Some experiments in paint handling

 As I began this semester, I was torn as to the direction my work should go. I was resolute in my belief that painting is where my heart lies and that it would remain my primary focus. However, it seemed that my work was proceeding down three separate avenues: The allegorical/manufactured narrative landscapes that begin as abstract compositions and eventually take on a narrative and figuration, the purely abstracted landscape, and purely observational or plein aire work. I felt that these were all areas worthy of exploration, but I’ve been told many times, by the faculty, my mentor, and classmates at AIB that I need to narrow my focus to just one area of exploration. My previous semester’s mentor, Damon Lehrer, told me, “if you ever really want to grow up, you have to take all your dreams, except one, take them out behind the shed and shoot them in the head.” Instead of abandoning all areas of endeavor except one, I am hoping to find, and investigate further, an area of intersection between these relatively disparate areas.

In critiques, there were a fair number of conflicting ideas, most of which had to do with the direction I should pursue in my work. As I have been grappling with narrowing my scope, I brought this up in all the critiques I participated in and solicited feedback. Overall, the majority of faculty opinion was favorable toward pursuing the narrative, fantastic landscapes, though some faculty members thought I should abandon overt figuration and landscape elements and simply suggest landscape elements in abstractions. Others maintained that I was approaching a cohesive body of work; that it was gravitating towards the intersection between visionary and fantastic and responsiveness to the landscape but that I needed to be more believable in both areas. Some called into question whether I should be painting at all, as the world has moved on from painting and if I wanted to be involved in the discourse of the contemporary art world, I should utilize another medium.

An overarching theme emerged from the critiques- it was said many times that I should experiment with varying my mark and level of finish within the piece. I appear to have developed a method that I can employ at will to make pleasing paintings, but that I need to be less comfortable, less sure in my ability to successfully execute a finished painting. It was said that I should push the emotional aspects of the work further and make the paint-handling jibe with the subject of the piece to give it more emotional resonance.

From a technical standpoint, many people said I was skilled enough in painting to not concern myself with technique anymore, and concentrate on the conceptual angle. I don’t agree with this; while the conceptual realm in my work needs to be addressed more, the acquisition of technique should be never ending. Some said my paintings lacked light, in that they all appear to be painted at high noon. It was also observed that my paintings look too much like the work of the Group of Seven and that I should look at other painters of the landscape and appropriate some technical aspects of their work to widen my technical scope.

It was recommended that I check out artists from widely varying times and places. But generally, they are all landscape painters, or their work has elements of landscape in them. I was directed to the work of Robert Bechtel, who, it was said, possessed an ability to render very specific types of light. It was suggested I check out Charles Burchfield and examine what made the visionary aspects of his work believable to the viewer. John Martin was suggested, as his landscapes were grandiose in the extreme. Lopez Garcia’s landscapes were recommended; as they show a struggle to perceive the landscape that takes many risks and sometimes don’t work out- virtuosity can only take you so far. Stanley Spencer’s landscapes were recommended as well. Alice Neel was suggested, as her work transcends the straight portrait and becomes a psychological portrait; less rooted in verisimilitude and getting after more of an emotional resonance. I was also instructed to investigate late 14th and early 15th century renaissance backgrounds for a simplification of landscape that looks less like the Group of Seven.

In the coming semester, I plan to bring more emotional resonance into my work. I will try as many methods and techniques as possible to reach that goal. I plan to vary the mark, in terms of intensity as well as physicality, and to experiment more with texture and scale. I feel that in some ways I when I focus on the surface, I pay much attention to the quality of the mark and not enough attention to the textural quality and physicality of paint. I will focus on exploring the romantic visionary quality of my paintings, and continue with some narrative elements, but not necessarily an overt, linear narrative. I plan on continuing the visionary landscapes but, in order to make the organic process more visible, I will experiment with leaving areas less developed and letting the narrative crystallize in areas dictated by the composition. I think this will make explanation of the process less necessary and let the work speak for itself. I plan to paint larger, so as to give space for more energetic mark making, but allowing me to still have areas of intense focus. Differing the levels of finish within the piece will add dynamism and increase movement and vitality. It is my hope that this will result in a more emotionally complex and powerful piece with the process being a highly evident and important element.

These images are the result of some experimentation with mark making...

They are all 18x24.