Flawed, 2010
acrylic on masonite
24"x24"
As with the small grouping, your feedback is appreciated. It was very hard to capture the actual color of this piece. The pink is a little warmer, and the teal is a little bluer, but the image is fairly close.
I'm trying to work a lot of ideas out in my head right now about painting in general...I don't know why I continuous want to return to 1958...
5 comments:
well...1958 was a big year for painting haha. i like these a lot as i like sharp edges and bright color a lot. i like how you can see the strokes these do remind me of jasper johns or something but i like the added contemporary inkjet elements the best. i have to say my fav is the one that is bleeding pixels. sooo awesome.
i llllooooove the top one
.
i think it works real well, with the op color and three areas of interest.
the ground the blue and the red.
i also love the plaid piece. again, i like it that your balancing more than just the 2 color ones.
haha ners right, it is bleeding.
awesome
ready to hang!
the other 2 dont interest me as much
but i do like that little prism
but bigger on that may do it for me.
awesome how u used the tape in the top one as well
ahhh!
are these in the next show?
When I finished the grouping of three, I initially felt that the only one that stood up on its own was the painted panel, the red star with black background. I felt that the teal star with white background and small prism was very uninteresting (it looks horrible on glossy photo paper and might look better on matte paper). I felt that the open star with red pixels on patterned paper had promise, but probably wasn't worked enough, complex enough, etc. Because the paper was patterned, I thought that the image should be minimal (I was going for "bleeding pixels"), but it turned out that the finished product wasn't hard to look at, which was what I was attempting to create. I wanted that panel to adhere to my ideas about "the difficulty of looking". As a whole, I felt that the three just didn't add up, didn't communicate with each other, didn't work together, or even against each other. I liked the larger piece better. But in the end I feel that it should have been executed with more precision. To be more specific, I feel that the star should have been centered in the square opposed to off-center and high. Initially, I meant for these pieces to be a commentary on life, art, etc, hence the title: Flawed. The masonite that I was working on was in rough-shape. I purposely relaxed the precision of the placement of the star image, as well as its execution. In the end, this lack of precision annoyed me more than anything else. The crappy piece of masonite ended up really bothering me, as well, which is too bad because I really did enjoy painting this one and wish that I would've nailed it. I was happy with texture, application of paint, the tape effect, and color selections. The square format felt right. In the end, though, I felt that the "flaws" blew it. But I'm glad that you guys found some merit here. Your feedback has convinced me that I should retry these.
I think you allude to what may be the pivot this idea turns on -- image quality. You say it "looks horrible on glossy paper." I think there are probably degrees of horrible-ness...at some point it becomes unacceptable to the eye, and the evidence of lower quality surfaces or inks becomes a distraction.
Use whatever means necessary to generate your images. But when it comes time to exhibit the fruits of this exploration, be prepared to invest in professional printing.
Post a Comment