

I also ended up painting shapes and shadows from the houses across the street. As I was painting at night time, I'm sure the neighbors could see me, but my image was blurred and with little definition. I occasionally allowed the reflections that I was getting from the windows to be a part of my composition, as well. The colors ended up being muted and dark, which I enjoy. I found it actually quite difficult to get very dark values, as the translucent nature of watercolors lets so much white through the pigment. But I had fun layering the paint and finding darkness this way.

While it is great that I found and had access to such an inspiring source for my painting this past week, I am left with the same problem of subject upon my return to good old Philadelphia. I know that I want to paint, and I know that I enjoy painting, but what am I supposed to paint? (See Becket Ming Flannery's A Question on Being Minimal-ish) Even though I have figured out that I don't necessarily need content in my work, which sets me apart from Flannery, I still need a subject or a source to work from. How do I find a source without making it become content? Alternatively, how do I find a source without it becoming arbitrary or trite?

1 comment:
Dear Blake:
The Quito pieces are remarkable in their stylistic consistancy with your abstract work. They achieve a common voice; enviable accomplishment.
Your handling of representation is suggestive more than literal, especially pieces two and four. In four, it is hard to know what is depicted; yet things clearly are--the tension of this mystery.
The first piece -- eye candy; that, while recognizably a landscape, transcends pretty-picture status by avoiding the literal, by interpreting.
Which suggests that the real can generate abstraction -- Ellsworth Kelly bent it this way. Side by side, the connection between reference and result in his work is clear; alone, the result is only abstract. The real might provide endless resources for new abstractions.
Seal Stone Craver
Post a Comment