I had a list of questions on painting for my class, Automatic Triggers-- and I am going to post the answers now. Automatic triggers is a painting class that finds its origins in the painting processes of the surrealists and its followers, I have a different agenda for my work in this class. My answers will likely annoy many readers but I hope that they answer the questions in a manner that I will not have to post the questions as well.
To me, painting is a challenge and takes seriously talent and effort to execute well. I make paintings because it is a long-standing institution in the field of art and one of the few media that I am certain is an art form.
A painting is the interaction of applied color on a surface. I say this to differentiate painting from photography, in which chemicals are manipulated on a surface to develop into a color, rather than a pigment, or previously existing color being applied to a surface.
When painting is successful the viewer is able to engage it for an extended amount of time and not only address a multitude of issues, but is compelled to.
I actually think that I like to ask myself the first three questions before I start. I don’t necessarily have a theme or specific subject matter in the work I make because I am a student and it doesn’t make sense to me to have a specific focus yet.
I don’t believe this is a myth, I think that unfortunately part of being under the radar of the market is having the right connections. I think that there are artists who are undeserving of being under the radar or being successful in the market but I don’t believe that it is unfair.
Painting connoisseurs as I understand are dilettantes with money. It is seductive to cater to this crowd because there are multiple beneficiaries—the patron, who proclaims his intellect and status through his collection of work, the critic, who becomes the “champion” of a specific artist and is able to say that they spotted talent, and of course the artist who attains monetary success and hopefully personal satisfaction based on their romantic notions.— the collector finds work through the critic, who is also a painting connoisseur.
I look at art to compliment the state that I’m in (mental or physical) at the time of viewing the work. Sort of like a nice outfit, whether the different articles of clothing contrast or fit well together the whole package may be pleasing.
On the contrary I think that when most Americans think of art they think of painting, so in fact they may care about painting more than we think. When we say that a certain medium is more popular than another, often we are making this conclusion based on academic or institutional standards and not “everyday people” or the rest of America, and this is because they are not our patrons.
The nature of engaging in a static painting is that of projecting the imagination onto an abstract. Knowing what painting is, when we engage in it we are making connections based on our senses and our memory. Looking at painting is as if we are looking at nothing and then feel as though we must make sense of it, as if we are hallucinating in a sensory deprivation chamber.
Artists sacrifice their hubris.
Originality exists but is hard to convince people of. Everyone is unique and so if one person thinks of an idea, no matter how similar it may be to another person’s idea, it is different because of its origins.
I would like to see the painting addressed as an ethereal being or anthropomorphized in the same fashion that a Buddhist understands reincarnation.
I have a solid foundation but I don’t know how to paint very well myself. Everyone’s a critic!
Contemporary artists do not have god, or the church, or the royal family, or the bourgeoisie, or national identity or anything else to address anymore. The only thing we have is ourselves and our interests and the desire to convey those things to other people successfully in a manner that will make them believe it is important.
The role of thinking in painting is to make the painting.
No comments:
Post a Comment