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.