BFA PAINTING SHOW; favorites :)

The BFA painting show was super. I was really impressed by the dedication and originality of the participants. There were a few in particular that really stood out to me apart from the rest: Ross Haughton, Haylee Heisel, and Emmy Knight.

I thought this painter was really successful and blending flat color with texture to create a sense of light and interesting space. I was particularly intrigued by the luminosity he was able to achieve throughout the painting, and even though he used so many different blending and paint application techniques his paintings didn't seem the least bit over-worked or busy, which is a difficult feat.

I was blown away by Haylee's comprehension of the figure. I love the way she could keep things painterly but extremely accurate. Her color was bold but believable, and she really built and texture and shape in a subtle, accurate way. They are very poignant and create such a strong narrative with so little context.

Emmy's work was very puzzling. It was confusing and compelling. Her large-scale work didn't appeal to me as much as her smaller paintings; there was just too much going on in them (especially the one pictured), too many opposing shapes and patterns and the color scheme was all over the place. However her smaller paintings (particularly the one to her right) were intimate, elegant little snapshots of unknown spaces with very specific colors and textures that complimented each other.

Overall I was very satisfied with the show. It made me excited to apply for the BFA program, which I did the following morning :)

Kristine Moran: love

Holy hell this painter is incredible!

One of the ones Amanda recommended for me after my first post! I looked her up about two weeks ago and am thoroughly excited to write about her.

These two paintings in particular (entitled "The World is Yours" and "Flash Flood") are really helpful concerning problems I'm having regarding my interior painting.

I think I've been going about it all wrong: I've been trying to incorporate abstraction right off the bat with brush stroke and texture, making my painting awkward and stagnant. Instead I think I should try doing something similar to what Kristine is doing: she starts light and fairly simple and realistic, and then lets herself go totally crazy on top of it. I think my biggest problem regarding painting is my tendency to rush. I have extremely high standards set for myself, and then when they aren't reached immediately I rush, thus screwing up the painting. Frustrated, and convinced I've ruined it, I give up on it or finish in a hurry so I don't have to look at it anymore. It's very silly, and I think if I just slowed down and enjoyed the process more I would have a much better outcome.

Kristine Moran has also done something pretty admirable with color: she's taken green such a long way, really varying the tones and values but with such subtlety! It's pretty breath-taking. She also really has texture down, able to get thick spots without making it look excessive of overworked. This artist's work has been extremely helpful and enjoyable for me to look at. Moran definitely makes the types of paintings that I aspire to make some day: that effortless sense of depth and her sensibility of texture blow my mind :)

confusion/backed up research

I'm having a really difficult time. My mind is overflowing with ideas, but none of them translate, none of them connect and none of them mean anything beyond sudden little splurges of emotional imagery.

When I try to work I have these delusions of grandeur as to what my painting will look like, but my impatience makes me rush and the result is never satisfying. It's a cycle I seem to have fallen into that's extremely hard to get out of. It's dysfunction at its best and that is very frustrating.

I've been doing a fairly diligent job of keeping track of artists in my sketchbook, but for some reason have been procrastinating translating them onto the blog (therefore I apologize in advance for the sudden rash of posts).

1)

Review of "playing fields" lecture

I found Ryan Schneider's work to be very aesthetically exciting and interesting. The colors were fantastic; I was amazed how pure and vibrant they were despite clearly being mixed values. Compositionally he took a lot of risks, lots of sharp angles and repetition of shapes; everything, including his figures and interiors were completely jagged and vicious, very confrontational.

I was particularly drawn to "Snowed Out/Snowed In" (shown above), probably because of its ambiguity, while I felt that a lot of his other paintings were too clearly personal for an audience to relate to. There was a kind of mysterious dysfunction to everything he painted (with the exception of "Snowed Out/Snowed In") that I found intriguing until he started talking more about his processes and inspiration. To be honest I found much of what he said to be very superficial and quite disappointing given how peculiar his paintings were.

He spoke a lot about drinking and partying with his friends, being hung over, and fighting with his girlfriend as the majority of his inspiration, and while I'm sure most people can relate to these things from time to time in their lives, it was very disappointing to me that he chose to focus on these dysfunctional habits as the basis for his creative process, as though highlighting them and telling his viewers "this is all I am." It might seem a bit harsh, but the general impression I got from Mr. Schneider was that his life consisted mainly of partying. After that it was hard for me to take his work seriously because I felt as though he was giving an awful lot of meaning and symbolism to something that he probably should have outgrown when he was done with college.

What I learned from this is that it's better for me to know little to nothing about an artist's intentions when viewing their art, because if I am not satisfied with them it makes it hard for me to continue to appreciate what they have produced.

research

I was looking at www.contemporaryartdaily.com. It had a really diverse assortment of pieces. My goal was to pick a few that I liked and try to try to figure out why they were appealing to my when many of the others weren't, and then think about what they were accomplishing in perspective to my own work. I think that will generally be my goal. What I'm kind of hoping to do with this research is broaden my interests and open some doors in terms of what I associate with how I make work.

1) Lisa Oppenheim (at Klosterfelde)

http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/2010/09/lisa-oppenheim-at-klosterfelde/#more-17147

The exhibition is called "Blood to Ghosts." The images are pretty over-whelming, but in a strangely simple way. There's something so graceful about them. They're photograms that show a seamless overlapping or progression of the moon's phases from 1851 to the repetition of identical phases in 2010. So, in a way, the images are recycled but simultaneously fresh: the old and the new are adjusted to create the final result, which is an original work.

I love the simplicity of these images. They're so large and powerful but somehow manage to sustain a fragile sensibility. I think a lot of that is caused by the way the perfectly round moon contrasts with the foggy, faded ambiance around it. The moon is so easily recognizable, but when I look at Oppenheim's images it's as though I'm really seeing it for the first time. I have strong emotional reaction to them: a lonely, romantic reminiscence almost.

It's strange for me to be so drawn to such a such a simple image. I'm the type of person to be more interested in pieces with lots of materials, layers, physical depth to the medium. Maybe personal experience with the frustration of making work this way is what makes the idea of such a simple-looking, clean image so appealing. And of course there are the layers of the new photographs atop the old, so there is depth, even if it is not directly visible (I suppose it's more of an imagined depth).

2) Group Show (at UNTITLED)

http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/2010/09/group-show-at-untitled/#more-17098

This show contained a multitude of small, three-dimensional installations by David Adams. Again, I am puzzled by the fact that I was once again drawn to very visually simple pieces. Most of the sculptures seemed to be manipulations of found objects, which is a very satisfying idea to me.

Although virtually no information was provided to the viewer in the description of the show as to the intent of each piece, what I take from the set is that these pieces have very specific intentions to the creator, intentions that don't necessarily translate to the viewer. Still, somehow, I'm kind of ok with that. I like the ambiguity of it while still taking from it that sense of specificity to the artist.

The structures, like I said, are simple, but a sense of the complexity of the artists mindset is still present. There's like a bizarre narrative that to the sculptures, like finding a book written in another language: you know there is a story but that doesn't help you read it.

I have a feeling that the structures would have a much larger impact in person, however.

This was a piece I liked in particular. It looks to m like a cane that was gradually widdled away into this thin, fragile form.

My Analysis:

What does it mean that I have (as of late anyway) noticed that I tend to be more drawn toward simple, minimalist art?...I'm not entirely sure.

Part of me feels like my art is getting too congested within itself. I still am very much in favor of layers and texture, but maybe there's away to integrate a material or textural complexity with some kind of the simplicity I'm seeing in these two artists' work. Maybe compositional simplicity?

I think this artist (Maria Chevska) does an effective job of joining compositional simplicity and defined texture in this painting:

http://blogaart.blogspot.com/

You definitely get a sense of depth and I really enjoy the way the layers underneath are peaking through. It looks worked on, yet the simplicity of it makes it seem completely effortless. I like the way those two forces contradict each other. That's definitely something I would be interested in exploring in my work.

video 2: "the sneeze"(edited version)

animation 1: "the sneeze"

pictures for animation (they are stupid)