I worry about this image.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/8432969095/in/photostream I am stupidly productive but generally I only post work that makes my spine tingle; signals, to me at least, its worth or at least its integrity. The other Rilke drawing http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako/8432963767/in/photostream (they were both made, or at least started, in the weeklystaff/studentdrawing session at Writtle School of Design, where I teach) does this thing for me, even though in many ways it's crude and clumsy.. This piece, however, induces very mixed feelings in me. Partly it's to do with the fact that I feel that my interpretation of Rilke's terrifying and magnificent angels might be just a little touched by butterfly and fairy and the last thirty years of appearances in popular culture by angels decorative, twee and vomit inducing . I'm also aware that I really love what the indian ink does as it soaks into the torn paper and maybe it's that I want to show you, in which case perhaps I should just wait until I make something better using the technique. I do like the tears, the holes, the oil pastel intensity that peers out from them. I like, too, the creamy layers of gouache on the top. And the fact that I rather smugly begin to relish these then suddenly pulls me up sharply and feeds back into my discomfort - I worry that someone who believes angels are real might like the piece and that my attempt to hijack twee craftiness might devolve to --er-- twee craftiness. michael _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
