Chris; First of all, I don't think there is such a genre as non-objective in art, or in anything else, if we stick to the usual meaning that's been applied to the term. Non-objective was a term devised by artists and critics to distinguish work that did not refer to something outside of the artwork from that that did. I have argued for years that we can't avoid thinking of references to things other than the thing itself in every case of perception" anything looks like -- or evokes -- something else, usually many. I claim that you can't make any mark that does not evoke a likeness to something else, something other than what it is. Even though I am known as an abstract artist, I always try to say that my art, or any abstract art, will evoke allusions and even stories that may involve its shapes and colors but still bring other events to mind that are not actually depicted. In a few weeks a large museum survey (Cedarhurst Museum, IL) of my recent work will open and the show is titled Narrative Abstraction.
You are curious about my mental processes when I make self-portraits as opposed to when I make abstract work. In doing some recent self-portraits I thought of likeness, to be sure, but I also thought of how the paint (gouache) could have a life of its own, separate from its descriptive function. I also thought about other self-portraits and I even had a reproduction of a Velasquez at hand while I worked. I wanted the paint to tell a story (or invite one) that might be analogous to my self-interrogation. I tend to use very thin lines of paint, almost like pencil, and build them up layer by layer, to produce a sense of volume and, I hope, animation. The challenge is to keep the image lively, as if it could move or change expression instantly even though the process is slow and tedious, akin to freezing and image instead of freeing it. I thought about that a lot. In my other paintings I think the same way. The compositions are tight, carefully composed and the color defines the shapes but I want it to be lively. I think of how paint fills up a shape, like an incoming tide, working its way into every corner and across every plane, tumbling here, pooling there. I make up stories about the process, likening it to real-life events and self-consciousness. As a result, I often think my abstract paintings are figures, or at least figural, capable of instant change. There might be many actions that don't involve language or words. One category is the involuntary action of our bodies, heart pumping, blood moving, digestion, twitches, blinking, etc. Another might be habituated actions, like walking or even breathing. That may include habits of performance, such as a learned response, as, say, with factory-piece-work. At 16 I had a job that required me to perform a rather complicated set of steps that had to be done without seeing what I did. I sat at a mechanical photo machine and I had to manipulate photo-sensitive cards inside of it with one arm completely enclosed by the boxy machine. After a few days I became very adept and could do the job without thinking about it, I mean wordlessly. could think of other things and even converse with people without missing a step. Maybe I got to the point where the memorized repetition of the job enabled me to give up thinking of the words associated with each step. But making art has no such memorized routine. Every mark is do or die, a negotiated action, fraught with doubt or heady with reckless confidence, sometimes both almost at once. You can't make art by following a routine. wc www.williamconger.com ----- Original Message ---- From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 26, 2012 9:56:35 PM Subject: Re: Henry Adams quote It would be interesting to do brain scans of people when they are engaged in tasks like this. I know that if I am aware of words in my consciousness while drawing (I work mostly in pastel) or playing piano, then something is wrong, and my focus just isn't there. But I work mostly from life, and most of your work - at least most of what I have seen - is non-objective. Perhaps there are different processes going on. I'm curious as to whether you felt your internal processes were different when you painted your self portrait? FWIW, I think there are a lot of parts of life where I am most content when words are not present, from sex to logging... Cheers; Chris On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Kate brings up the big question: Do I use words to describe what to do > next with > the brush? I think the answer is yes. I think our mental processing of > words > can be very fast, faster, in thought than in expression. When I speak or > write > I do try to be coherent and that usually means I test or sort words, change > them, or at least try to express myself clearly, in sentences. But I think > there's a level of language thought that underlies that more formal > processing > of words. That primary language level is the fast, wordy but not > necessarily > coherent language that goes on in all our conscious lives. It is mingled > with > mental images, too. I think the images and words are interconnected or > necessary to one another but first place goes to language. I think it's > hard > wired. Maybe even human infants are using that sort of sound-language > before > they learn actual words. Very often I will act seemingly instantly or > intuitively with the brush. Other times I do think out a move or mark and > then > proceed as though following directions I gave to myself. But even when it > seems > to be too quick for words or directions, intuitive, a gut feeling, or > 'automatic' I think the act is prompted in a linguistic form, and if i > think of > images, as I always do, they are already shaped by language. None of this > is to > say that whatever the process might be it is clear or good upon action. > Once > the mark is made, a new criticality occurs to affirm it or reject it or > wait and > see. > > I feel a little heretical saying that I think words are primary to thought, > indeed, are thought, even before thought is visual or imagistic. After > all, I'm > an artist. I've thought about this topic a lot. I need to say 'maybe' and > 'perhaps' and 'I think' because I'm not really sure if I'm right. I've > concluded, for now, that no matter what image we have in mind, it is > derived > from words and then evokes more words, perhaps more accurate words, and > certainly those cause the image to evolve, change and morph. > > Summary: When I feel the urge to paint a blue shape, I've already said to > myself, "put blue there". > > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, July 26, 2012 8:25:44 PM > Subject: Re: Henry Adams quote > > You and Charles Peirce. You use words to describe what to do next with > the brush? > Kate Sullivan
