I love the bleeds around the edges on all of them, but particularly on the second from the top, near the black in the top left corner. Ever thought of trying to develop that inside the frame?
The first piece at top has some nice moments -- particularly in the bottom right, where the brown-almost-lavender begins to work into the yellow, but revealing the blue under-painting. I also notice you put a thin, dark wash over the blue, right inside the U-shaped crater in the yellow. It just falls over the brush work in the blue like a shadow. Near the top right, it seems very tight, too, very packed, with the thick, white, horizontal line and then the blue above that with the dot of yellow on top. But in fact the yellow must be the bottom layer, yes? Judging from the yellow bleed around the edges, anyway. But forgive me -- it's kind of a silly habit of mine to try and "reconstruct" the painting from start to finish.
I think it's interesting how you do create certain areas which are tight, or dense, or whatever you will, and others that are more flat. It's not like the Abstract Expressionists (AbExes), who developed the surface evenly. There seem to be a lot of consequences, formally, to this decision to not develop "evenly."
I was reading an interview of Vija Celmins by Chuck Close, and it was interesting that what Close saw as the AbEx legacy in Celmins was her "overallness," how she plays with the whole picture plane evenly (at least in the star, spiderweb, and wave drawings)
Anyway . . . this all sounds so business like -- I miss you, and it's great to see your work.
-- It is relationships between the visual and the personal. It is creating art that exists outside of this world and outside of my mind. I am not depicting real places or real beings, but instead am moving between control and loss of control of the medium, hoping to discover a new world somewhere in the middle. It exists as a reality, as a space, consummated through the viewer's connection to the piece. Certain areas of each piece are intended to attract attention, but this may not be obvious at first. After looking a little further, we discover these areas, however, humbly, but strongly, holding their own. Some call these "lima beans" --
6 x 5 3/4 in (15.2 x 14.6 cm)
3 7/8 x 4 1/4 in (9.8 x 10.8 cm)
3 7/8 x 4 in (9.8 x 10.2 cm)
2 comments:
Nice work! Nice blog! Nice name!
I love the bleeds around the edges on all of them, but particularly on the second from the top, near the black in the top left corner. Ever thought of trying to develop that inside the frame?
The first piece at top has some nice moments -- particularly in the bottom right, where the brown-almost-lavender begins to work into the yellow, but revealing the blue under-painting. I also notice you put a thin, dark wash over the blue, right inside the U-shaped crater in the yellow. It just falls over the brush work in the blue like a shadow. Near the top right, it seems very tight, too, very packed, with the thick, white, horizontal line and then the blue above that with the dot of yellow on top. But in fact the yellow must be the bottom layer, yes? Judging from the yellow bleed around the edges, anyway. But forgive me -- it's kind of a silly habit of mine to try and "reconstruct" the painting from start to finish.
I think it's interesting how you do create certain areas which are tight, or dense, or whatever you will, and others that are more flat. It's not like the Abstract Expressionists (AbExes), who developed the surface evenly. There seem to be a lot of consequences, formally, to this decision to not develop "evenly."
I was reading an interview of Vija Celmins by Chuck Close, and it was interesting that what Close saw as the AbEx legacy in Celmins was her "overallness," how she plays with the whole picture plane evenly (at least in the star, spiderweb, and wave drawings)
Anyway . . . this all sounds so business like -- I miss you, and it's great to see your work.
-B
so i'm not artsy enough to leave a smart comment like becket's ... but i really like the last one!
and "oh my lima beans"? i don't get it?
Post a Comment