in some way to the world as a whole.
(bear with me cuz this is gonna get rambly)
In relation to the art that I make, is beauty important? Do I use beauty as a tool like I do my flat no. 12 brush? Going even further back to the question, what do I think beauty is? What are some examples? How does beauty differ from aesthetic experience?
I know that the purpose of my art is not to take the viewer on some life-enhancing experience . . . but why not? (contradicting myself already) Let's go back. What is beauty and what are some examples?
Currently, this is what I think beauty is.
Just off the top of my head.
Now, why does it matter? hmm, more later . . .
In my opinion, beauty is a standard or ideal that is agreed upon (consensus) outside of the individual (social). Its twin is ugly or non-beauty.
If I were to say if beauty had a function, it would not only bring pleasure to our senses but make us feel connected in some way to the world as a whole.
(bear with me cuz this is gonna get rambly)
In relation to the art that I make, is beauty important? Do I use beauty as a tool like I do my flat no. 12 brush? Going even further back to the question, what do I think beauty is? What are some examples? How does beauty differ from aesthetic experience?
I know that the purpose of my art is not to take the viewer on some life-enhancing experience . . . but why not? (contradicting myself already) Let's go back. What is beauty and what are some examples?
Currently, this is what I think beauty is.
Just off the top of my head.
Now, why does it matter? hmm, more later . . .
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Thoughts on my drawing/painting/installation practice
What do I want to make this term for my interdisciplinary studio class?
I want to make large scale drawings/paintings/installations that deal with the structure of looking.
One of my profs recommended the book "Vision and Painitng: The Logic of the Gaze" by Norman Bryson. I've read the first chapter already and despite it being verbose in some sections, I think it will be interesting for the theoretical underpinnings of my practice. The Plinian model of representation is something that I want to question ie. painter as communicator of perceptual material to viewer as the site of reception eager for perceptual satisfaction.
I want to use the "mark" as my tool, building block. The poetry of the artist's hand is important to my work, not in a heroic sense, ie the grand gesture, because life is not heroic. Life is a series of small moments that accumulate into a lifetime. The mark is a measure of moments.
Perhaps large fields to immerse your field of vision, again Kusama, Guston.
I want to make some experiments/process based works because I have a habit of stumbling onto things that have a lot of potential.
Why? Why should anyone care?
Something that Bryson already touched on in the first chapter was that the success of a painting using the Plinian model was based on the speed of which the viewer consumes the perceptual material presented by the painter. Any interuption is seen as negative. I can tell that this model is antithesis to my existing process, but it's interesting for me to know why and how. I think this will help immensely.
I want to make large scale drawings/paintings/installations that deal with the structure of looking.
One of my profs recommended the book "Vision and Painitng: The Logic of the Gaze" by Norman Bryson. I've read the first chapter already and despite it being verbose in some sections, I think it will be interesting for the theoretical underpinnings of my practice. The Plinian model of representation is something that I want to question ie. painter as communicator of perceptual material to viewer as the site of reception eager for perceptual satisfaction.
I want to use the "mark" as my tool, building block. The poetry of the artist's hand is important to my work, not in a heroic sense, ie the grand gesture, because life is not heroic. Life is a series of small moments that accumulate into a lifetime. The mark is a measure of moments.
Perhaps large fields to immerse your field of vision, again Kusama, Guston.
 |
| Philip Guston |
 |
| Yayoi Kusama |
Why? Why should anyone care?
Something that Bryson already touched on in the first chapter was that the success of a painting using the Plinian model was based on the speed of which the viewer consumes the perceptual material presented by the painter. Any interuption is seen as negative. I can tell that this model is antithesis to my existing process, but it's interesting for me to know why and how. I think this will help immensely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)