Monday, March 3, 2008

Almost nothing, almost everything

not really titled, 1999, 14" x 20"
Is it selfish to pursue hook-less paintings? Is it lazy and lacking in motivation? Is it introspective to the point of being anti-social?

When I painted it, I found this mundane little painting intriguing in a non-verbal, non-contextual way that two-dimensional art sometimes is. I still do. I felt a little sad because I believed no one else would respond to it. No one else would see the nothing/everything I experienced. It's just too vague and internally perceived. Even if it is materially manifested, the painting is so lacking in PR.

Someone purchased it, which greatly surprised me. Trying not to sound too much like "why the hell did you buy this nothing painting?", I did inquire and the response was a bit vague and mentioned that it reminded him of his grandparents' place. This is quite acceptable to me.

I've always welcomed visual, subjective, and/or conceptual hooks for my paintings. I like the can-do and win-win energy of working with a clever zinger. It's creates a challenge and often a battle for balance (with non-clever possibilities), and/but it easily slips into gamesmanship.

When I do paint wallflower paintings like this, I need to be more insistent, verbally and in writing, about their value. It seems impossible, but I am determined to learn how to do this.


Nomi Lubin said...

I don't think this is a wallflower painting. The white structure on the left loses me a little, feels too graphic, but still this is a moving painting. Has an intimacy without becoming saccharine. The gauziness somehow doesn't seem contrived. And I love the love in those little flowers against the broader strokes of the rest of the painting. The color feels like color. It glows. Love the sharp line of the horizon contrasting with the more atmospheric rest.

Carla said...

Intimate and gauzy. Good descriptions.