My work has no space in it, no space at all. How depressing this is. I don’t really know how to get space in them. Maybe you need to be able to see the floor, you don’t see the floor in many of the paintings. how the hell do i expect to play with space when there is none. maybe the colour climate has something to do with this as well. and i persistantly fail to succeed in creating colour climates. insanity levels= 10.
Recent Posts
- There’s no telling what we might find…
- Chin
- Keplers Law of Planetary Motion- Another guy who had issues with order and control.
- Liminal
- Can a photo or a painting be Tragic?
Categories
- Artist's statment
- Contemporary art
- Critical theory
- Dance
- Diary entry
- Historical Studies
- Interviews
- Literature
- Music
- Other artists
- Other forms of culture
- Our poems
- Our work
- Photography
- Poetry
- Pre 20th Century art
- Talks/seminars/lectures
- The creative process
- The world/society and politics
- Theatre
- Twentieth Century Art
- Uncategorized
Space as in depth or space within the flat plane?
If the former, which I expect it is, then surely its a case of pragmattically stripping them down. What gives a painting space and which of those things does your work have or not have. Also, what space do you need and why do you need it. Try, if possible, answering these questions with a cool, objective head. It seems like the kind of problem which can’t be addressed with the emotively charged state of mind your post suggests you were in.
Give some examples of works without space and then some examples of another artists work which does have space. From this ill see if my shrivelled eyes can give some advise.
Not been able to comment on new works yet but will soon. Certainly nothing like as keen on the new one as I was the ‘dog and chil’ and ‘charity.’
Tom
23 Feb 08 at 2:30 pm
WAAAAAH. is that objective enough?
Yea the new one is crap, but then it is a lot bigger than the two mentioned, so the use of paint is more varied, that perhaps you can’t see in the photo. why is it that you find this image not good? is the use of colour too frivalous, i wnat it to be bright you see, so i’ve been trying to work out how to do this.
What i meant when i said space is actually perspectival space, so that i gain the ability to play with this aspect of realism. in the ways that neo rauch and mattias weischer are able to do. but everything that i do is too close to being on the same plane, upon the picture surface so to speak. i think if you gain this skill its gonna open up a whole new range thing you can do.
i’ve gotta try to get this crap one finished in time for the show otherwise i’m a big fat failure.
Andy
25 Feb 08 at 9:52 pm
In terms of both artists i think the creation of three dimensional space, and the manipulation and play with there after, is acheived thorugh relative scale as much as anything. Consider Ruaschs figures. They gradually reduce in scale as we move through the picture plane. It is no different, surely, to a classcial history painter. They create a stage, though the use of eprspective, upon which various figures sit. As we move up the picture plane we tend to move back through it and the figures decrease in size accordingly.
I know you know all this, its obvious, of course. Yet it sometimes needs reminding as our eyes and hands are no logner trained to work naturally in such a way. Ever since Manet and Cezanne starting flatting the space we work in we have consciously lost this ability. Yet the modern figurative painter obviously wants to bring it back, even if we then wish to deconstruct it again.
I think you are getting to obsessed with colour beinbg the route to depth for you. Sure its improtant. Hodgkin and Riley alsmot single handedly play with depth through colour alone, as does Rothko. Yet perhaps colour can remain a more abstract (by which I think I just mean playing across the flat plane) element for you. Is rausch not like this. Is the colour not consciously flat in aprts, unite the various contradictory spatial and temporal parts as one?
I certainly don’t think you can focus on colour for depth. I tihnk colour has to many other roles in the work of a figurative artist for its powers to create dpeth to be enough. i could be wrong. Excuse these thoughts, just being vomitted out and sounding pretentious. It is a stream of consciousness, hence saying lot of obvious things in a patronising tone.
Weischer is interesting. Think of those sculptures he creates and then presumably works from. He talks in that book you have about working in fairly ambigous surface related forms to start with. Its as if he wants to create a stage first and then popullate it with objects. Perhaps you need to apporhac you search for dpeth like this. Construct a field which has depth before you then start to direct your play. I suppose its quite a traditional way of work. I think you can then start to tilt, disrupt nad flatten after this. For at the moment maybe you are working in the opposite direction. And trying to add depth after the foudnations are there is probally harder.
Ill get back to you on the recent piece, and certianly am wary of judgements of large work based on digital photographs. I think it just seems a bit crude in comparison to certain other works. i think that perhaps my perceptions of its relative weakenss are something to do with the struggle you are talking about in this post.
I hope at least one sentence of this nonsense is of use.
Tom
26 Feb 08 at 5:12 pm