(Smaller thumbnail is a detail zoom)
So, I created this painting based on some ideas that came to me while taking part in our Algorithmic Chaotic Natural Processes thread. Basically, I'm trying to find a balance in my work between artistic control and following a procedure. This is a very primitive example, and I decided that to me painting is partly a physical excersize which calms me, or excites me, and it is partly an exploration of naturaly occuring processes and results.
I promise you that I did not listen to Steve Winwood whilst dancing on the canvas with naked painted feet.
What I was trying to do was use my body as a machine to draw different "waves" that I visualized. Some were like sine waves and others were sharp peaks. I tried to use meditation to accurately picture myself as a tone generator and not a painter. I came up with a few elements which I could use and a limited pallete of black and white circles and squares developed. The warm earth tones are a result of my mixture of black being a little imperfect and leaking umber as they were thined by splashes of turpentine.
The notebook sketch glued to the canvas was the source of the painting's overall composition. So, even though I did the sketch, it felt 'found' because I hadn't made it with the intention of painting it.
After doing this, I have some ideas involving lasers and electronics to make future versions of the painting.
Technical EPN Note: I don't think we can use '/' in the TAGS Field.. so I would avoid it. I'm going to TAG this as "Algorithmic Chaotic Natural Processes"
8 comments:
The colors are really smart... brings in anatomy really well... nice man go with this idea im excited to see more
steve winwood is fucking good
I think the idea of using your body as a machine to paint is an interesting one. I also like the idea of trying to paint graphs of functions visualized in your head. There are some similarities between these two ideas, but I would like to see them each examined seperately. The process behind these paintings is interesting, and based in some really fascinating ideas, but I think you are trying to do too much at once and therefore the ideas are not communicated as clearly as they could be, and the viewer will have to rely on your verbal explanation. For example, what is the logic behind the placement and size of the circles? I still see most of the painting as a product of aesthetic choice, free choice, artistic creativity. (Not that this would be bad - we aren't ideologues for process here on EPN - but this is what you say motivated you). Perhaps examining each of these elements seperately will enable the viewer to understand your process intuitively by examining the painting. I am a big fan of limiting in order to expand. Of course, you have to operate at the level of complexity that you feel comfortable at. I have been making work that is very formalized and in which there are only a few variables. So please consider my advice with this in mind - I can't help but be biased and to judge your work in terms of the factors with which I judge my own work - nobody can accuse me of being objective... Anyway, there are some interesting parallels to the work of Bruce Nauman - especially the early work - in terms of trying to relate a process of moving your body that results in a product - in his case video or sculpture. You have to compate yourself to the best... I would urge everyone reading this who doesn't know about Bruce Nauman's work to look it up - it's just amazing how many things we take for granted in contemporary art first showed up in his work. Not that this work seems derivitive or even clearly influenced by Nauman's work - it was just on my mind because of a show I saw at Berkeley.
This is great work - full of ideas and questions, and it's really interesting to watch your ideas evolve - it inspires me to put up some of my unfinished work...
I hope this advice wasn't too critical - the web seems to encourage a more critical and direct voice...
people need to be more critical on the EPN, yo. no need to be petty or mean (we're all pretty much on the same page here), but we can push each other more. it's no fun if we don't.
i don't have much to say about it (not very smart today), but the painting is very good. the composition is sound, and it's cool seeing you do something a little more haphazard, more abstract, i guess...
i think farley's critique is totally valid, though - you don't actually seem to be limiting yourself here. the piece is not algorithmic, nor made according to procedural rules, but still a product of your own free will. it may be a little less controlled than your normal output, but you could still put more thought and energy into the procedural aspects. more rules! less freedom!
were you listening to 'spanish dancer'? if not, you should have been. that song is deep.
I totally agree that it holds back too much still, in terms of letting go to a structure -- if that makes sense. Anyone can be as critical as they want with my posts -- in fact, I agree that it seems people are still a little timid about all of that.
But, neither Total Cool Dude's nor Eff's comments felt particularly critical.
Jacques: Thanks bro -- I actually didn't make that connection until you said that. And really, that's a great place to look for procedural stuff, circulatory systems and stuff like that.
EFF: The circles were blind randomness. I tried not to really think at all how big or where to put them, and to be as honest about that as possible without "thinking it" too much. However, artistic control creeps in....
It's definitely more expressionistic than procedural, and if anything is sort of "superficially procedural", but nonetheless I like the way it's coming out, and I think the conversation we've been having is directly what led me to make this.
It's really a failure, but one that I like and might hang on my wall, so that's cool. But, seriously I mean a failure in the sense that it doesn't quite do what I wanted conceptually yet. And it's a good point about not having to explain your painting for someone to have to get it. That's always the worst.
It's Rad that you brought up Bruce Nauman, I love his work -- although I wasn't actively thinking of it recently. His staircase is so amazing.
BE CRITICAL PIZZA PEOPLE, IT PREVENTS SEXUAL BLOCKAGES AND PROMOTES GOOD HEALTH.
I'm not backing off on criticality here, but I wasn't saying your work was a failure.
I think it's important how you said you "tried not to think" about where to put the circles. Earlier, I was trying to say how work created through a process has many similarities with so-called "automatic drawing." The similarities have to do with an absence of self-awareness and commentary within the finished work, no overbearing narrative voice. I don't know if automatic drawing is a complete fiction, but I know from my own experience that something like an altered state of consciousness can be brought about by any intense kind of action-oriented concentration. There seems to be an absense of self-reflexive thought, sometimes a memory gap, changed methods of breathing, etc - like when you realize you've been driving unconsciously. This is actually the kind of practical side of Japanese Zen that potters and fighters use - "joriki," or the powers of concentration that enable you to act without thinking first. I think most people I have talked to who are involved in creative activities have some experience with this. It's a much more subtle trick than using some kind of clunky process to drive yourself out. I guess the disadvantage is that it is unexplanable and mystical so that it may be hard to see where old-fashioned creativity ends and where "automatic" creativity begins (though I think with time I am getting better at seeing the difference).
Not that I am ideologically opposed to old-fashioned creativity - we are following an interesting tangent here to see where it leads, not to formulate a list of dos and donts.
Anyway - what I'm trying to say that these are two methods of artmaking, both of which you seem to be practicing, noticing the similarities, but not the differences.
As with all commentary on other's art, I am partially using this as an opportunity to clarify my understanding of my own work.
EFf-- Don't worry. It's a harsh word, but it meant nothing beyond "failing to satisfy my original goals with the painting". I think what really happened is I changed my intentions half way through completion -- which is hard not to do.
I have to choose words more carefully on the internet -- they resonate, and can sound dramatic when not intended to be.
I think the part where you say "noticing the similarities but not the differences" is interesting, and i have to think more about what that means.
>>As with all commentary on other's art, I am >>partially using this as an opportunity to clarify >>my understanding of my own work.
I totally understand that. It's really helpful to have these conversations for both the person making the piece and the person crit. I'm getting lots of ideas here.
That's why I like EPN - because the pressure to be specific and clear when writing helps clarify my own ideas. (Note that I in no way claim to have acheived these ideals in my comments. Duh.).
Chosing words is hard for me - why can't I just have them all?
Post a Comment