Brian replied: I think this is an important point. As Kevin said, " . . . expression is an individual take on anything. It isn't copying what you see but transforming it through ones own personal vision. It is a combination of the subject and the artists take on the subject."
Emotion, passion, psychology, mood is one way to do expression, but making art out of the artist's ideas, concepts, point of view, observations, thoughts, etc. is another aspect of being expressive.
My response: Some people are putting a lot of stock into the ideas of intention and interpretation. But we express in everything we do. They don't call them facial expressions for nothing. And granted sometimes we use the shapes of our faces to manipulate others, but sometimes our expressions betray a truth we'd rather keep inside. Expression is kind of like an attachment on a Kitchen-aide. Everything goes through it and comes out looking as if it came through us. Every attachment is different, but the end result is pretty obvious who did what.
To which Brian responded: I agree. Sometimes, I just want to find my style and paint whatever I want to my way and leave the content and meaning at that.
My response: Some people are putting a lot of stock into the ideas of intention and interpretation. But we express in everything we do. They don't call them facial expressions for nothing. And granted sometimes we use the shapes of our faces to manipulate others, but sometimes our expressions betray a truth we'd rather keep inside. Expression is kind of like an attachment on a Kitchen-aide. Everything goes through it and comes out looking as if it came through us. Every attachment is different, but the end result is pretty obvious who did what.
To which Brian responded: I agree. Sometimes, I just want to find my style and paint whatever I want to my way and leave the content and meaning at that.
So, do you think that often we are really just channeling or filtering something bigger, rather than extruding pure originality from the depths of our soul? But no matter what, we have our own voices?
And do you think that we can speak subconsciously and unconsciously with our work about things we didn't know we were feeling? And if that's the case, should we not be expected to have complete answers to our motives in our artist statements?
And do you think that some artists, faced with an audience that projects intent upon them, try very hard to say nothing at all, but say something anyway? Or perhaps the artist is shy about emotions or learned as a child to hide them, and creates work that is cerebral and conceptual rather than passionate and revealing. Will something personal come out anyway?
And I replied: First, I think pure originality is a farce. We have way too much access to everything now, so nothing is entirely new. We live in an age of pluralism and duality. We have our own voices, but nothing truly original is being said. We do have the opportunity to juxtapose preexisting ideas, concepts, methods, objects, etc. into something seemingly new, but let's be frank, lasagna is still tomatoes, wheat, and fermented milk, even if the sum appears to be something different that its raw ingredients.
And do you think that we can speak subconsciously and unconsciously with our work about things we didn't know we were feeling? And if that's the case, should we not be expected to have complete answers to our motives in our artist statements?
And do you think that some artists, faced with an audience that projects intent upon them, try very hard to say nothing at all, but say something anyway? Or perhaps the artist is shy about emotions or learned as a child to hide them, and creates work that is cerebral and conceptual rather than passionate and revealing. Will something personal come out anyway?
And I replied: First, I think pure originality is a farce. We have way too much access to everything now, so nothing is entirely new. We live in an age of pluralism and duality. We have our own voices, but nothing truly original is being said. We do have the opportunity to juxtapose preexisting ideas, concepts, methods, objects, etc. into something seemingly new, but let's be frank, lasagna is still tomatoes, wheat, and fermented milk, even if the sum appears to be something different that its raw ingredients.
I pretty much always feel like I'm channeling something bigger when I’m working. I really hate using religion words, but there is something akin to spiritual about my process of painting, and, though I make conscious choices in the moment, I never have any idea what my paintings will look like when they are finished. I never know how close I am to being done. I only know when I am done because nothing says, "Change me, I'm annoying." Sometimes I feel like I'm merely hanging on for dear life as this thing takes me for a ride.
When I begin, I never have an intended mood, idea, or concept unless prompted by an outside source, like a class or commission (this is for painting mind you, I do have other projects that use a little pre-planning, figurative paper art, fashion design, etc.) I just start and then the painting tells me what to do from then on. I usually have many paintings in progress so if one isn't talking I move to the next.
So this bigger than me thing, call it the universe, god, collective unconscious, my subconscious, it doesn't really matter to me what it is, I just know that I'm not in full control.
Artist statements, I believe, should be both written and read with a grain of salt. All that is expected from a statement is a little translation of your process and why you are driven to do so. One of the things I love so much about abstract painting is that the artist has the opportunity to keep learning about their own work by conversing with viewers. For example in my undergrad senior exhibition, I made 90 9"x9" paintings all macro views of overlapping human body parts, so they appear varyingly abstract, but they are painted directly from life. I originally conceived the idea while making out with Ben Hanson and admiring the view a whole year prior to starting the project, and totally forgot about it. So when I painted them all from live models, usually my lit nerd friends sitting on the couch, mostly clothed, reading Dostoevsky, the moments, my thoughts and feelings while I painted, were totally innocent and/or technical. But when people came to see the show they saw all kinds of sex in them, and I remembered thinking up the idea 2 years previous. Listening to people guess what parts they were proved that there was a lot going on that I hadn't been tuned into while I was working, but the idea transcended despite my lack of focusing on it. Maybe that comes from in me, maybe it comes from inside the viewer, probably it’s just a basic human function, but regardless, there's more to it than just what I was looking at/thinking of while I painted.
As far as your last question(s), I think what a person chooses to do is very personal, even if it's cerebral work, it can say a lot about the artist, but there are no absolutes. I do believe that an audience inherently strips away some level of truth, because art making is so intimate. Fine art is pure and words are convoluted. So as soon as words are applied something is lost. So if an audience is projecting intent onto an artist, they can choose to confirm, deny, or elaborate, but I've always been one to think the art should say everything without a crutch of titles, descriptions, or statements. A statement should merely enhance the viewers experience AFTER they have been impacted by the work itself. Even in a case of say, Christo, his work is MASSIVE, conceptual, calculated, takes permits and paperwork, takes a whole team to install, but it says something about Christo, his concerns and interests. It helps us see the world through his eyes. Therefore it's very personal.
When I begin, I never have an intended mood, idea, or concept unless prompted by an outside source, like a class or commission (this is for painting mind you, I do have other projects that use a little pre-planning, figurative paper art, fashion design, etc.) I just start and then the painting tells me what to do from then on. I usually have many paintings in progress so if one isn't talking I move to the next.
So this bigger than me thing, call it the universe, god, collective unconscious, my subconscious, it doesn't really matter to me what it is, I just know that I'm not in full control.
Artist statements, I believe, should be both written and read with a grain of salt. All that is expected from a statement is a little translation of your process and why you are driven to do so. One of the things I love so much about abstract painting is that the artist has the opportunity to keep learning about their own work by conversing with viewers. For example in my undergrad senior exhibition, I made 90 9"x9" paintings all macro views of overlapping human body parts, so they appear varyingly abstract, but they are painted directly from life. I originally conceived the idea while making out with Ben Hanson and admiring the view a whole year prior to starting the project, and totally forgot about it. So when I painted them all from live models, usually my lit nerd friends sitting on the couch, mostly clothed, reading Dostoevsky, the moments, my thoughts and feelings while I painted, were totally innocent and/or technical. But when people came to see the show they saw all kinds of sex in them, and I remembered thinking up the idea 2 years previous. Listening to people guess what parts they were proved that there was a lot going on that I hadn't been tuned into while I was working, but the idea transcended despite my lack of focusing on it. Maybe that comes from in me, maybe it comes from inside the viewer, probably it’s just a basic human function, but regardless, there's more to it than just what I was looking at/thinking of while I painted.
As far as your last question(s), I think what a person chooses to do is very personal, even if it's cerebral work, it can say a lot about the artist, but there are no absolutes. I do believe that an audience inherently strips away some level of truth, because art making is so intimate. Fine art is pure and words are convoluted. So as soon as words are applied something is lost. So if an audience is projecting intent onto an artist, they can choose to confirm, deny, or elaborate, but I've always been one to think the art should say everything without a crutch of titles, descriptions, or statements. A statement should merely enhance the viewers experience AFTER they have been impacted by the work itself. Even in a case of say, Christo, his work is MASSIVE, conceptual, calculated, takes permits and paperwork, takes a whole team to install, but it says something about Christo, his concerns and interests. It helps us see the world through his eyes. Therefore it's very personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment