Macro vs. Micro

One issue that has been consistently problematic for me in my work has been the distinction between macro and micro in my more abstract pieces. The question is: are we looking at something from very far away, or up close? Is it a galaxy, landscape, or cells under a microscope? In organic abstraction, many of these things can look very much the same. I think this is very telling of the creation of matter and life. None the less, as an artist, is the ambiguity acceptable? I think it is a cop-out to “let the view see what they want”. I think artists use this as a lazy excuse to not take responsibility for an image’s interpretations. Yet, I also do not know if I want to decide. I have made enough new works now in this most recent series where I can step back and begin to see problems in the group. I did this today. The first this I noticed was that some read is macro, and some read as micro. I realized that I have to consider this in going forward.

One thing that strikes me at interesting is the very subtle differences that make a work macro or micro. All it really takes is a subtle horizontal line and you have an instant landscape. Similarly, a few small random circles and bubbles can become primordial soup. Verticals are easily trees. But abstraction is a slippery slope, where you either embrace the conventional wisdom, or challenge it. I guess I have to challenge it, and while I am not sure how I will do this yet, I am sure that in the process I will have to be aware of such factors. This also means being more aware of what I am abstracting. I have intended my works to be read as organic abstractions based on landscapes, but I think I need to be more specific about what that means and where the viewer is in relation to it. I know part of this argument will become one about size. They have to be bigger, I know.  What I have never liked about size is the loss of intimacy. I struggle with giving these images the power of being environments rather then objects.