Whoa nellie!

...and after that catharsis of questions, i am going to paint, paint, paint! Got to test my theories. 

What is this painting doing?

My exercise for today is to talk about what my painting is actually doing. Here goes:

The painting is about immediacy.

The painting emphasizes the act of painting.

The painting makes clear it's ingredients (material, method, surface, etc.)

The painting is about communicating without/before words (body language of the paint is that of the artist). Therefore I am more transparent as an artist (not nec. person) through the painting.

The painting emphasizes the author/artist hand.

The painting employs color as a viscerally communicative and atmospheric device.

The color revolves around a primary sensibility: red, green, blue, black, brown, white, etc.

The paint is obviously handled by brushes.

The paint is controlled yet the intent of control is not known to the viewer.

The painting references a landscape.

The painting format is square.

The painting reminds me of a Joan Mitchell abex painting. This pisses me off.

The painting reminds others of Cecily Brown's paintings. This pisses me off.

The painting composition is directing attention towards the middle- kinda like an x or crosshairs.

The painting looks fresh and shiny, almost wet.

The marks on the painting are predominately grouped into sections. This alludes to how the painting was made- again the body language of the artist.

Therefore, this painting is about the sensibility of the artist.

How will I disengage with myself in order to create work which engages in a larger art dialogue? (Why do I want it to be an "art dialogue"- a dialogue founded within current art sensibilities, implies subscribing and not transforming or challenging current ideological systems) How can I produce a conversation point with abstract visual language? How will I turn this natural compulsion to make and innate ability to execute two-dimensional imagery into a fundamental platform for future creativity? I think I must first neutralize the way I currently make paintings (in order to isolate my specific interest within perception and art- in order to get at the meat of making and past the surface level visual tropes I keep employing). By neutralizing, I mean obliterating the current way I use and think about color, line, mark, time, content, form, etc. I think I can achieve this by painting it out of me- a more conscious painting process that is concerned not with the image but the act that creates an image. Why is it important to me that this is not just beautiful, seductive imagery? How do I want the painting to frame a discussion? 

Right now, I perceive a disconnect between what I am reading/researching/learning and how I make the paintings. What is the relationship of content-to-form in my personal practice? How can I create a process that intertwines my process of uncovering content with the making? How can content manifest itself in abstract/non-objective visual language? Does the tension between these seemingly incompatible ingredients become the conversation of the painting?

If perception is my content of interest, how valid is it? I think that depends on the angle of perception I investigate. 

Is abstraction holding me back? Can mimetic techniques add anything constructive?  

Is abstract painting valid? Is painting valid? Is making art valid? Will it be valid in 20 years? In 1,000 years? Are these questions valid? More importantly, is my approach to these questions methodical and constructive?

Back2Basics

I'm in my first year of grad school, my first quarter of my first year. Although I attended art school for undergrad I feel like this is my first year of art school. This is the real deal. We're finally getting to the meat. I could have had more meat introduced in undergrad but I was not prepared/developed enough to grasp it in it's entirity (still am not, but oh well). I wonder if this sense of, "shit, I just figured something really fundamental out and I'm pretty old to be finally grasping fundamentals" which illuminates how many more fundamental building blocks are floating out there for me to encounter.  Anyhoo, here are some of my basic thoughts that I've been grappling with this week:

Perhaps the basis of perception is that everything we know and trust is measured with our senses. What role does intuition play? That impulse that negates and supercedes our empirical senses is a powerful, undeniable force. Our empirical senses are our equipment with which to measure and navigate the world. And art is one of the forerunners that fucks with them.

As an art viewer, do you willingly subject yourself to surrender? Do you willingly engage in order to question your empirical senses? Suspend your disbelief? How willingly do you disengage with habit and familiarity in order to engage in another form of reality and ideology? What does my work demand of you, the viewer? Is it purely rewarding? Is that enough to satisfy me? If not, exactly why?

How can a visual trope without a clear/literal allusion challenge or inform a viewer? How can marks, colors, composition, and facture reward, challenge, answer, question, stand the test of time (resonate after 50 years and not appear dated or exemplary of a specific decade?- and if it successful enough to do that, what would it look like???)? 

The million dollar question: So, if my interest is (insert interest/content/research subject here)  perception  then why painting?

What will researching the perception subject bring to the content and form of the paintings?

What kind of interweaving process of research/conceptualizing/planning and making can I develop to produce objects and situations?

What is the method in which I will pursue/research the subject?

In what way will I then approach the paintings?

In what way do I approach the relationship with those that buy my paintings?

In what way do I approach museums, galleries, or art spaces that would like to feature the work?

What role then does the research play?

What form does research take in terms of archiving?