I know this sort of discussion has probably been run into the ground, but we've never discussed it Pat.
"But I do have affection for nmnbnd. I think I might try blowing that up into a painting at some point. "
I was wondering what blowing it up entails for you. Specifically what relationship are you setting into motion by creating a painting by way of nmnbnd? Do they exist discretely to you? And how does "affection" function as a selection criteria, or, more to the point, does this mean that re-working the drawing via painting somehow manifests this affection?
(P.S. I apologize in advance if this is an annoyingly pedantic line of questioning - but materially based practice ain't exactly my day job - not that I HAVE a day job)
Well these are the key questions I'm getting at I suppose - the idea that painting could reiterate drawing seems to deny the specificity of each, and the idea that painting might take the drawing "further" seems to subordinate the practice of drawing to painting.
This is a fairly simple thing for me to answer. I don't have much of a history of doing preparatory drawings for paintings. I usually start directly on the canvas. But since my studio situation is less than ideal at the moment, I started this blog to get some work done until I can move into larger digs.
Of course, the vast majority of the drawings people will see here will never be paintings, nor were they meant to be. But if by happenstance I draw something that might be suited to a larger scale, or might better be served with paint instead of ink or pencil or gouache, or is just such a good concept that I want to milk it until it's all dry and puckered up, I might use it for a painting or series of paintings.
Boy, I sound like the painting geek I swore I'd never be.
Anyway, in the case of 'nmnbnd', I have affection for it because it A: doesn't look like something I'd do, and I like the way it tweaks my expectations of myself; B: it has a little stuart davis in it, and I love Stuart Davis C:, and most important, I think it would look really good if it were seven feet tall and ten feet wide. Which is just a sense one has, after looking at lots of paintings and seeing how they operate within a room. And I tend to trust this instinct in myself because it's inconvenient as hell for me to make a big painting. I'm definitely not looking for an excuse to go big.
'Pat is the only one of my friends who
is an 18th-century roue. Despite what
people say about Pat's lack of "life-
skills", what he really lacks is "dying-
with-dignity" skills; instead he opts
for the "drink oneself to near-death
and then resolve to turn over a new
leaf with a transparent lack of
commitment" skill set. Pat is
surprisingly intelligent given the
prolific amount of booze and drugs he
has taken over his life. Which is to
say, he is mildly retarded. I have
known Pat for fourteen years, and at
the beginning he would play the
vicious, intolerant bigot to my
verminiferous Gollum. Now, he plays the
vicious, intolerant bigot to my
vicious, intolerant bigot. I'm amazed
we've stayed friends despite our
multiple attempts to derail that
friendship. By the way, Pat will die of
Hodgkin's disease.' --Bobcat, 2004
3 comments:
I know this sort of discussion has probably been run into the ground, but we've never discussed it Pat.
"But I do have affection for nmnbnd. I think I might try blowing that up into a painting at some point. "
I was wondering what blowing it up entails for you. Specifically what relationship are you setting into motion by creating a painting by way of nmnbnd? Do they exist discretely to you? And how does "affection" function as a selection criteria, or, more to the point, does this mean that re-working the drawing via painting somehow manifests this affection?
(P.S. I apologize in advance if this is an annoyingly pedantic line of questioning - but materially based practice ain't exactly my day job - not that I HAVE a day job)
Well these are the key questions I'm getting at I suppose - the idea that painting could reiterate drawing seems to deny the specificity of each, and the idea that painting might take the drawing "further" seems to subordinate the practice of drawing to painting.
This is a fairly simple thing for me to answer. I don't have much of a history of doing preparatory drawings for paintings. I usually start directly on the canvas. But since my studio situation is less than ideal at the moment, I started this blog to get some work done until I can move into larger digs.
Of course, the vast majority of the drawings people will see here will never be paintings, nor were they meant to be. But if by happenstance I draw something that might be suited to a larger scale, or might better be served with paint instead of ink or pencil or gouache, or is just such a good concept that I want to milk it until it's all dry and puckered up, I might use it for a painting or series of paintings.
Boy, I sound like the painting geek I swore I'd never be.
Anyway, in the case of 'nmnbnd', I have affection for it because it A: doesn't look like something I'd do, and I
like the way it tweaks my expectations
of myself;
B: it has a little stuart davis in it, and I love
Stuart Davis
C:, and most important, I think it would look
really good if it were seven feet tall and
ten feet wide. Which is just a sense one
has, after looking at lots of paintings and
seeing how they operate within a room.
And I tend to trust this instinct in myself
because it's inconvenient as hell for me to
make a big painting. I'm definitely not
looking for an excuse to go big.
Post a Comment