painting-as-process

2:40 PM 5/11/2008 [original draft]

painting-as-process

Concept:  The process, techniques, and materials, and design, and everything else painting is the subject, content, meaning, raison d’etre defining painting and its message/s communicated, real or otherwise.  In many ways it [concept] has always been this way for painting save for the illustrators who work exclusively with word-to-painting translations whether the translation is from something an artist is interested in illustrating a literature from a personal position or the artist is illustrating a literature of others; including poetry.  Without process art cannot exist; painting cannot exist.

That being said, this is a very simplistic approach to defining all painting and my painting in particular.  I have stated, and my work illustrates this, my painting has its basic roots in classical Abstract Expressionism as defined in mid 1940 and practiced until the mid 1960’s when it was successfully challenged by minimalism, pop art and other divisions of painting developed as a reaction to AE.  In my opinion, all of this stew has co-existed quite successfully since that time.  Over the years I too have challenged this position in my work only to keep coming back to a thread that links back to the 1945-65 AE period.  It is my belief that artists must be true to their centers (however defined) and let their art be a reflection or projection of this center.

I have often of late made reference to using Automatism in a pure form.  Again I mean here that I am choosing a form of Automatism that dates back to its origins in the early 20th century.  I am also trying to use this system of art making in a pure a form as I can.  However, a person cannot separate influences of life experience from a behavior pattern.  Therefore, at best, my use of Automatism is that of a filter.  I filter my experience as a person and as an artist through an imagined Automatism filter; thinking that the way I use it is pure in its structure in all ways.  Well, this isn’t really truth because I can’t eliminate all the influences that have formed my art from the beginning and the influences that still put pressure on how I make my art and what tools and material make up my art.

Also, of late, I have made and make reference to the idea that my paintings are nothing more or nothing less that working spaces; space as a place to put and arrange the stuff of painting.  What this stuff is covers wide territory and its parts are forever in addition as well as subtraction (removal); this last concept has been referred to as a dialectical analysis process).

Since I intentionally do not insert any literature in my painting, there is no (or should not be) any verbal translations of what my painting is when it is said to be completed and then hanging on a gallery or museum wall.  So what are they?  My best guess, and this guess has held up now for some years, my paintings operate in the human world as mirrors.  If an audience member has to start a translation process that remotely starts to add words to the mix of understanding, then the viewer should start discussing themselves.  There is no way to find any detailed verbal or literature about or from me in my painting.  The question, “what does it mean?” doesn’t have an answer.  My painting/s individually or in groups don’t mean anything.  There is no politics here.  There is no literature here.  There are no stories being told.
8:50 AM 7/11/2008

When you look at one of my paintings you are essentially looking at your self.  These paintings act like mirrors reflecting some essence of the viewer.  At times this can get scary.  Revealing a truth about one self can cause a denial.  The denial can also lead to anger, etc.  Don’t get angry at me, get angry at your self.  If what you see is negative, try to correct the issue.

Advertisement