Washington Stylishly Crossing Over, 2008
two paper panels: top=30.25"x27.5" bottom=30.25"x37.5
mixed
note: black areas on left edge of each panel are actually cut out
This is the latest painting in my presidents/contemporary political figures meets soccer players series...
Feels finished but never sure...the series is a meditation/study of Larry Rivers' painting, Washington Crossing the Delaware...and a study he did of heads of Washington...
Intended to be tacked/pinned to wall. Left edges even. The images are slightly deceptive. The proportions are slightly off. (See actual dimensions) For looks at other paintings in this series jump to: www.theatticwhichisdesire.blogspot.com
Critical feedback welcomed.
12 comments:
love the red in the bottom panel and the figure is nicely rendered. the drips are nicely placed.
the top one doesn't look as done to me. i think that the charcoal face drawing would look more powerful if it was more carefully rendered..if it looked more like washington then the concept of the series might be visually known easier...but i'm not sure if that's what you're going for.. or maybe it's just that one line coming from behind the left of his face...it looks like a weird arm or something...maybe some more action in the upper left or lower right corners would be sweet.
personally...and i'm curious what you all think...i don't like seeing paper art tacked to the wall. is it because you don't like how a frame would look visually for the pieces? or you want the buyer to decide on a frame? i think some frames around these pieces and the ones on the attic page would look great floating in a maybe beighish wooden frame or something...so i'm just curious why you would tack these and not frame them...
you are awesome with that color...it's like BOOM!
bradneR
I apologize. The two panels do not line up left edge. They do not line up evenly. The top panel hangs slightly over the left edge of the bottom panel. If you look just below the "boat" that Washington is standing/posing in, there is a purplish shape. This shape aligns with a corresponding shape on the top edge of the bottom panel. When the panels are aligned properly, the shape below Washington's boat completes the open shape in the middle of the top edge on the bottom panel. So, in short, the panels are stacked and staggered, top panel staggered to the left, bottom panel staggered to the right.
bradner, will get to tacking vs. framing when I get another spare minute...
tim
Back to pinning/tacking/nailing paper pieces. I don't like frames. Some of the pieces with built in borders would probably look fine in well-chosen frames, but I am still not a fan. With regards to my work, frames are at odds with what I consider to be my aesthetic. I am constantly trying to balance a slickness with a roughness; to my mind, and eye--and, again, with regards to my art--frames are distracting, and one more element for a viewer to consider, thus a point of departure that I would rather avoid altogether. However, people have bought my work, and framed it, and I have no problem with that. Also, with the commodification of art, I chuckle a bit at the idea of trying to protect art. It used to be that people repaired belongings, used them until they couldn't be repaired anymore, but this didn't sit well with consumerism. Now, built in obsolescence reigns, value plummets as soon as an item is purchased, and technology outruns many products before they leave the shelf. We discard everything; we constantly upgrade. I just can't bring myself to think about my artwork with any sense of longevity, hardly worry about archivalness, convenience, or protection any more.
good point about the frames...they can be distracting especially with a glare from the glass/plastic.
what about pasting the paper to a masonite panel with a little box on the back so it sticks out?
'tis a fine idea. For practical purposes, paper is cheaper. I can roll up a painting on paper and ship to a customer, or a gallery, anywhere, for cheap. And it is precisely this "cheapness" that is, I feel, in alignment with my aesthetic: fine art with no frills.
the bottom piece really resonates with me... the movement and placement.. how the figure is anchored to the top of the piece. of course the color(maybe your best yet in that dept) one complaint is when i click the image large, it doesnt fit on my screen and i have to move it around to taste it completely. but-lovin' the work
I dig your palette. Especially on the soccer piece.
I had to draw some founding fathers for a class last year. Those were some funky lookin' dudes. But it got me thinking about what makes them recognizable is mostly the hair. If you can get that down, you can take more liberties with the face.
Is the paper cut on purpose or were they torn when you pulled them off the surface you were working on?
I was talking with my teacher just the other day about framing art vs. just throwing it on the wall. Personally, I think works done on canvas look good on their own, but for paper, the frame adds a lot to the piece. At a gallery one time, I saw this childlike doodle of a D&D type character drawn on 3-hole notebook paper. It was ridiculous, but because it was framed, I gave it more attention than I would have otherwise--and then I wished I had done it.
I love some tim Lane work, I wish I had one above my bed to see each morning. There is so much air in the work, and much honesty.
feels done to me. i like it.
I'm showing up pretty late to this party, but in regards to framing vs. not framing -- both ways have potential to be a visual distraction. Depends on who you ask and where their aesthetic compass is set to.
Often art (that's not by Vermeer or Rothko or something) lacks psychological "weight" with the potential collecting public. There is very little we can do about this, as non-Vermeers and non-Rothkos. But, one of the very small things we CAN do to distinguish our works and assist them in acquiring psychological weight (other than just painting great paintings) is to give them physicality -- to give them actual, physical mass.
Whether this means framing or not framing is a judgment call on behalf of the artist. I saw a great Raymond Pettibon show where everything was simply pinned up. And I've seen a number of student shows where things are pinned up and/or wrapped in acetate and look like crap.
For most people who are "collecting" a piece of art, it's simply not practical to have unframed artwork in their homes, offices, etc. So if they feel compelled to purchase an unframed piece, they're gonna go straight to a frame shop. This, in purely practical terms, adds expense to the piece -- and often quite a bit of expense. A large custom frame can easily clear $400.
As a consideration to potential buyers, I always put my works on paper into a relatively inexpensive black Nielsen frame with regular window glass over it to protect it. If someone wants to reframe it, fine. I've had to get pretty creative with matting if it's a diptych. Of course, this adds to my expense and so nudges my prices upward.
I read recently (in the book "The Gardner Heist") that there is a single substance on earth which is more valuable per ounce than gold, platinum, diamonds, heroin, you name it -- and it's fine art.
Not necessarily MY fine art, but fine art just the same. We're often the worst possible judges of the commodity value of our own work -- we tend to grossly under- or over-value it.
So in a sense I've capitulated whatever my aesthetic opinion is on having my work ideally be framed/not framed. I've assumed (hoped/prayed/feared) that someone might like it enough to invest in its physical survival -- and I've made that option as attractive to them as my time and financial means allow.
That's my 32 cents.
Post a Comment