So I had exciting titles like "46N, 123W", and "38N, 91W". Very tedious and confusing.
With the '"land markers" I did imagine a place for each one and 'went' there, I then zoomed in, switched into map mode, and scoured both the street names and landmarks for something that struck a chord. This worked really well. I love that these titles reference real places, but intuitively and anonomously. I sometimes changed or added 'road', 'lane', etc. I don't think these references are traceable through google, though I haven't tried.
Without further ado (because this post has plenty 'ado' thus far [surely no one is still reading this post {which clearly earns the 'entertaining myself' label
Rothboden Place
McJunkin Road
Upena Cove
Obofia Forest
Pump Station Bend
The best part is, I know exactly which painting each is, and even remember where on earth I have placed it.
12 comments:
I read all of your ado.
Nice titling. (That's when you touch titties, right, like in a light tickling way? Very nice titling.)
MOM!! Don't read Nomi's comment!
Sorry, too late
Mom
:-O
Oops, sorry Carla's mom. :o
whoo. . .
lucky I had my paint pants on.
I got kinda excited about the idea of you building a world from the inside out. Or. . rather. . . by lane and corner. I'm sure there is a way to make CarlaEarth. Like a SecondLife or Sims. And it expands with each painting. Maybe there are dioramas in your future? or maquettes? I remember a software that was generating three D environments based on photographs. . . why not from paintings?
Here in CarlaEarth I do have a backburner project which you may enjoy hearing about. Take one of those CD 100 disc holders - the plastic cylindrical ones - and make itty bitty tiny dioramas, several layers of them, each layer depicting the narrative from each of the songs on the Nick Cave "Murder Ballads". Invite a group of artists to do their own versions, and this would be the mother of all theme shows.
I love Nick Cave. Count me in.
Speaking of dioramas, I wanted to take issue with the review about your work- the last point the writer made about the works being perhaps too small to appreciate from a distance. I wasn't sure how I felt about that. Someone once told me that up close my small paintings broke down into bits of paint, which as far as I was concerned was a, "like, duh," remark, but I'm curious how you felt about what the writer said about scale. Discuss:
I should title one of these pieces Nick Cave.
At first I didn't understand that last bit about scale, but then it clicked. With those particular paintings, the Mounts, the imagery and space reads from all distances, but the actual painted stuff seems miniturized. So it doesn't break into bits of paint up close, rather, the scenic reading stays intact, and while you notice more of the paint stuff, there is a frustrating tiny-ness to it.
Another thing is those scenes want to read as places, and the size makes them read more as objects. Online, we can look 'into' them, but in person, on a gallery wall, they're working differently.
Thanks for clarifying. I've always been wary of comments about anyone's work where people wish for a different scale, nearly always larger. Even with 48" x 60" paintings, some people want to see things bigger. Viewing distance is an interesting topic for discussion, I think.
Speaking of which-
Re: Google Earth. A friend sent me this link.
http://streetviewpaintoff.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the link.
Post a Comment