Many artists are inarticulate, really. Emotionally raw. They can't explain very well what they do. They just do it, albeit sometimes magnificently.
We have a little revolving art gallery here, so I read a fair number of artists' statements. Most tend to be vague, vapid, or sententious. Some have only the most tenuous of connections to the objects on the wall, making the reader/viewer feel stupid for "not getting it." Some are so bizarre one fears for the poor fellow's sanity.
The artist's statement here at the current exhibit is perfectly balanced, I think, between specificity and abstraction, intellect and emotion. It actually helped me in looking at the paintings!
I'll let the artist, Vincent McLoughlin, tell you what he does in his own words: "The panels...deal with three. Red. Yellow. Blue. Applied opaquely, translucently, and transparently in layers of three." Then he starts to intrigue me: the three colors make him think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Plato's three-fold division of human psychology, the appetitive, the spirited, the rational; Darwin (variation, heredity, struggle for existence), Lincoln (government of, by, and for the people). A structured analysis, yet opening out to endless possibilities.
I found the paintings to look like kaleidoscope images. Crystals. No wait, they look like growing microorganisms. And look, there's an evolving eye! No, wait-- a city, a parliament, a cluster of berries! Love, growth, communion! And I liked thinking of the Trinity as the origin of it all.
In spite of the old adage to view from the distance, I found the paintings were even more intriguing close-up, once I understood the artist's technique.
Sometimes the artist is his own best critic. Certainly he should be his own best advocate.
We have a little revolving art gallery here, so I read a fair number of artists' statements. Most tend to be vague, vapid, or sententious. Some have only the most tenuous of connections to the objects on the wall, making the reader/viewer feel stupid for "not getting it." Some are so bizarre one fears for the poor fellow's sanity.
The artist's statement here at the current exhibit is perfectly balanced, I think, between specificity and abstraction, intellect and emotion. It actually helped me in looking at the paintings!
I'll let the artist, Vincent McLoughlin, tell you what he does in his own words: "The panels...deal with three. Red. Yellow. Blue. Applied opaquely, translucently, and transparently in layers of three." Then he starts to intrigue me: the three colors make him think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Plato's three-fold division of human psychology, the appetitive, the spirited, the rational; Darwin (variation, heredity, struggle for existence), Lincoln (government of, by, and for the people). A structured analysis, yet opening out to endless possibilities.
I found the paintings to look like kaleidoscope images. Crystals. No wait, they look like growing microorganisms. And look, there's an evolving eye! No, wait-- a city, a parliament, a cluster of berries! Love, growth, communion! And I liked thinking of the Trinity as the origin of it all.
In spite of the old adage to view from the distance, I found the paintings were even more intriguing close-up, once I understood the artist's technique.
Sometimes the artist is his own best critic. Certainly he should be his own best advocate.
3 comments:
I checked out Vincent's website but couldn't find the paintings to which you were referring. On the whole, I like his work. Abstract art usually leaves me cold. This was sharply evident when we went to the National Art Gallery last year. Whole rooms full of pretentious nothing. Worth millions of dollars. I often wonder if the artists are playing a huge (and lucrative) joke on humanity. Like the king with no clothes. I'll be interested to see the photos. Symbolism is worth something.
Hello, Sue, I was out of town, purposely computerless, for a couple of days. As always, I appreciate your comments. I agree with you about abstract art--I'm not a big fan, generally. But, as I said, Vincent's statement helped me see more than I usually would. I'm proud of the photo I took-- the paintings are very vibrant and this one seemed to capture that. And you are right-- none of the paintings here are on the website, though there are similarities.
And I certainly agree about some of the stuff that passes as Great Art. I think we need fewer artist-celebrities and more artist-craftsmen. That's why I treasure local artists who manage to make a regular living and still create beautiful things for people to enjoy.
Artist-craftsmen (or women), I love it. My husband and I usually buy some local art on our anniversary adventures. My first purchase felt a little extravagent (http://nostalgic-nana.blogspot.com/2009/02/bored-bored-bored.html) but it pales in comparison to later forays into the art world. There is an artists' co-op at our nearest beach town that I love, the artists staff and run the gallery so you get to meet them as you browse. The photo on this post (http://nostalgic-nana.blogspot.com/2010/05/frugalistas-unite-re-done_16.html) shows my latest small find.
Post a Comment