Below is an new piece done with MSPaint, Paintbrush, Adobe PhotoDeluxe, scissors, and linen tape. The title is Compound JA, the dimensions are 22 1/2 X 18 inches, and it's ink on matte paper (the polaroid I scanned makes it look greyer than it is). Since taking this photo, I've added a few more polka dots, but the polaroid changes it so radically the details don't matter much. A close-up can be found in the comments to this post, or in a slide show (in progress) of some other recent pieces I've done.
Well, I'll state the über obvious: 1) it (the web JPEG) looks less digital and more like a modernist painting 2) somehow Picasso and Léger have crept into your thinking (?). Looking forward to seeing what happens down the road.
MC
i was thinking kandinsky. whats more exciting are the umlauts and accents from the anon poster. now theres commitment.
The look is self-consciously retro (it may be an aberration, a way of processing all the fantastic Blaue Reiter ptgs I saw in Munich), but the jpeg softens everything out, so the sharp edges, pixel-stairsteps, and other digital effects aren't as pronounced as in the original. Maybe the jpeg is my "final post" from Europe, rather than the beginning of anything.
I see the Kandinsky too. Seems you can give up oils without the oil seduction. Hows it smell ? That retro feeling is the same type of feeling that put Condo over but sank many others. Did the dims grow or was the reworking within the original footprint ? Handsome piece, but I need a closer look.
I'd like to see your work sometime. Unfortnately paintings can not be reproduced properly through photographic processes...........It's a pity ingraving isn't still the method of choice.
Thanks for the comments. Martin Kippenberger did a series where he photographed paintings, destroyed them, and then exhibited the photos, nicely printed and framed, next to bins filled with the cut-up paintings. When you looked at the drippy, brushy images in the photos (Sigmar Polke-ish layering of previous Kippenberger motifs), you suspected, somehow, that they weren't good paintings, but because you couldn't independently verify it, you scrutinized them more closely than you probably ever would the real thing. As a result, the photo became as charged--as eventful--as an actual lush, drippy surface. In the case of my mock-Kandinsky, the jpeg makes the image seem painterly, whereas the piece itself, in person, also looks like a reproduction of a painting but is "drier," more like a college dorm poster. I think the jpeg may actually be better, in that the painting it invokes is more fluid and mysterious than the painting the original invokes. In any case, here's an Ebay-like close-up of the original, made by placing the piece directly on the flatbed scanner.
Interesting difference between the direct scan and the one from the poloroid.
My comment on photographic reproduction does not include Richard Prince, Sherry Levine etc. Situations where the reproduction is part of the work.
Actually, I prefer a wood engraving of a Sherry Levine to the "original" any day.
These look great. Really interesting how they have evolved from the earlier work. As RK stated when I showed them "a touch of the suprematist" when viewing the last molecule one.
Looking forward to seeing more.
|
Below is an new piece done with MSPaint, Paintbrush, Adobe PhotoDeluxe, scissors, and linen tape. The title is Compound JA, the dimensions are 22 1/2 X 18 inches, and it's ink on matte paper (the polaroid I scanned makes it look greyer than it is). Since taking this photo, I've added a few more polka dots, but the polaroid changes it so radically the details don't matter much. A close-up can be found in the comments to this post, or in a slide show (in progress) of some other recent pieces I've done.
- tom moody 7-08-2001 1:46 am
Well, I'll state the über obvious: 1) it (the web JPEG) looks less digital and more like a modernist painting 2) somehow Picasso and Léger have crept into your thinking (?). Looking forward to seeing what happens down the road. MC
- anonymous (guest) 7-09-2001 3:13 pm
i was thinking kandinsky. whats more exciting are the umlauts and accents from the anon poster. now theres commitment.
- dave 7-09-2001 6:27 pm
The look is self-consciously retro (it may be an aberration, a way of processing all the fantastic Blaue Reiter ptgs I saw in Munich), but the jpeg softens everything out, so the sharp edges, pixel-stairsteps, and other digital effects aren't as pronounced as in the original. Maybe the jpeg is my "final post" from Europe, rather than the beginning of anything.
- tom moody 7-09-2001 6:55 pm
I see the Kandinsky too. Seems you can give up oils without the oil seduction. Hows it smell ? That retro feeling is the same type of feeling that put Condo over but sank many others. Did the dims grow or was the reworking within the original footprint ? Handsome piece, but I need a closer look.
- bill 7-09-2001 11:29 pm
I'd like to see your work sometime. Unfortnately paintings can not be reproduced properly through photographic processes...........It's a pity ingraving isn't still the method of choice.
- steve 7-10-2001 8:11 am
Thanks for the comments. Martin Kippenberger did a series where he photographed paintings, destroyed them, and then exhibited the photos, nicely printed and framed, next to bins filled with the cut-up paintings. When you looked at the drippy, brushy images in the photos (Sigmar Polke-ish layering of previous Kippenberger motifs), you suspected, somehow, that they weren't good paintings, but because you couldn't independently verify it, you scrutinized them more closely than you probably ever would the real thing. As a result, the photo became as charged--as eventful--as an actual lush, drippy surface. In the case of my mock-Kandinsky, the jpeg makes the image seem painterly, whereas the piece itself, in person, also looks like a reproduction of a painting but is "drier," more like a college dorm poster. I think the jpeg may actually be better, in that the painting it invokes is more fluid and mysterious than the painting the original invokes. In any case, here's an Ebay-like close-up of the original, made by placing the piece directly on the flatbed scanner.
- tom moody 7-11-2001 5:58 am
Interesting difference between the direct scan and the one from the poloroid.
My comment on photographic reproduction does not include Richard Prince, Sherry Levine etc. Situations where the reproduction is part of the work.
- steve 7-11-2001 6:39 pm
Actually, I prefer a wood engraving of a Sherry Levine to the "original" any day.
- alex 7-11-2001 8:34 pm
These look great. Really interesting how they have evolved from the earlier work. As RK stated when I showed them "a touch of the suprematist" when viewing the last molecule one. Looking forward to seeing more.
- anonymous (guest) 8-15-2001 5:42 am