School is enigmatic. My advanced painting class is half-populated by realists. My grad group, conceptually driven. Art is mid conversation - awaiting change, either through participation or evolution. Photos document possible conclusions.
Still evaluating what's in store for me as a 'first year'. We are let loose regarding materials or content. Late winter, the full faculty descends into studio, interrogates/investigates, and proffers a thumbs up or thumbs down. The interdisciplinary focus of this program seems to invite ephemeral practice.
Considering my fondness for two dimensional objects and subjects related to a recognizeable bits of city-i am left with the question that drove me to school to begin with- how to defend representational art? It seems easy to categorize it as decorative.
A consolation today was revisiting my short term goal of playing with scale and materials to see what best relates to the subject. We watched a sheeler's movie "manhatta" in class recently. Dynamic compositions and dramatic scale, monumentalized the city. Although aspects of industrialization have shown their grimy side since, the movie still resonates with me.
2 comments:
"Considering my fondness for two dimensional objects and subjects related to a recognizeable bits of city-i am left with the question that drove me to school to begin with- how to defend representational art? It seems easy to categorize it as decorative."
Not sure how representational gets catagorized as decorative. Representational art is 98% of art history and it would be tough to call much of it decoration. For the work that obviously is decorative, why is that such a bad thing? Many artists embraced the decorative and did not consider it a pejoretive. Mattise was the grand daddy of many of these painters and much of the California artists carried this on. Diebenkorn, Park, etc.
The strength of your work comes from formalist aspects of color, line, compostion. When that is ratcheted up to the degree that you have done (and quite convincingly I might add), what happens is the subject matter becomes the framework and excuse to make your certain marks and shapes. One could call that "decorative" with a negative or condesending tone. They could wonder why you just don't focus on the formalist aspects and make abstract work. They could read your proclivity for representation as just plain timidity for not just embracing the abstract nature and going with it.
However you probably are doing what you are doing for a good reason. There is probably a very good reason why you don't jump into pure abstraction even when your work is heavily influenced by it. One of the areas of content about your work then becomes the thing that keeps you teathered to representation.
Robin, you don't have to defend "Represntational" art. The people that say it is invalid and dismiss it so easily are flailing against one big f--ing monolith.
"A consolation today was revisiting my short term goal of playing with scale and materials to see what best relates to the subject. We watched a sheeler's movie "manhatta" in class recently. Dynamic compositions and dramatic scale, monumentalized the city. Although aspects of industrialization have shown their grimy side since, the movie still resonates with me."
See... you pick up on Sheeler's formalism (and you don't get much more formalist representationalism than Chuckie) and you pick up on how that formalism interprets the subject eg. the city becomes monumentalized.
thanks for the thoughtful post...
"Not sure how representational gets catagorized as decorative."
Hm, since I've returned to painting (and now to school), it feels like most "serious artists" do more installation than object-making. Art emerges on-site from cultivated componentry. I like seeing how these processes and projects evolve, but it doesn't get me inspired to make stuff in the same vein.
I've started feeling defensive of my craft. My first studio crit was pretty harsh, compounding a tone that painters are undesired at Davis. Studio is still great, so I'll work through the year and see how it goes.
And yes, it is important to me to paint real things in varied levels of abstraction. The subject is just the starting point. I am hoping to elaborate on "why" over the next 2 years.
Saw a great "works on paper" show at the Legion of Honor two weeks ago. In the "art book" room, they had a version of Duchamp's Portable Museum
I think he took 4 years to make these. Picture doesn't really do it justice, since it includes a 3-d urinal in addition to mini painting reproductions.
changing the topic?... yep.
Post a Comment