Today I worked on ideas for my paper. Texts I'm working with: Briony Fer On Abstract Art, Oranges and Sardines, Abstraction in the Twentieth Century: Total Risk, Freedom, Discipline (Rosenthal), and Pollock Reconsidered. I also listened to the panel discussion from the Oranges and Sardines exhibit and read/listened/watched interviews with Cecily Brown and Amy Sillman and articles about Charline von Heyl (I CANNOT believe the University of NM fine arts library does not have the catalog from the Sillman Exhibit, Third Person Singular or the Cecily Brown book edited by Dore). My thoughts haven't quite cohered. I am interested in thinking about space. About abstract space and how it's dealt with--something that Fer talks about in relation to Malevich and Mondrian. How space is dealt with by different abstract artists. What structure is used.
Something struck me in my mentor meeting. I was confused about the discussion of space and flatness and the eye wanting to see things coming back and forth in space. So I asked something like, well, so are you talking about traditional space, like landscape, seeing things recede and come forward... and I don't know why, but it's just kind of sitting there as some kind of unformed question. That got me thinking about Pollock and the alloverness and why it worked. And why it doesn't work for other painters and becomes decorative. What is it about it? So anyway, I've got a jumble of thoughts about what I'm reading about the abstract vs. the decorative, and traditional (Sillman referred to her process as "old-fashioned") space and methods vs. a "something else".
So, I collected all these sticks (and an action figure) today. They are absolutely lovely. I also had these orange california poppies blooming today -- my loud color fix). I told Dave about the stick painting project. He listened quietly, asked a few questions: "So you're going to be drawing and painting these sticks... well, and I'm not sure what the 'word' is... is it 'concrete'? I mean you're an abstract painter, and that's not really abstract painting is it?". I really love talking to Dave, because he's not a painter, but he's really perceptive and he asks really good questions. So, maybe drawing and painting sticks is or isn't abstract. I don't know yet. I guess I'll find out.
I'm also thinking about a comment Laurel made in my last paper, a question about whether Brice and Noder were "antidotes" to my struggle, or whether there might be something in their work that I want for my own work.
My mom and I talked today about poetry. She visited the John Greenleaf Whittier house/museum yesterday and while there read the poem, "Snow-Bound". She said she thought about the Brice and Noder paintings. The snow meeting the sky as one. The uniqueness of the color and transparency. Poetry and painting try to get at the same thing -- one through words, the other through physical imagery. Anyway, it's an aside, but it just got me thinking about how powerful some subtle visual statements can be. And that I've got a pretty cool mom.
Here's my visual journal for the day. I am not sure what painting will come of it yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment