The other day I came across a description of abstract
painting as the “long search for the perfect
self-referential painting.” Charlotte Mullins explains that many artists
became uninterested in painting the human figure when modernism emerged because
there was a new obsession with the possibility of creating an "ultimate abstract canvas" that could
perfectly reflect the artists’ experience.
Immediately after reading this my mind rattled off a
sarcastic and cynical response (along with the feelings of annoyance and anger
that stuck for a few days): of course,
only in a society that is defined by consumerism and individualism would such a
notion as “perfect[ly] self-referential” shape a whole genre of fine art! (I
am not condemning all abstract art.)
The point is, we are all a conglomeration
of influences—a collage of
external references and by claiming a creative product (i.e. a painting, drawing, musical piece, poem, film, etc.) to be solely our own
is not only arrogant, but more to the point inaccurate.
This image is from my sketch book. It documents myself grappling with this concept. Yes, I made these marks with my own hands but I was influenced by external definitions of what it means to be an artist: someone who has trouble sleeping and at 3am strips down to draw herself naked and vulnerable.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Dec. 2013. Unfortunately the photo quality is bad and I have yet to finish her face...but I attempted to capture the frustrations of the human condition: we are confined by our own concepts we create for ourselves and more than anything, we are confused and desperately struggle to break free.
_________________________________________________________________________________
OK. Lastly...
If you are interested in an example of an artist's reliance on the relationship, dialogue, inspiration, etc. from external sources check out Ted CoConis's commentary on his momentary interactions with unknown Parisian women. (Fun fact: he illustrated the film cover of Labyrinth)
3 comments:
Cool stuff! I really appreciate the picture from your sketchbook, peeking into your thoughts and way of writing seems intrusive and/or revealing in a way that seeing the drawing alone wouldn't have communicated.
I'm munching on some questions here tho. Was the move from figurative bodies to abstract expression a way of denying the body as the ''material reflection'' of the self? Could the body no longer contain all the emotional experience these artists identified in themselves as 'self'?
As a passing thought, I wonder if abstract paintings can reflect more of a common experience than the individual body, where dualistic identifications come up in reference to the viewer.
I guess your point here was not so much what the movement was in artistic expression, but more of what these artists were even striving for: a narcissistic expression of their individual, independent, self contained persons which they could label as their own.
Some cool thoughts here. And strong, gutural painting. I'm checking in at the airport. But I'm curious to see what other commentary comes up!
Cool post! I really like your woman in the box painting -- and actually, I like the figure as faceless!
Interesting thoughts on art as well. What paintings do you consider to fit into the "perfect self-referential" category (or which artists does Mullins list?)?
I'm wondering whether you're more at odds with Mullins' ideology or whether you think that art itself has suffered as a result of such ideology. In other words, is it the pollock painting that's flawed or simply the way we might talk about it?
Maria…Yes, I think your questions are spot on... the shift from realistic figurative painting to abstraction is the quest to express something that is far more complex than a literal mimic of the physical body, therefore decentralizing the focus on an individual self. But I think there is a flip side to this…where people can become far too self involved.
Here is an example of the balance of abstraction and figurative (to some degree every painting, no matter how realistic is a form of abstraction because the painter is rendering their own experience of the subject)…In Ted CoConis’s commentary on a series of his paintings he drew inspiration from people observed on the streets of Paris. The Carousel was a moment when he watched a beautiful young couple and their child get on a carousel. Shortly the couple started to bicker and their perfect little princess chose her pony. When she sat on the pony she gripped it for dear life…and the three of them rode round and round in circles. There is something so terribly tormenting about this…three beautiful people stuck in argumentation and attachment to this lovely plastic pony. (I know, this all sounds like Buddhism.) The point is that CoConis is so intently focused on pulling inspiration from others. He tends to put a dark spin on things and create his own story about his subjects, but he still has a focus on other people rather than attempting to create a perfectly self referential painting.
I hope this clarified things a little bit.
Derik…Mullins was briefly commenting on why figure painting dipped in interest about 30 years ago…she did not give examples. When I go back to school in a week I will talk to my art teachers about this and let you know. To be completely honest guys, more than anything I think this was my own emotional reaction that might not have strong evidential support. I think I was more thinking of people who tend to be so self involved that they do not understand that every thought, every brush stroke, every idea is influenced from someone they met or read about or even just exchanged glances with. This idea of a “collage of references” is something that I have been chewing on for the past few months.
Post a Comment