What this amounts to is that I'm giving myself the advice I give my students. I'm forever badgering them to make PAINTINGS, rather than PICTURES OF x,y, and z; I tell them that each square inch of canvas is equally important and that a painting is only as strong as its weakest moment. Can I practice what I preach? I'll keep y'all posted.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
My next few posts will be devoted to chronicling the progress of the painting seen above. It's about 4 hours old now, just a baby. It's about 2 1/2 feet high, and 5 feet long. I have this idea that I want to work on a series of paintings that place the viewer within a tangle of leaves, vines, limbs, etc., that need to be penetrated in order to see (or move) beyond. For those of you who are familiar with my work, you know that my surfaces tend to be fairly refined, and my forms realistic. What you probably DON'T know is that all my paintings start out looking like this one. This time, though, I want to develop the surface, and the PAINT...not the forms. What I mean is that I want the experience of the painting to be more about getting lost in a tangle of color, line, and texture (think Jackson Pollock goes outdoors) that resolves itself into subject matter from a slight distance. In short, I want to find a new balance for myself between abstraction and representation that tips slightly more toward the abstraction end of things. But as much as I want to develop the abstract (or maybe a better word is formal) qualities in my paintings, I'm too attracted to the subject to let it go. So finding some specificity is important, too.