The Chromascape Statement

My recent work provides me with an entirely new outlet for my obsessions. I feel that I often treat my art not as a grand statement, or a refined image, but rather as a series of experiments. I am seduced by the endless possibilities of what can form on a two dimensional surface. This is what propels me forward. Therefore, I have little patience for laboring over large precious canvases and carving out detailed images. One thing that I constantly struggle with is the balance between abstraction and representation, as well as spontaneity and control. This new body of work, the “Chromascapes” deals with these issues in ways I previously have not.

My subject matter has always used the natural world as a primary source of inspiration, whether that be through abstract biological forms, landscapes, trees, or patterns. Nature remains the subject of the Chromascape Series, though less directly. While I have included my pastels under the the umbrella of the Chromascape Series, I handle them very differently. For right now, I am merely speaking of the acrylic paintings. The paintings all feel like landscapes to some extent. The primary reason for this is that almost all the paintings of this series have a horizontal line or break in them that creates the sense of the horizon. One question I must ask myself, and ask the viewer, is whether these would still be landscapes without it. Obviously, I embrace the use of landscape through my titling, “Chromascape” which represents the idea of a color landscape. These are works of color, with color being the primary subject and landscape a secondary one.

Nature is also addressed in the methodology of these works. Water, in a sense, does the painting. I pool large amount of water on the surface of the paintings. I use pouring methods, and minimal brushwork, to push paint through the water. Environmental factors in the room, on the surface of the table, and in the paint itself, control most of the major directions. I make minor adjustments, by dragging a pool of water in one direction, or angling the canvas. The ways the colors mix, bind, and dance around each other, however, remains mostly out of my control. I suppose I consider this a collaboration between myself and the water.

The process is difficult for me, it is a leap. Many contemporary artists have used similar art making processes, and I have often seen it to be a gimmick. Despite my reservations, I have come to this process naturally, after years of painting practice and I see it as the next logical direction for my work to take. Rather than try to make these into something they are not, I want to simply understand the process, method, and concept I am bringing to these works. They are color, water, movement, chance. They are what I believe the universe to be. I think it is important that they are landscapes, because the landscape ties them to our worldly experience, it brings them home to our day to day lives. The landscape is an image we can relate to and through it I hope we can appreciate the explosion of potential behind it.

A Theory of Art

I am currently reading (or trying to read) “A Theory of Art” by Stephen David Ross.  Ross is a philosopher, and has written about a number of topics, including aesthetics, morality, science, and culture.  This book focuses exclusively on Ross’s theory of contrast.  Ross argues that all other theories and artistic movements are incomplete.  Contrast is what he measures, weighs, and validates art by.  I would take this to be a given, but he creates a very phenomenological picture, which I find interesting.  The contrasts in art, for Ross, have degrees of complexity that can be read as layers within a work itself but also include history, knowledge, environment, etc.  Ross argues for knowledge, and for the discussions art evokes.

“If artistic value is intensity of contrast, what is important is how the contrasts function and gain intensity.  The capacity of contrasts to promote higher levels and richer complexities  is the primary feature of our understanding of art….” (Ross,11)

“A Theory of Art” was published by the State University of New York in 1982

Stephen David Ross, born in 1935, is currently a Professor of Philosophy at Binghamton University in New York.

Chromascapes and Changes

I had been titling my recent works “freescapes” which I think was always a stand-in title, so today I gave it some thought.  Sticking with the “scapes” thing was worrisome to me, coming out of my forestscape works, but these recent works are not a huge departure.  I wanted to be honest to what they are, without overloading them with clever titles.  So they are now the “Chromascape Series”.  They are landscapes of color, handled intuitively.  An official artist statement coming soon.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note that I am taking a bit of a break from exhibiting.  This is intentional.  I may still be doing a few things, but I am pulling back for a while.  I want to focus on this new body of work with a clear, honest attitude that is not complicated by thoughts of business, sales, and exhibition.   I want to focus on pure art making for a while.  I began to feel a little too much like I was manufacturing for shows and sales.  This is a time of reflection, focus, and studio work.  So, if my calender looks bleak for the next 6 months or so, that is why.

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.

Tworkov

“A conceptual work- one which followed completely a predetermined course of design-as happens in the fields of design, belongs essentially to theory and critism and not to art as such…”

-Jack Tworkov  (excerpt from a 1968 journal as printed by Art in America book review Dec. 2009)

Jack Tworkov (1900-1982) was one of the founders of abstract expressionism in America, working with such great artists as Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.  “The Writngs of Jack Tworkov: The Extreme of the Middle” was recently published by Yale University Press, and I look forward to reading it.

More New Work

I am continuing to create new work in this more freestyle, abstract format.  I think that this series of work will have much more evolving to do.  Maybe I am a control freak, but I sense that the current process leaves much room for additonal intention and specific manipulation.  It is an exciting starting point for me, and I enjoy the things that are happening, but feel it is not fully embraced process yet.  I want the palette to become a bit more limited, and the forms a bit more controlled, but not too controlled!  As always, I am looking for a deilcate balance in the creative process.  I think there is much to be said for letting the work create itself, but I also believe that the artist needs be an active, conscious participant every step of the way.