I just got some decent images of a new painting I did about a month ago. The images are not very high res, but I believe they convey an alright display of the painting. In this piece I’m dealing with the subject of relationship: relation between the wall and the painting, and relation between the painting and the viewer. What once was an object viewed on the wall, has now entered, and shares, the space of the viewer (a band of light pink highlights where this relationship between artwork and viewer’s space takes place. A relationship that is taking place on ground level). This sends the painting into a realm of teetering identity I believe, between its objecthood and being a painting at the same time. This is a piece I would like to be seen as both object and painting; something that is indeed material and object, but is still capable of transcending its materiality through its being a painting: material with a soul. As well, it is somewhat of a declaration of its (painting) ability to exist on or off the wall. This is not to say that it has been liberated in this act, because I believe the piece’s freedom comes from its silence, but rather it is more of a display of versatility: that this isn’t what painting should be, but what it is capable of. This piece is, as I believe the rest of my work is, a transmitter for something beyond material: a silence, an “articulation of spiritual meaning,” and in this case it stands on its own, but is not autonomous.
(piece not yet titled)
Or/and perhaps the identity of the untitled (oh, ironically good) comes from, perhaps not its silence ( talking softly doesn’t mean it’s received so hush-hush), but comes from its declaration of being sturdy and self righteous. It marks itself broad. The sharpest corners are the upper ones. They articulate the perfection of that rectangular-ness/edge people know* to be > PAINTING. It is more commandeering than silence- it tells you to watch itself in space/ it speaks to your FEET! This painting speaks to the ground, speaks to the path that’s carries you to/around/about it.
ReplyDeleteThat pretty pink. That suggestive blank face culture .modernism that can afford subjectivity.
Teetering identity, but this painting has already learned to walk.
"Everybody knows and feels that the great painter has imparted to the paints a value that they did not before possess. that he has transferred to them something of himself and something of the world. that he has made subjective what was before objective.
ReplyDeletethis subjectivity IS HIS ART. by virtue of it he has sublimated the material...
..so all real values are subjective: all objectve values are unreal, they dissolve, under analysis, into subjective value after subjective value, and the residuum, if ever we reach it, is not what man made but what nature gave: and what nature gave IS NEVER OBJECTIVE- it resolves itself,...remove after remove, into the infinite creative mind."
_Kindergarten Chats and other writings_ - Louis Sullivan
M, though I do believe in objective truth, as well as values, I think the quote you selected speaks very well to the piece (and art in general) not needing justification. I do believe that the piece itself is objective (like the Holy Spirit), but we are the subjective ones. The painting does not change, we do. Also to say, that it is the denotative qualities of the piece that trigger the connotative in us. Furthermore, I believe it is these qualities that set it free from being “self-righteous,” or anything that might suggest that the piece is autonomous, or merely “art for art sake.” For art for art sake, or art only relating to art, negates the risk of contradictions (when life is full of them.) It creates a safety net. The fact is that it is always relative, because it points to its creator. To attempt to make it autonomous is to profess a false originality. Anything created has meaning on its own, because it points back to the one who made it, and the justification for it can be a plain site observation. Some art may try to be self-referential, but it is still relative the way a selfish and egotistical man is still a creation of God. Art itself is objective, but transmits subjectivity: the thing in which we absorb. So if art is an objective, and is seemingly a middle point (being that we are subjective that make it—it become an objective—and henceforth emanates subjectivity in the site of the viewer—a two part alchemical reaction that works no other way) then it is safe to say that perhaps art IS reality and the response to it—or, to go further, one could say that art doesn’t have meaning, but IS meaning. A case in point: that we ourselves are material, capable of existing beyond material, capable of transcending materiality (subjectivity being an example,) because we ourselves are not merely material.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I like what you had said about the attention directed at the ground, your step, and your feet. I think that this touches on a humbling ingredient, and a redirecting of attention to something less commonly recognized. Our feet somewhat being the lowliest parts of our bodies is a strange place to call attention to (yet Christ did so just before He gave Himself over to be murdered, by washing the disciples feet,) and we become more mindful of how we move through (the) space, and to then further recognize that it is on this low level where the beauty/light/ life is taking place. In terms of the relationship that is happening, there is the raised question as well of who is in whose space. The focal point of the piece shares the same surface as your feet. The piece is silent, but still has presents, as you have pointed out. And though it may be quiet, I feel that we can hear our loudest in the deepest silence.