Are you doing that more than you used to? Do you consider yourself a plein-aire painter, or someone who paints from memory?
I think abstractionists depend less on perceived reality, than on the structural relationships within the frame of the worked surface. This painting appears to refer to a real place. Does this relationship between the painted scene, and its "original" in the world, seem an important part of its meaning to you, or is it purely gratuitous?
When I take a photograph, I'm often intrigued by the "anonymity" of a composition, how it can't be pinned down. When you photograph (or paint) a scene or a thing, its familiarity or unfamiliarity is part of the meaning of the process, as well as how it's perceived. Every place in the universe is unique, and yet there are man-made places that can mimic the stereotypic (like tract houses in a development). Each painting you make is an unique instance, though it may refer to a familiar place--perhaps only familiar to you.
I've seen mountain meadow scenes like this one, so it's familiar, though I'm sure I've never been to the place that may have inspired this picture. It's generic in that sense . . . is that "generic" quality a good thing, a necessary thing? Are we dependent upon it for the primary appreciation of the painting? What does the painting confirm, and what does it deny? Is the painting a question, or an answer? Or something of a mediation between the two?
Do you want me to feel as if I should wish to "go into" the space the painting creates, or should I stand back. Should it be welcoming, or resistant, or neutral? Have you checked out the work of Neil Welliver yet?
1 comment:
Sunny:
You seem to make paintings from snapshots.
Are you doing that more than you used to? Do you consider yourself a plein-aire painter, or someone who paints from memory?
I think abstractionists depend less on perceived reality, than on the structural relationships within the frame of the worked surface. This painting appears to refer to a real place. Does this relationship between the painted scene, and its "original" in the world, seem an important part of its meaning to you, or is it purely gratuitous?
When I take a photograph, I'm often intrigued by the "anonymity" of a composition, how it can't be pinned down. When you photograph (or paint) a scene or a thing, its familiarity or unfamiliarity is part of the meaning of the process, as well as how it's perceived. Every place in the universe is unique, and yet there are man-made places that can mimic the stereotypic (like tract houses in a development). Each painting you make is an unique instance, though it may refer to a familiar place--perhaps only familiar to you.
I've seen mountain meadow scenes like this one, so it's familiar, though I'm sure I've never been to the place that may have inspired this picture. It's generic in that sense . . . is that "generic" quality a good thing, a necessary thing? Are we dependent upon it for the primary appreciation of the painting? What does the painting confirm, and what does it deny? Is the painting a question, or an answer? Or something of a mediation between the two?
Do you want me to feel as if I should wish to "go into" the space the painting creates, or should I stand back. Should it be welcoming, or resistant, or neutral? Have you checked out the work of Neil Welliver yet?
Post a Comment