Thanks, William. Re. the labels for categories, I don't worry about those too much, as long as we have a rough understanding of what we are talking about. And the same for the beholder's response, at least for the moment; I'm primarily interested in what others go through when they are creating, particularly (for this discussion) the role of words. The other things can be beaten about later if real issues need to be resolved.
I suppose one way of looking at the difference is metaphorically (I never have any shortage of metaphor floating around).. Did you ever play sports as a kid? I played football and baseball through high school (centre linebacker in the first, second base in the second). I mention that because, in many ways, they way one prepares and plays those remind me of how I do art. Tons and tons of practice and analysis - which is heavily verbal - and aimed at the training of intuition, so that when the ball is snapped or the pitch thrown, one's response is immediate and intuitive. Those moments when play is engaged one feels truly alive and present (at least I do). As a little diversion - just the above, Tom Allen, the host of CBC Radio 2's Shift program - just went on an amusing little rant on being present in the world, and how much of what we do seems to be geared toward escaping the reality of being stuck on the ground. It was triggered by someone in a crowd talking on a cell phone and extended to the issue of how we use technology to avoid engaging world around us. I'll see if I can dig up a link (not likely)... But back to art - for me (again) that issue of presence is perhaps the most important at the moment; verbal analysis feels more like a screen, or even a vicarious, second hand experience. Good for practice, or tidying up a picture, or organizing the steps from drawing to a more finished work, but in the actual act of creation, a distraction. I love a more sensual, explorative approach, a major reason for working in pastel. As for habituated actions, I quite agree - I think it is one reason I like working with people. I actually encourage the people I work with to move, shift, chatter, relax; I've worked with several guitar players and one pianist while they practiced. I can't work intimately with another person in a mechanical mode, it would be just too tedious. If I wanted that I'd just paint from photos, it would be a lot cheaper. There are things that I do routinely - for example, like doing the underdrawing in sanguine conte, and the secondary in bistre, or little habits and rituals when I work in pencil or pen and ink. But I do pay careful attention to those, and if I find I am coming to rely on them, I drop them for awhile. Cheers; Chris On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:11 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
