In the beginning
Seems I have been remiss about sharing what's going on in the 'fine art' part of my life. So to start things a bit more effectively, here's a quick recap of about where I'm at.
A long time ago (apparently it is) when I was in college and specifically in my fine art studies, I got entranced by the notion of understanding of why paintings convey the feelings that they do.
The realization was made that paintings are in fact quite complex with a number of parameters that could influence the viewer. Like any good pseudo scientist, methods were created to look at each device with a more sterile eye.
One of the more successful approaches was to use a procedural style of painting. It was useful in exploring how shape is read as well as massing and 'weight' and other stimuli.
It was fascinating for a time until I kind of reached an 'endgame' - a visualization occurred where all manner of combinations and permutations were seen. What to do now?
I think that this must happen to most painters who find themselves following a reductive process. Historically, it seems to happen quite a bit. It starts from standard objective painting and mercurially ramps up to a precipice of simple perfection. At this point the person has to stop start over or do something completely different. What can you do when you reach that point? Would it have been possible for Pollack or Rothko to go back and begin again? Warhol completely changed media.
I reached the point. Initially, I thought that all things were thought on the matter and this was end.
Now, it seems it is not the end, merely just a junction. The process seems to be more about me now as I am fascinated at how I subconsciously create. There are very few ways in which expression can occur yet there are obviously successful ones and then there are not. How is this possible and what makes one better than another? These are my new questions.
Yeah, I know: light on pictures. Well, they're coming.
[Karma: 1 (+/-)] Eric on 08.07.07 @ 02:35 PM CST [link] [No Comments]