What I'm reading

I've spent the past two weeks finishing a piece (What Could Be – which I originally wanted to title Infinity Awaits) that did not want to end, reading Bianca Bosker's Get the Picture, and reading a set of essays (titled Ways of Seeing) based on a 1972 BBC series of the same name.  

I devoured Bosker's book, though in retrospect I found the first section (about her toxic relationship with a deeply flawed gallerist) painful and useless.  The last quarter or so was uplifting, reminding me of the ways my eyes and mind were opened when I started painting.  I'm glad I read that before our upcoming travels -- reminding me to be as open as possible.

Ways of Seeing (edited by John Berger) takes the format of seven essays - three of which contain only photos.  The first essay essentially interprets Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."  The other verbal essays are critical screeds on capitalism and sexism in Euro-American beaux arts.  I had to keep reminding myself of the date of the essays:  to me they repeated the critical theory that I read throughout my time as an academic, but actually they were early applications of theory to art.

What a sprint!

After my vision stabilized from January's cataract surgeries, I focused entirely on planning, painting, and documenting new work.  Among them, two large (48"x 60") pieces:  Aqua Dream 1 and Aqua Dream 2.  The tilted backgrounds are acrylic, the biomorphic figures are in oil.  These figures have messages to convey!

In addition to biomorphism, I've continued working in my rectilinear vein, Influenced by Russian Suprematism and International Constructivism.  These movements continue to speak strongly to me.  See Turning (acrylic on canvas) and Dynamo (oil on canvas), each 48"x 36".

These paintings (along with 20 others) will become part of the rental program managed by Ryan James Fine Arts in Kirkland WA.  After they hang in a client's offices for the rest of the year, they'll be available for purchase.

On The Impossibility of Knowing (4 of 4)

I’ll wrap this up for now —

All paintings emphasize presence.  There’s something there — even if it’s a white sheet of paper.

But a thoughtful viewer also thinks about absence: 

• Who and what are not shown, but are relevant to the scene? 

• What spaces lack visible marks or activity? 

• What could have been going on in those spaces?

In The Impossibility of Knowing, I’m trying to draw attention to absence. (You could do that via a large, blank canvas, but that’s been done.)

Two other artists in this year’s juried show at the Leonor Fuller Gallery at South Puget Sound Community College – on view now – also draw the viewer’s attention to presence and absence:

Stephanie Broussard’s Moonrise (above) visualizes a female presence in a skyscape of mountain and moon – a presence that is perhaps spiritual, real but unseen.

Lynette Charters’s Zarraga’s Naked Dancer Muse (above) from her The Missing Parents Series removes the actual painting of the two women in the Angel Zarraga’s 1909 painting The Nude Ballerina (below).

o   By painting everything but exposed skin, and carefully using knotholes and grain in her wooden board surface, Charters substitutes and amplifies the missing paint. 

o   According to her artist’s statement,[1] she wants to emphasize “the lack of societal appreciation and wage equality for childbearing and stay-at-home parents.”

In sum, what’s impossible to know?  Just about everything.

[1] https://spscc.edu/art-gallery/2022-2023-Exhibition-Season/SWJ/Lynette-Charters

On The Impossibility of Knowing (3 of 4)

Let’s continue —

The majority of the paintings in this series (I’ve completed 39) feature one or more human figures.  Most viewers spend more time on those – because they can identify with the humans, and/or can easily create a narrative about the humans. I have heard wonderful, amazing narratives that viewers have created – some have awed me.

Take a look at The Impossibility of Knowing (10) , shown below. What narrative do you create when you see this?

I wanted to evoke

• embodiment and disembodiment,

• present and future,

• past and present,

• wondering which figures “see” which figures.

Well, I knew that much when I painted it. Recently, I’ve asked myself to think more deeply.

These paintings emphasize the fleeting nature of the moment and of the current setting, by showing the prospect of the figure(s) not being present. But then, all paintings, drawings, and photos emphasize the fleeting nature of the moment and of the current setting.

This is more obvious in figurative or representational renderings — we know that we’re looking at a streetscape, landscape, or mother and child, and we know that this scene existed at some point and place (at least in the artist’s mind), but don’t exist now.

I think that’s one of the reasons we love images of children.

• We are in awe of their child-ness, and

• we know that the people in the image are probably no longer children, certainly not children of the age we’re viewing.

• We’re wistful for their growing older and dying, and for our own growing older and dying.