I look at quite a lot of art. I think most artists do. I look at so much art that I can be almost dismissive in my judgements. There are all sorts of reasons why an artist looks at other artists work. I look at artists who are doing similar things to me and artists who are completely outside my own language, dealing with concepts and ideas that I may barely have a vague interest in. It is actually quite hard to explain, it is a little like an insatiable appetite. Sometimes I look at work to see how I can use what I find there - for myself. Sometimes I look at work for the various classes that I teach and then I find that I get really interested in work that I would not normally seek out. Sometimes there is a strange "want" for the paintings that I see. I don't mean that I want the painting, I am not for sure what I mean except that I just look and look at the paintings. That may say something about the quality of a work but I am not so sure. It seems to follow that a work that you visit and re-visit must be good or even great but I think it is more likely that it is communicating directly with you, as the viewer, and quality is almost irrelevant.
Lately I have looked at several artists obsessively. The question asks for 3 but there are more artists that I am looking at that I would like to talk about but I think I will save that for a follow up post. The first artist on my list is:
Glenn Brown
 |
| Glenn Brown |
I am interested in this work for the beautifully grotesque quality of swirling paint and strangeness of space and for its technical qualities, the simultaneous quality of clean colors with smears of fleshy brown. I show these works to my students in painting 2 and I talk about the paintings being sort of like a painting being turned inside out. Like if you looked at the painting from a canvas point of view - under painting first but you can see the finished painting behind it, through the layers. I couldn't say if Brown in currently influencing my work or not. I don't see any direct connections to how I am painting or thinking about my work but I am a huge fan of these paintings. You can see more of Glenn Browns work at the Gagosian Gallery.
Cy Twombly
 |
| Cy Twombly |
Cy Twombly is one of those artists that I was exposed to early on in my painting education and like any good beginning art student, I thought - terrible, just terrible. Of course I don't think so anymore and haven't for a long, long time. Actually, I had a moment in undergraduate school where I was somewhat obsessed with his paintings having seen a few in person.
His work is aggressive and subtle at the same time. The marks are wonderfully descriptive but descriptive of nothing. The space is layered and layered and builds with drips and numbers, symbols and scrawls. I can't get enough. If you like this work and you haven't seen a Twombly in person you must give yourself this opportunity. I think Twombly effects my work in my sketchbook for sure. I am not sure if I carry this to my paintings or not. His paintings are the kind of paintings that make me wish I painted like that - but I don't.
Dana Saulnier
The last artist of my three for this post is painter Dana Saulnier. This is the only artist that I actually know of the three. His work does influence my current "Meat Pods" paintings. The paintings I can't get enough of depict huge fleshy masses in abstract but somehow logical locations. |
| Dana Saulnier |
I think all three of the artists that I have been looking at lately have an interesting relationship to the picture plane. All three are describing a logical but abstract space with distinct mark making. They are all quite painterly now that I think of it.
Check out Peggy's blog for 3 totally different and very interesting artists.
Next week we answer the question:
Who do you consider to be the audience for your work? Do you consider the audience when you work? Due April 12th.