Hecho de Mano
Erik A. Mattila
one, I dug out my box of prismacolor stubs and the only paper I had at
hand, a Strathmore 9x12 Heavy weight bristol tablet, and wailed away at
a couple of drawings.
These are viewable at http://www.impix.com/fa/art.htm (index page).
Time slips past you, and I realised that I hadn't done any artwork by
hand in a period of time I'm too embarrassed to mention. It was pretty
nice. The computer interface is a world in itself. I don't notice it
much anymore, being so involved with it on a daily basis, but by doing
these two drawings it brought it all back home. Although the digital
image is slowly establishing itself as an art form, I must say the
difference is radical.
"Passages" refers to the act of the same name in Cubism, although this
is not a cubist w.o.a. Actually, it's a doodle gone stray. It began
with simple scribbles, and grew from there into an elaborate scribble.
What surlprised me is that it looks so old fashioned. Could have been
done in the thirties, doncha think?
"C" was a little more intended. My computer-game vice is exposed, I
think. At any rate, both drawings are quite thoughtless, other than the
candy-store crises experienced with the pile of colored sticks laying in
disarray on the desk.
I also discovered that prismacolor's are very difficult to scan. The
color distortion is pretty radical. I had to do quite a bit of tweaking
to get the colors to resonably represent the originals. Strange. The
wax itself must have some properties that fools the laser beam. I would
rate the results displayed as Fair plus, a notch below 'good' and
distant from 'excellent.'
Erik
Lil Ruse
>I also discovered that prismacolor's are very difficult to scan. The
>color distortion is pretty radical. I had to do quite a bit of tweaking
>to get the colors to resonably represent the originals. Strange. The
>wax itself must have some properties that fools the laser beam. I would
>rate the results displayed as Fair plus, a notch below 'good' and
>distant from 'excellent.'
You have a laser scanner? Or am I missing something
here? My scanning software has a way to jiggle the
actual scan to compensate for problematic subject
matter. For example: scanning much lighter in order
to get more detail into the scan. I then take the
image to Photoshop to darken it again if need be.
But if scanned too dark the detail is never there
and no amount of manipulation in Photoshop will put
it there. I'll try a prismacolor scan and see what I
see and get back here with the results...
PS My scanner is typical of most and uses CCDs, not lasers.
Erik A. Mattila
transparent prisms that filter out other colors and let you see the resplendent
blues. No amount of contrast adjustment will let you see the reds and yellows
that logic insists is in the light which strikes the bird.
The idea that you won't lose information by over exposing and lose information
by under exposing is, ...well, idiotic. On the other hand, if you're happy
with the results, what the hell. What you lost obviously isn't important to
you.
Yes, my run-of-the-mill cheap Microtek scanner is actually a CCD device. You
really nailed me on that one. I am humbled. But you gotta admit, "laser beam"
sounds more Flash Gordonish than "CCD." I mean it might be a literary issue.
So maybe if you substitute "CCD" array for "laser beam" the meaning of my
statement might penetrate your thick skull. I said 'color distortion' which
has nothing to do with contrast. The two aren't the same thing, you know. You
can get from green to grey without changing the value.
So when you do your experiment with a prismacolor work, what will you
accomplish? Will you post "I tried it, and it worked fine for me, so Erik is
lying." Why should I or anyone else believe you, let alone care? What's the
point, person who cowers behind fictitious names, other than demonstrating,
once again, what an asshole you are? Just curious.
You could have shot me down much better by commenting on the artwork, by the
way. I mean a good critique - even a scathing one, could be executed without
exposing your vast ignorance to we, the public.
Erik Mattila
mesken
wrote:
>In article <382E0015...@tomatoweb.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com says...
>
>>I also discovered that prismacolor's are very difficult to scan. The
>>color distortion is pretty radical. I had to do quite a bit of tweaking
>>to get the colors to resonably represent the originals. Strange. The
>>wax itself must have some properties that fools the laser beam. I would
>>rate the results displayed as Fair plus, a notch below 'good' and
>>distant from 'excellent.'
>
>You have a laser scanner? Or am I missing something
>here? My scanning software has a way to jiggle the
>actual scan to compensate for problematic subject
>matter. For example: scanning much lighter in order
>to get more detail into the scan. I then take the
>image to Photoshop to darken it again if need be.
>But if scanned too dark the detail is never there
>and no amount of manipulation in Photoshop will put
>it there. I'll try a prismacolor scan and see what I
>see and get back here with the results...
>
>PS My scanner is typical of most and uses CCDs, not lasers.
Amazing! My scanner uses a lamp to illuminate the object, there's no
laser in it (although the light of the lamp can be quite blinding) and
the CCD is used to read the object ;-)
M.
mysterious and the wrapping is very interesting too. How smooth is the
Bristol? is it Bristol Vellum? The very smooth, I find has no tooth and can
I can only use it for pen/ink/markers.
It's a very dramatic piece, jumping out at the viewer, and yet on closer
look, it has an intimacy.
Bravo!
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> So during my monitor burn-out period, waiting for delivery on the new
> one, I dug out my box of prismacolor stubs and the only paper I had at
> hand, a Strathmore 9x12 Heavy weight bristol tablet, and wailed away at
> a couple of drawings.
>
> These are viewable at http://www.impix.com/fa/art.htm (index page).
>
> Time slips past you, and I realised that I hadn't done any artwork by
> hand in a period of time I'm too embarrassed to mention. It was pretty
> nice. The computer interface is a world in itself. I don't notice it
> much anymore, being so involved with it on a daily basis, but by doing
> these two drawings it brought it all back home. Although the digital
> image is slowly establishing itself as an art form, I must say the
> difference is radical.
>
> "Passages" refers to the act of the same name in Cubism, although this
> is not a cubist w.o.a. Actually, it's a doodle gone stray. It began
> with simple scribbles, and grew from there into an elaborate scribble.
> What surlprised me is that it looks so old fashioned. Could have been
> done in the thirties, doncha think?
>
> "C" was a little more intended. My computer-game vice is exposed, I
> think. At any rate, both drawings are quite thoughtless, other than the
> candy-store crises experienced with the pile of colored sticks laying in
> disarray on the desk.
>
> I also discovered that prismacolor's are very difficult to scan. The
> color distortion is pretty radical. I had to do quite a bit of tweaking
> to get the colors to resonably represent the originals. Strange. The
> wax itself must have some properties that fools the laser beam. I would
> rate the results displayed as Fair plus, a notch below 'good' and
> distant from 'excellent.'
>
> Erik
M.
"C"
Erik A. Mattila
vellum. I would prefer the 'kidd finish,' but it was all I had laying
around. Actually, I would have preferred the Albenene I talked about last
year here, which I guess would be a vellum. It has a very hard finish, yet a
good bite for colored pencils. But I think it would be more difficult to
scan, since the light would go through and bounce back from the backboard of
the scanner. We used to have this problem with translucent art when I used to
run a lithographic camera. One solution, believe it or not, was to place the
art on the copyboard face down and wet the whole thing with turpentine, and
shoot through the paper (using a positive lithofilm, which was then dulped to
a negative sheet). Sounds horrible, but I got the tip from an old master
(Erroll Hendra, who used to do all the photowork for Bill Graham for the now
famous SF Fillmore Psychodillia rock-out posters -- how's that for name
dropping?)
Anyway, glad you liked "C." But don't you think "Passages" is old fashioned?
Maybe I read too many art history books, eh?
Erik
Lil Ruse
>what an asshole you are? Just curious.
Since you're so damned curious, you can
just kiss this asshole, pig!
M.
> It was just a smooth bristol, like you would use for pen and ink. Not a
> vellum. I would prefer the 'kidd finish,' but it was all I had laying
> around. Actually, I would have preferred the Albenene I talked about last
> year here, which I guess would be a vellum. It has a very hard finish, yet a
> good bite for colored pencils. But I think it would be more difficult to
> scan, since the light would go through and bounce back from the backboard of
> the scanner.
There is perhaps too much texture with the coloured pencil medium for scanners.
I've had somedrawings on museum board scanned and the work looked good except for
an oatmeal type texture.
> We used to have this problem with translucent art when I used to
> run a lithographic camera. One solution, believe it or not, was to place the
> art on the copyboard face down and wet the whole thing with turpentine, and
> shoot through the paper (using a positive lithofilm, which was then dulped to
> a negative sheet). Sounds horrible, but I got the tip from an old master
> (Erroll Hendra, who used to do all the photowork for Bill Graham for the now
> famous SF Fillmore Psychodillia rock-out posters -- how's that for name
> dropping?)
>
Anonymous name dropping:I knew some printers in LA using a letter press who had
contracts from Virgin Records.
You can do some tricks with turps and coloured pencils (after you prepare the
paper),
also using razor blades, and using a white pencil over a colour. Anyway you got
some powerful
effects with simple tools. The "C" image at first looked Aztec. I liked "Passages"
too- it was very lyrical, Kandinsky-like (name dropping). But that's not my
favourite type of abstract art, think I prefer clear forms or no form at all (like
Dan's work).
Marilyn
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
:So during my monitor burn-out period, waiting for delivery on the new
:one, I dug out my box of prismacolor stubs and the only paper I had at
:hand, a Strathmore 9x12 Heavy weight bristol tablet, and wailed away at
:a couple of drawings.
:
:These are viewable at http://www.impix.com/fa/art.htm (index page).
:
:Time slips past you, and I realised that I hadn't done any artwork by
:hand in a period of time I'm too embarrassed to mention. It was pretty
:nice. The computer interface is a world in itself. I don't notice it
:much anymore, being so involved with it on a daily basis, but by doing
:these two drawings it brought it all back home. Although the digital
:image is slowly establishing itself as an art form, I must say the
:difference is radical.
:
:"Passages" refers to the act of the same name in Cubism, although this
:is not a cubist w.o.a. Actually, it's a doodle gone stray. It began
:with simple scribbles, and grew from there into an elaborate scribble.
:What surlprised me is that it looks so old fashioned. Could have been
:done in the thirties, doncha think?
The background reminds me (texturally) of Synthetic Cubism's something,
something "and Chair Cane" by Picasso. Done in the 30s? Perhaps, but lots
was done in the 30s. It does have that feel though but I don't know if I
would have connected that thought if it hadn't been first planted in my
head. I'm very surprised that this is the effect of Prismacolors. I've
never used them and thought (because of works I've seen) that the colors
would be faded-out and comprised mostly of pastel hues. Amazed that you got
such texture. "Passages" is quite sensual and full of movement (IMO).
:
:"C" was a little more intended. My computer-game vice is exposed, I
:think. At any rate, both drawings are quite thoughtless, other than the
:candy-store crises experienced with the pile of colored sticks laying in
:disarray on the desk.
I love this one! Quite intriguing! Shows not only a vivid imagination but
your excellent color and compositional skills. I didn't know one could get
such dark values with Prismacolor but the contrast is very striking as well.
:I also discovered that prismacolor's are very difficult to scan. The
:color distortion is pretty radical. I had to do quite a bit of tweaking
:to get the colors to resonably represent the originals. Strange. The
:wax itself must have some properties that fools the laser beam. I would
:rate the results displayed as Fair plus, a notch below 'good' and
:distant from 'excellent.'
Modesty becomes you ;-)
Kay
:Erik
:
Erik A. Mattila
prismacolor, used primarily in technical illustration, was to use the very
bumpy french Canson paper with a light cross hatching. It's really very
lovely, but not my cup of tea. I like to lay down the colors furiously (to get
enough friction going to melt the pencil waxes into almost an encaustic
effect). But color mixing is very curious. For example, the deepest
'drop-out' black (really not a black at all) can by achieved by overlaying the
'Dark Green" pencil with "Tuscan Red." Other greens and reds don't seem to do
this. They are quite quirky.
But thanks for looking, and for your feedback.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>The background reminds me (texturally) of Synthetic Cubism's something,
>something "and Chair Cane" by Picasso. Done in the 30s? Perhaps, but lots
>was done in the 30s. It does have that feel though but I don't know if I
>would have connected that thought if it hadn't been first planted in my
>head.
Perhaps that is what is bothering me about them - I've been absorbing
them for the last couple of days trying to resolve it. In comparison to
those wonderful digital images that Erik posted a few months ago, which
I keep finding myself constantly drawn back to, I found the drawings
pleasing but not powerful or provocative and even a little static. In
other words they didn't demand anything of me than enjoying the
aesthetics of them - which I did. There isn't anything wrong with that,
and most people are happy with it - in fact most people believe that is
what a piece of art should be. Perhaps I have been reading Erik wrong
and he also believes this ?
I was most interested in the size of them and in the fact that one, if
not both, had been signed. Perhaps Erik could comment on why he did
that.
> I'm very surprised that this is the effect of Prismacolors. I've
>never used them and thought (because of works I've seen) that the colors
>would be faded-out and comprised mostly of pastel hues. Amazed that you got
>such texture. "Passages" is quite sensual and full of movement (IMO).
In my experiments the best way to do this is to draw with a kneaded
eraser - would that work with Prismacolors ? It works really well when
dragged across the drawing to create movement.
Do you ever do that, Erik ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <RLMY3.100491$y45.1...@news4.giganews.com>, Kay
> <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
> >The background reminds me (texturally) of Synthetic Cubism's something,
> >something "and Chair Cane" by Picasso. Done in the 30s? Perhaps, but lots
> >was done in the 30s. It does have that feel though but I don't know if I
> >would have connected that thought if it hadn't been first planted in my
> >head.
>
> Perhaps that is what is bothering me about them - I've been absorbing
> them for the last couple of days trying to resolve it. In comparison to
> those wonderful digital images that Erik posted a few months ago, which
> I keep finding myself constantly drawn back to, I found the drawings
> pleasing but not powerful or provocative and even a little static. In
> other words they didn't demand anything of me than enjoying the
> aesthetics of them - which I did. There isn't anything wrong with that,
> and most people are happy with it - in fact most people believe that is
> what a piece of art should be. Perhaps I have been reading Erik wrong
> and he also believes this ?
No, I think your reading me right, although I would say I believe that a work of
art CAN be executed along the 'art for art's sake' line. In these two, however,
the focus was simply on doing something with an art tool in my hand, rather than
a mouse and keyboard. Any thinking about the images really stopped there. The
rest of it was just the experience of working with my hands again, with hardly a
thought spent on anything other than very local issues, such as "should I poke
this pencil in the sharpener now" or "this paper really irritates me!" To sum
it all up, they both are elaborate doodles - which qualifies them as automatic
writing, of course.
> I was most interested in the size of them and in the fact that one, if
> not both, had been signed. Perhaps Erik could comment on why he did
> that.
Funny you should ask. I only signed one, and wondered why I had. I seldom sign
any work, and I've often been chastised by others for this, accused of having a
diminished ego (can you believe that?). But I think I signed the one as a
symbolic affirmation of the pleasure I had in revisiting that wonderful space of
making art. I've said before that what attracts me to art is the experience of
making art, independant of the virtues of the product. Focus on the end product
is really a variable, and it can swing along the arc of total lack of concern
about the ends, such as in these drawings, to a very explicit, intended concern
about the ends.
> > I'm very surprised that this is the effect of Prismacolors. I've
> >never used them and thought (because of works I've seen) that the colors
> >would be faded-out and comprised mostly of pastel hues. Amazed that you got
> >such texture. "Passages" is quite sensual and full of movement (IMO).
>
> In my experiments the best way to do this is to draw with a kneaded
> eraser - would that work with Prismacolors ? It works really well when
> dragged across the drawing to create movement.
> Do you ever do that, Erik ?
Nope, erasers destroy the Prismacolor marks while not removing them. If you
have a good, strong substrate, you can use an Exacto blade to scrape in
highlights or even remove most of the marks. But I love kneaded erasers
otherwise. You can do so much with them. Make impressions of your
fingerprints; Stretch them into silly shapes (variation on the barbell theme is
my favorite, since you can swing them around and pound on your forehead);
stretch them out into filagree that suddenly pops apart, leaving that marvelous
texture in the break. Almost as good as Silly Putty.
Erik
>
>
> Alison
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>No, I think your reading me right, although I would say I believe that a work
>of
>art CAN be executed along the 'art for art's sake' line. In these two,
>however,
>the focus was simply on doing something with an art tool in my hand, rather
>than
>a mouse and keyboard. Any thinking about the images really stopped there. The
>rest of it was just the experience of working with my hands again, with hardly
>a
>thought spent on anything other than very local issues, such as "should I poke
>this pencil in the sharpener now" or "this paper really irritates me!" To sum
>it all up, they both are elaborate doodles - which qualifies them as automatic
>writing, of course.
I also believe that a work of art can stand on its own for purely
aesthetic merits .... but I don't believe that an artist can produce it
on purely that basis. Although you say the focus was simply on
performing the creative act, as an artist your mind is saturated with
ideas and experiences of art that will inevitably affect what and how
you work.
The idea of a purely automatic painting is still problematic for me. It
would be like me, as a chef, going to the kitchen and taking out a whole
bunch of ingredients from the cupboards and creating a satisfactory and
edible meal and saying I did it *automatically*. I could only do that
if, lodged away in my mind, I knew how the ingredients would react and
what methods of cooking them would be successful. Do you see what I am
getting at ? Looking at your work I saw precision - nothing said
*automatic* to me, but it also clearly lacked deliberate intent. There
is also something very pleasing about that idea - it almost a release
for the viewer.
If we look back at the Dada Movement, particularly the Zurich Dadaists -
they performed random chants and songs on the basis that they were
rejecting the conventions imposed on them as *language*. In the process
they presented a new form of pleasing sounds and ideas and instead of
becoming an anti movement, they simply became a new movement. In Zurich
their performances became so popular that they became frequented by the
very audience they sought to stick two fingers up at. Anyway, I don't
know what that has to do with any of this but I just wrote it
automatically ;-)
>Funny you should ask. I only signed one, and wondered why I had. I seldom
>sign
>any work, and I've often been chastised by others for this, accused of having a
>diminished ego (can you believe that?).
Yes ;-)
> But I think I signed the one as a
>symbolic affirmation of the pleasure I had in revisiting that wonderful space
>of
>making art. I've said before that what attracts me to art is the experience of
>making art, independant of the virtues of the product. Focus on the end
>product
>is really a variable, and it can swing along the arc of total lack of concern
>about the ends, such as in these drawings, to a very explicit, intended concern
>about the ends.
Well I refuse to sign my work because I don't believe in words being
part of the space that the painting occupies. Or maybe it is because I
haven't yet convinced myself that it deserves to have me impose my mark
on it. That's an interesting thought. But what you say above is
beautiful - the process is fascinating. For me it starts with the
cutting of the wood for the stretcher and the making first the frame and
then the stretching and finally after that the priming. Its an all
consuming act in itself - when the studio has a whole bunch of pristine
white canvases scattered around then the work begins. Its a ritual isn't
it ? The mixing of the paints, the palette, the brushes .... all that
before the image even starts to emerge. Nothing can surpass it....
except perhaps sex ;-)
Earlier today we interviewed an artist for a place at the co-op gallery.
The poor woman unfortunately got me and will probably not forget the
experience. During the interview she started to say a lot of *text book*
stuff about art - a mature foundation course student who had also had a
career as a chef prior to starting art. I grilled her (sorry for the
pun), on her ideas of what art was and what she saw a co-op of artists
being for. When she opened her portfolio the first images were pleasing
.... tiny abstracts. At that stage I was willing to forgive the lack of
ability to talk about her work and her desire to talk about other
people's art which she clearly had little knowledge of. My interest was
in the scale of the images she showed ... such beautiful and delicate
images, when suddenly she revealed that in fact they were larger
paintings cropped into little pieces and that she couldn't possibly work
that small because it required too much precision. My heart plummeted.
Damn it, I want to hear an artist tell me they work tiny because it
helps them to focus entirely on the intimacy of the space ! The rest of
the portfolio confirmed that her work was at a very immature stage - a
bunch of really bad life drawings and some work she described as a
mixture between Picasso and Kandinsky inspired by a walk in the woods
<grin> ... the rest you can guess. But the point is, eventually, that
maybe artists DO spend too much trying to theorise about their work
instead of just wallowing in the process ... perhaps that is where so
much of the accusations of being contrived come from. I am certainly
willing to consider it.
>Nope, erasers destroy the Prismacolor marks while not removing them. If you
>have a good, strong substrate, you can use an Exacto blade to scrape in
>highlights or even remove most of the marks.
When you remove it does it still leave an image ? It must do.
>But I love kneaded erasers
>otherwise. You can do so much with them. Make impressions of your
>fingerprints; Stretch them into silly shapes (variation on the barbell theme is
>my favorite, since you can swing them around and pound on your forehead);
>stretch them out into filagree that suddenly pops apart, leaving that marvelous
>texture in the break. Almost as good as Silly Putty.
Laughing here ! I almost always have a piece of Blu-tak in my hands
which I do exactly that with - can't talk to anyone on the telephone
without a piece to occupy me - did you ever role a piece up and let it
run down your nose while talking on the phone ? I also often use it as
a putty rubber (what we call them here). With my charcoal drawings I use
the putty rubber to drag the charcoal across the paper in the same way I
allow paint to run across the canvas - I can get a veil like effect
similar to the transparent *veil* you achieved in C and it also is good
for movement. With almost all my drawings they are completely erased
many times - each time leaving a ghost like image which I keep building
up over the top of. My first life drawing class taught me that - the guy
came along to look at what wasn't such a bad picture of a torso and
erased the entire picture. Except that he didn't really - and he said
that one day I would thank him for that action. God I was so mad that
day. He was of course absolutely correct - it was the best thing that
could ever have happened to me for future drawings and I continued
drawing and erasing and then drawing again. Eventually I start to *fix*
the drawing in between each layer and the dark and light contrasts
become the most important. If I used the Prismacolors
I would have to use the scalpel - I would imagine that I would end up
with a very crusty surface ....
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message <3BQk0QAe...@raimes.demon.co.uk>...
:In article <38349EC0...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
:<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
:
(snip)
:
:>Funny you should ask. I only signed one, and wondered why I had. I
seldom
:>sign
:>any work, and I've often been chastised by others for this, accused of
having a
:>diminished ego (can you believe that?).
:
:Yes ;-)
:
:> But I think I signed the one as a
:>symbolic affirmation of the pleasure I had in revisiting that wonderful
space
:>of
:>making art. I've said before that what attracts me to art is the
experience of
:>making art, independant of the virtues of the product. Focus on the end
:>product
:>is really a variable, and it can swing along the arc of total lack of
concern
:>about the ends, such as in these drawings, to a very explicit, intended
concern
:>about the ends.
:
:Well I refuse to sign my work because I don't believe in words being
:part of the space that the painting occupies. Or maybe it is because I
:haven't yet convinced myself that it deserves to have me impose my mark
I seldom sign mine simply because I forget. I was told that in order for it
to be copywrited, one must at least sign on the back or a stretcher bar or
someplace, but I forget that too. Sometimes people remind me and I sign
one, but seldom. When I do remember, I seem compelled to sign them
"Vincent". Right before my blackouts. I wonder (seriously) how many
artists we all individually admire, today, sign their works and how many do
not? Also about the copywrite? I agree that a signature detracts from the
painting.
:When you remove it does it still leave an image ? It must do.
:
:>But I love kneaded erasers
:>otherwise. You can do so much with them. Make impressions of your
:>fingerprints; Stretch them into silly shapes (variation on the barbell
theme is
:>my favorite, since you can swing them around and pound on your forehead);
:>stretch them out into filagree that suddenly pops apart, leaving that
marvelous
:>texture in the break. Almost as good as Silly Putty.
:
Love the kneaded erasers - talk about spontaneity! Better than Silly Putty
except that (Erik - being a comic book fan) doesn't Silly Putty copy images
from comic books? I know I used something like this when I was a kid to do
just that and, frankly, kneaded erasers won't do THAT!
Kay
:Alison A Raimes
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <38349EC0...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >No, I think your reading me right, although I would say I believe that a work
> >of
> >art CAN be executed along the 'art for art's sake' line. In these two,
> >however,
> >the focus was simply on doing something with an art tool in my hand, rather
> >than
> >a mouse and keyboard. Any thinking about the images really stopped there. The
> >rest of it was just the experience of working with my hands again, with hardly
> >a
> >thought spent on anything other than very local issues, such as "should I poke
> >this pencil in the sharpener now" or "this paper really irritates me!" To sum
> >it all up, they both are elaborate doodles - which qualifies them as automatic
> >writing, of course.
>
> I also believe that a work of art can stand on its own for purely
> aesthetic merits .... but I don't believe that an artist can produce it
> on purely that basis. Although you say the focus was simply on
> performing the creative act, as an artist your mind is saturated with
> ideas and experiences of art that will inevitably affect what and how
> you work.
Sure. But artist's have used the 'wandering line' technique for centuries, I
believe, in order to fish for images. Once you get enough scribbles down, what you
'see' in them is obviously ideological.
> The idea of a purely automatic painting is still problematic for me. It
> would be like me, as a chef, going to the kitchen and taking out a whole
> bunch of ingredients from the cupboards and creating a satisfactory and
> edible meal and saying I did it *automatically*. I could only do that
> if, lodged away in my mind, I knew how the ingredients would react and
> what methods of cooking them would be successful. Do you see what I am
> getting at ? Looking at your work I saw precision - nothing said
> *automatic* to me, but it also clearly lacked deliberate intent. There
> is also something very pleasing about that idea - it almost a release
> for the viewer.
Dang, I had the perfect opportunity to use the new ")n( symbol, and blew it. I
don't really subscribe to the automatic writing idea. If you see elephants in the
clouds, does that mean the weatherman is expressing his unconcious contents?
> If we look back at the Dada Movement, particularly the Zurich Dadaists -
> they performed random chants and songs on the basis that they were
> rejecting the conventions imposed on them as *language*. In the process
> they presented a new form of pleasing sounds and ideas and instead of
> becoming an anti movement, they simply became a new movement. In Zurich
> their performances became so popular that they became frequented by the
> very audience they sought to stick two fingers up at. Anyway, I don't
> know what that has to do with any of this but I just wrote it
> automatically ;-)
I think Vladimir Lenin, who's office was just around the corner from Cafe Voltaire,
wasn't terribly amused by the performances the evening he dropped in. But do you
think they were really 'pleasing sounds and ideas?" I always thought of at least
some of the performances being tied to an idea of cacophany - but I'm not certain
this is true. In some ways, however, it seems to me that some science was going
on. Reductions - dramatic reductions - of social forms to their lowest common
denominators to feed the academic interests of that wonderful collection of draft
dodgers. But you're identifying the central irony of avant garde - the shock of
the shock of the new quickly wore off in society, and the momentary heterogeneous
moved swiftly to the homogeneous. My god, look at the tremendous consumption of
icons of marginality that were consumed by the avant garde - circus freaks,
prostitutes, Gypsies, prim-O-tive art, and its a wonder that culture could keep up
with the demand (even the dithyrambic ritual in the woods that Die Burke and
Matisse were so fond of).
> >Funny you should ask. I only signed one, and wondered why I had. I seldom
> >sign
> >any work, and I've often been chastised by others for this, accused of having a
> >diminished ego (can you believe that?).
>
> Yes ;-)
So you think it's all compensation and ego defense, do you?
> > But I think I signed the one as a
> >symbolic affirmation of the pleasure I had in revisiting that wonderful space
> >of
> >making art. I've said before that what attracts me to art is the experience of
> >making art, independant of the virtues of the product. Focus on the end
> >product
> >is really a variable, and it can swing along the arc of total lack of concern
> >about the ends, such as in these drawings, to a very explicit, intended concern
> >about the ends.
>
> Well I refuse to sign my work because I don't believe in words being
> part of the space that the painting occupies. Or maybe it is because I
> haven't yet convinced myself that it deserves to have me impose my mark
> on it. That's an interesting thought. But what you say above is
> beautiful - the process is fascinating. For me it starts with the
> cutting of the wood for the stretcher and the making first the frame and
> then the stretching and finally after that the priming. Its an all
> consuming act in itself - when the studio has a whole bunch of pristine
> white canvases scattered around then the work begins. Its a ritual isn't
> it ? The mixing of the paints, the palette, the brushes .... all that
> before the image even starts to emerge. Nothing can surpass it....
> except perhaps sex ;-)
Except that art making is no so codependant and hormone dependant, yes? It has a
better staying power.
> Earlier today we interviewed an artist for a place at the co-op gallery.
> The poor woman unfortunately got me and will probably not forget the
> experience. During the interview she started to say a lot of *text book*
> stuff about art - a mature foundation course student who had also had a
> career as a chef prior to starting art. I grilled her (sorry for the
> pun), on her ideas of what art was and what she saw a co-op of artists
> being for. When she opened her portfolio the first images were pleasing
> .... tiny abstracts. At that stage I was willing to forgive the lack of
> ability to talk about her work and her desire to talk about other
> people's art which she clearly had little knowledge of. My interest was
> in the scale of the images she showed ... such beautiful and delicate
> images, when suddenly she revealed that in fact they were larger
> paintings cropped into little pieces and that she couldn't possibly work
> that small because it required too much precision. My heart plummeted.
> Damn it, I want to hear an artist tell me they work tiny because it
> helps them to focus entirely on the intimacy of the space ! The rest of
> the portfolio confirmed that her work was at a very immature stage - a
> bunch of really bad life drawings and some work she described as a
> mixture between Picasso and Kandinsky inspired by a walk in the woods
> <grin> ... the rest you can guess. But the point is, eventually, that
> maybe artists DO spend too much trying to theorise about their work
> instead of just wallowing in the process ... perhaps that is where so
> much of the accusations of being contrived come from. I am certainly
> willing to consider it.
You can do both, you know. Personally, (and seriously) I think that there is a
very explicit danger in acknowledging that there is a rift between thought and art
making -- or to put it differently, the idea that 'logic' will bar access to the
'treasures of the unconscious,' which is seen as the wellsprings of creativity and
all that. Here's a bit of nostalgia. In the early sixties I visited the studio of
a small group of artists in San Francisco who were conducting very formalized
experiments with painting under the influence of psychotropics, in this case
Peyote. Their 'leader,' (I don't know why, but it was obvious that he was) showed
me a series of side-by-sides of work done stoned unstoned, and frankly, the
unstoned work was strikingly superior, in my view, but he of course didn't see it
this way at all. And I was no prude then, as I regularly munched cactus myself (it
was actually legal in those days, and Huxley's "Between Heaven and Hell" was my
bible. My own experiments with stoned art making were the same. I found it really
disconcerting, for example, to put the brush to the canvas and be looking down an
arm that is fifty feet long with a tiny brush at the end. Ugh. All in all, I
would argue, with gusto, that all art making is a rational act, and those who
believe they are somehow mining the precious ores of the unconscious are simply
being duped by half a century of pop-psychology. But anyway, that's why I really
appreciated Edgar Wind's little book, "Art and Anarchy." I think it should be
required reading.
> >Nope, erasers destroy the Prismacolor marks while not removing them. If you
> >have a good, strong substrate, you can use an Exacto blade to scrape in
> >highlights or even remove most of the marks.
>
> When you remove it does it still leave an image ? It must do.
Again, it depends on the paper. If you use the engineering vellum, K&E's
"Albenene" you can completely remove the marks by scraping. But keep in mind that
this paper was designed for india ink and very abrasive electric rotary erasers.
It is super tough. It's actually a miraclous product, in my view. I've bought it
in rolls and in tablet form. The tablets use a lighter weight paper than the
rolls, so I prefer the rolls. It's a bit pricey, but not so much so when compared
to the normal run of overpriced art supplies.
Ha ha ha ha ha. That's funny. Rolling down your nose. But I know the head space
of that, well. I don't know Blu-tak, however (I'm culturally deprived). What is
it? I've generally kept kneaded erasers away from my nose, because of the oils
there, which really can transfer from the eraser to your drawing. Did you know,
for example, that a good tip for fly fishermen is to rub the male ferrule of your
bamboo fly rod on your nose before assembly. It lubricates it perfectly and allows
for trouble free disassembly at the end of the fishing event.
I took a sculpture class once, and I wanted to do a bronze (there was a small
foundary in the neighborhood). The instructor said he could get me some casting
wax, but it turned out he couldn't. The work around was that he knew the formula
for making your own, which he gave to me. I went to the super-drug-store and
loaded my shopping cart with beeswax. parafin and economy jars of vaseline (five,
as I remember). As the check-out lady was tallying my purchase, running the
vaseline jars over the bar code reader, she blurted out, in a very lound voice in
earshot of at least 25 customers, "Boy, you're really in to it, aren't you?" I
said "But it's for my sculpture." She responded, while everybody was chuckling,
"Sure, sure, it's for your sculpture."
Erik