Mon and Dieneke had a critique session with me with Sophie and and Hailey a few days ago. Reflecting on my art, here are a few insights they provided me with.
The scale of my work, its cinematic presence, elongated width alludes the viewer into the present and a strong sense of immidiency because of the spatial awareness that is hard to miss.
The painting although referenced by a photograph, has not much relevance to the field. The process of selecting, and taking photographs, questions on who the photographer is and thereby the painter is most significant in light of its relevance "photography".
Some of the images I am inpired by/ reference were taken by either my mother or my father. Some ananomous authors, people I havent met, but had a reltionship to my parents or my family. When Dieneke questioned me about the perspective of the photo-taker, I immidiately thought about these photographs of my childhood through my parents view point. Often these photographs were taken as a conversation between the long distance relationship of my parents as a means to describe, explain and develop as many things as possible with the frame.
They were expensive to post, they had an urgency about them, and they needed to be as discriptive realistic as possible, as though the person veiwing it could be transported into a time channel. This narrative assured my parents a form of communcation when email/ texting/ calling were out of the question.
I felt like referencing these photographs in my painting was me conversing with the experience behind the photograph. extending the memory beyond the frame through the fluid nature of paint.
The figures being represented in the canvas felt more "assured", because of the space that is referenced/ sympoblised throught the horizon lines and perspective.
spatial awareness-
Enviroments and figure. Figures inhabiting the space. figures in the canvas space. me in the space of the enveloping painting.
The presense of the time/ space frame is grounding.
In terms of beign asked if I documented my progress, I replied with a sheepish "no. Because I don't like the looking back at my work/ or feeling the need to edit. I'm not sure if this is my way of shirking off responsibility, or me romantisizing the gestures I make onto he canvas as aboslute and "meant to be". That is, I like the memory of the gesture being recorded into the canvas, rather than having re-record through documentation and second-guess my thinking."
I was told to consider the option as a learning curve, rather than a critism. Fair enough.
Monique engaged me in referencing my love for the "compost" and all it stands for. With compostign comes, collection, ephemera, decomposition, life, layers, history. Can the canvas operate as a compost? A compost of memory, history and time and space. As I leave traces on the canvas, gestures, marks, references, experiences, a spillage fo hummus or wine for goodmeasure. Can the process of painting operate as a compost?
Dieneke mentioned that my painting is more than its "photographic" reference because conceptually it moves beyond the moment of that "absolute" image, (that a photograph can allude to). It engages me to think about the spaces beyond the moment the photograph was taken, beyond the vernacular(ity) of the photograph.
She also mentioned: Painting people who have their backs turned to you, that is the back of their head, in a way is "failed" in a vernacular sense.
I found that funny and also in a way conclusive to how I hope to represent figures I am known to. I want them to preserve their mana, integrity, privacy. It is voyeristic for me to look/ paint/ study them. And I need to figure out my relationship to them, so I can also preserve their ambuity. Although I am not sure how to and still learning.
Comments