
This painting is titled Study for Corridor II only because I believe that it's a cop-out not to give paintings unique titles. In a way, painting titles are the only form of poetry I have any capacity to appreciate. They are one line haiku-like statements that create a point of reference, a method of contextualizing the painting holistically using the symbiosis of a major visual work and a minor literary work. So personally, I perceive "Untitled" works to be intellectually lazy; placing the burden of mental effort on the viewer to puzzle out the artist's intent, rather than making an effort to guide them to it. I'm sure opinions differ, which is why I talk about perception and not objective truth. I digress.
The reason I was so reluctant to title this the way I did, was that perennial occurrence, in which I had actually abandoned this painting for some time before even conceiving Corridor II. This is another instance in which I must reluctantly consider what I had intended to be a work in its own right to be a study of a later work. I considered different titles, but to title it otherwise would be dishonest.

I've heard it said that people paint what they enjoy painting first and best in their compositions. I enjoy painting eyes, so I filled my face with them. In hindsight, this turned out to be a mistake.
I have a hard time with tedium when I paint. If a painting becomes unpleasant to work on, I don't want to do it anymore and I'll go paint something else. Oh, how this happened. There are so many freaking eyes on this thing, by the the third pass I didn't want to see any eyes for a while. I've tried to value the work ethic of pushing through difficult portions of the work, but over and again I've found out this results in me doing shoddy work just so I can be done, and that's what almost killed this one. I put a bunch of ears on it at one point and it looked like a bunch of Shreks mashed together. I started throwing all kinds of washes on it and it turned magenta and foggy so I tossed it in the basement in disgust for a few months. I did NOT feel like having a picture of it at that stage.


What does "I used to be big into incorporating type" mean? p.s. I love your work!
ReplyDeleteBy type I mean typography. There was a time when I didn't consider a painting finished until I had worked the word the painting evoked in my mind into the composition as well. A lot of the time,the words wound up just floating there like dialogue without a text balloon, looking lost. Also, I've come to regard letters and words to be tiny works of visual art in their own right, with meaning and connotations already established. In this sense, it's hard to use type in paintings without having the painting be ABOUT the type, so I don't do it so much anymore.
ReplyDelete