Monday, March 26, 2007

Longwinded Answer

The other night, I received a phone call from Matthew Picton, "Fancy a few Steve?" he asked with his irresistible English chirp. I was initially reluctant to give up a night in the studio, but I hadn't seen Matthew for months, so I tucked 20 drawings under my arm and sauntered over to the Black Sheep Pub. The place seemed bursting with rookies.
"What's going on?" I asked.
"Tis Saint Patties Day Steve. . . didin ya know?" Matthew replied.
I kept my drawings under my arm for a pilsner and then we ambled over to Martino's where we scored a big booth. Matthew ordered a round of Stellas and spread all the drawings out on the table. Then he shuffled and stacked them in ways that made sense to him.
"I don't fancy these," Matthew said as he handed me five drawings. "But these," he continued, "you must show to Richard Heller in Los Angeles. . . very nice gallery that one, he'd show these in a second. I reckon you should fly down there this weekend. There's a special you see, $210 round trip."

Two pints later and the small town regulars were slapping shoulders and the coked-out chicks (with their clothes which seemed to hover around their skeletal bodies like leafy asteroids) ask non-stop questions and never listen to the answers. I keep my drawings tight on my lap. We decide that it is time to move on.

A block over, Tabu turns out to be my favorite spot of the night. I don't feel like I'm in America when I'm there. We are the minority language, race, and interest in salsa dancing. I love watching good dancers. Coronas were two bucks! The witching hour snuck-up on me right when Eric, who owns Rogue Design Group, showed up with Marga. I had never met Marga but she spent an unnatural amount of time looking at my drawings. One by one, she leafed through the stack. . . twice! She gave each drawing a visceral emotive label. It was all very indulgent and flattering. . . did I mention the Coronas were only two bucks?

A couple of days later, Marga e-mails me after visiting this blog (I had given her my card) and she asks me an important question: "Why are you doing this latest collection in small format? Why not about five times that size?" Now, in this go-go world, I can't wait for Three's anymore, triangulation is too obvious, I find meaning when pairs of things happen. In my next e-mail was this from Dennis, "I can relate to your inky ways lately... one question: have you any thoughts about scaling up?"

So thus begins my answer (take a potty break if you must).

First, I'm going to have to repeat myself and lay some ground work. Also, I must answer Matthew Landkammer's question from the previous post "Can you define what you mean by "pure" abstraction?" and even before that I have to comment on Marga's cheeky " darkness is way over-rated".

Lightness and Darkness are woven together in an inseparable relationship and I did not mean that I Love Light at the expense of Dark. Rather, I love what Light does. I love how it creates space. Remember my Picton Points post from last year? I'll repost a portion:

Take
and assume (for the sake of the discussion), that the point has some minuscule mass or volume.
Now move the point through space, or through time, or shine a light on it to create a shadow.
The shadow is
The movement traced is a line. Now move the line, or cast it's shadow.The next dimensional step isMove the plane
Then we haveTo me, pure abstraction is empty. No space can be seen. No overlap, no perspective, no gradient values or hues, nothing. Not a hint of light causing shadow. Pure color can be unfettered to the human impulse to make order, or to see faces. Jacques taught me the cool word Pareidolia , "first used in 1994 by Steven Goldstein, describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable." So, for me, Ad Reinhardt was peerless as a pure abstract painter. I'm almost certain that he called his black paintings "the last vestige of brightness". I am positive Ad Reinhadt wrote this:

LIGHT?

Harsh, soft, reflected, absorbed, transparent light?
Soft lights, sweet music, sweeter unheard music?
Frozen-
music architecture? Gothic-Greek light?
Twilight-light, twilight-time, twilight space?

Broken, baroque, dissolved light?

Iridescence, evanescence, transcendence light?

Luminous-numinous? Rome-versus-East light?
Darkness, grayness, dullness light?

Lightlessness.

I was in just this sort of mindset when I saw my first piece of Art. What I saw was a huge red painting, alone in a cloistered antechamber of some museum. "Big deal," I first thought, and yet, I had to admit that the red was fairly intense. I began stepping towards the painting, marveling at its immaculate surface. Was this some insanely primed canvas? Step closer. It was far to big to be some sort of seamless lumber sheet. Step closer. Where were the protective guard ropes? Step. It was beautiful. Pure Red. Step. Hypnotized and yet brazen, I reached up to touch the painting.


Huh?

It wasn't a painting. It was a hole in the wall revealing a cleverly lit room. It was as if I was sent to that moment when your chair threatens to either spill backwards or forwards, balancing in the liminal zone. I saw nothing but pure retinal color. I saw light, and it was solid. Light was life. Thanks James Turell.
So that is "pure abstraction" for me. A blank. The moment that a mark is made however, the game changes.















The relationship between the mark and the pure abstraction of nothingness just gets more and more complicated. I know from experience that to blow something up bigger, simply to make it seem more interesting is a mistake. The relationship between the Nothing and the marks changes as the scale changes. Some say "Just use bigger tools", but the ink has its own physics and scale too. At some point, when a grain of sand is enlarged to the size of a golf ball lets say, the sand begins to have Nothing inside of it. Right now the following drawings are the scale they are because everything is perfect about them. When I go bigger, they get too complicated or too empty. Also, there is so much uncertainty about what I am doing, it is not efficient to go bigger just yet. I've only been on this path for what? two months? I need to stroll for a little longer. It gets expensive to go bigger. This scale is eco-friendly, intimate, and not macho. This scale is scan-able, portable, and sweet. This scale allows for me to draw faster than I can think (thanks Chris).



In order to scale up, with my next paycheck, I'm going to order some Rosco Supersat black. It is a dye like color formulated to be diluted with substantial quantities of water while retaining binder strength. It works on most scenic surfaces including muslin, plastic and metal. I dries to a completely matte, non-reflective finish.

16 comments:

KJ said...

You... are fun to watch! KJ

Jacques de Beaufort said...

I know society is a negative space but I still have some questions

can personality exist without society?

do hermits have personalities?

what is the personality of our society?

can you live in society and still be outside of it?

can you be anti-social without being criminal?

is it ok to be angry at society most of the time?

do all poor people hate society and all rich people like it?

who decides on the things that our society values or stands for?

what is the role of art in this society?

harold hollingsworth said...

Scale in all ways, I just gave my two week notice at Artech, I'm thinking of driving to LA, then to see my friends Stewart and Jen, did I mention that Jen is James Turrell's daugther. Rodin Crater is on my map/menu. Scale is everything...

marga said...

this reeks of zen.

(don't get me wrong, i'm loving it.)

how do you separate light from an object of perception?

lightlessness; blank; pure abstraction; the emptiness of emptiness - it seems they can only be referenced, in contrast to not-abstract. on it's own, how can pure abstraction exist? what would there be to witness it, in a condition of total blank?

n o t h i n g is hard-wired for pure abstraction. at our basis, we've always only been nothing, (we only become something with light, with reference) so this basis is hard-wired to it, from it, for it.

but i don't think pure abstraction looks like what a human thought thinks it looks like. if it did, it would be recognized, and therefore, wouldn't be pure abstraction.

now a different line of questioning: in pure abstraction, where everything is the same substance of nothing, by these rules, it seems that the subject and object of perception are not really separate?

if you consider that, for a minute, then even when a mark is made in blank space, the game doesn't really change. no matter how big the mark. no matter what the scale of the work.

takes the pressure off.


so you can just get all inky.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you are working small out of convenience (scan-able, easy to carry to the local bar) Get out of your comfort zone, go large.

Steven LaRose said...

I'm not very fond of these school holidays when we don't go anywhere. I just dropped the daughter off for a short play date and then wisked the dog over to the vet in order to get her stitches removed. (Spayed). Instead of going to work for the next couple of hours, I'm going to try and fix the evacuation pump to our dishwasher. I knew I never should have checked the blog. I've got to make this short.

thanks KJ, in almost any other arena, your comment would sound creepy. You have a wonderful performance going yourself.

jacques, I'm going to use your questions as a springboard for a subsequent? forthcoming? to-be-continued? post. (I thought the cat had your tongue?)

Harold, Ashland is a nice place to stop on your way down the coast. I hope you aren't leaving your job for anything other than good reasons.

Marga, I should tackle/hug your comment in a seperate post as well. Do you want to go visit M. Picton's studio with me this week? Questions and camera ready.

anonymous, who do you think you are? Do you know how rare it is to find a comfort zone? I mean, I'm a big fan of improvization and all, but sheez, look at me. Look at the miasma of images of various sizes that have ejaculated from these hands over the years. The new and daring thing I am struggling with is NOT changing too quickly. In fact, I am on a self imposed trial of shrinking parameters. The new path, one that I've never even glanced at the trail-head of, is one of focus. Once I find that seed which is my part in the universe, then I can grow. Or, as everyone knows, no matter how much you draw, you eventually have to paint. Or, if you anonymous send me $3000 dollars, I'll spend three weeks making some nice big, sexy, minimal, with some finish fetish balanced with gut paintings. Oh. . . do you have a bigger studio I could borrow too? Convenience my ass. Rationalization maybe.

Candy Minx said...

Wow, quite the post and very generous of you to share your notes with us Steven.

I don't believe in any kind of abstraction. I believe it's a made up concept that entertains the ego, the non-ego hiding the ego...and that it is an intellectual game...not that it isn't fun to play with the idea or play a game...but all things come from the world.

I completely understand why you enjoy these scales. Ink is much like watercolor paint...it has the scale of it's own identity built right into it...(that is why in older movies the water used in movies always betrayed the scale of the ship or godzilla). I thin these are lovely and they are perfectly matched to the meduim.

In order to make these large...well you would move into the realm of your contract mural painting work. I don't mean that as either a good or bad thing...but they won't be ink anymore. They would be paintings which is doable. It would be an interesting challenge to create giant ink paintings in paint.

Um, check out an ol buddy of mine you'll have to sirt through his site but he made 3'x4' ink paintings with ink and watered down paintins etc..

http://ronbloore.ca/Guide.htm

And have you ever read Roland Barthes "Empire of Signs"? He has a delightful chapter on ink and pics/words...if you haven't already read that you will enjoy that book very much I suspect.

It is a heartbreaking shame when an artist is dependant on money to determine their kind of work...on ONE LEVEL>

On another...we don't know what will come out of a situation when we are forced to invent or improvise with our materials...

I think if anything restricting oneself and with some imagination following a budget can be liberating just as much as restricitng to an artist...so I think anonymous you are not only a coward...but WRONG!

Um, I make pretty large paintings...about my favourite size is about 4'x5' I like really large paintings too...but for the past year I've been averaging about 4'x5'

and they are made out of 90% recycled materials. If you don't believe me lookie here

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2006/03/making-platos-spindle-iii.html

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2006/03/making-godboatcakeziggurat.html

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2006/03/ways-of-demiurge.html

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/search?q=Lucille+Ball

Steven I relate to your feeling that you want to be eco-sensitive, especially when it comes to art materials...so I feel I can actually approach 100% all recycled at some point.

Candy

Jacques de Beaufort said...

steven I'm still reading and posting on other peoples blogs just not mine for a while

I'm not that "anti-social"

Dad and proud of it said...

Steve, this is your father who has in the past used the "anonymous" tag but shall cease and desist at once. I do not want to be associated with the most recent anonymous post which is both shallow and inane. Even I know that ink drawings cannot be supersized (this afterall is not McDonald's) and to suggest that is just stupid.

marga said...

yes steve, i'd love to go with you to see m. picton's work before he hauls it off to sf. when are you going?

Honolulu Dogfight said...

i like your dad

Steven LaRose said...

OK.
Now I'm feeling sorry for "anonymous". In truth, I don't think they are "wrong" as much as presumptuous or at the most, errs in assuming that the grass is green over here and that things are convenient for me. I'd LOVE to work bigger. I will. Not now. Also, getting out of ones comfort zone is sound advice. But not until the groove becomes a rut.

Ms. Minx - thanks for the Barthes connect. I've read "Mythologies" twice, I see that "S/Z" still has a bookmark in it, and I just noticed that I must have picked up "The Eiffel Tower" from a used book store and never opened it. I'm going huntin' for "Empire of Signs" today. Funny how all three books were next to Adolf Loos' "Ornament and Crime" which I often think about when painting murals. As far as material waste goes, I'm with ya. I am certainly going to Hell for the pollution I've created in the name of "art".

Jauques, I keep thinking of the silent tree falling in the forest, making wavelengths for sure, but not a sound until an ear-drum starts thumping.

Dad, thanks, now you can see why I can never assume "Anon" is you. I mean, I have to take it on faith that honolulu dogfight is george, I can't project more than that.

Marga, I'll call him today, and sorry for calling you "cheeky" it just seemed to flow from Matthew's accent that was echoing in my head.

George, dig the pencil sketches, always have.

Dennis Hollingsworth said...

Steve:

Things are getting pretty lively here!

I asked that question ".... have you any thoughts about scaling up?" in the most neutral way because I wanted to get your unvarnished take on the subject. I had chewed on it a bit and many of the issues that you have elaborated, I agree wholeheartedly. And still the issue is as unsettled as it is unsettling, isn't it? So many aspects have to be teased apart and held aloft to see the relations to one another... a giant blogpost this is, if not a book.

The imperative to scale up comes from the audience, pure and simple. And there's the rub. If the artist is to be the first audience, then how should one react to back seat driving? First, it's a compliment as much as it is an irritant. People are so involved in what you are doing that they cannot help calling out from their virtual postion however empathic. At the end of the day, there is no escape from accepting the good with the bad in this situation.

As an aside, I sometimes think about who is lucky in situations like this: are we lucky to show or are they lucky to see? I guess it depends on the magic we make in our studios.

Second, I think of two aspects of scale in our modern era: human scale that is physical, literal and visceral; the kind of scale you can see in old cities for example... and supra-human scale, the disembodied dimension driven by our imagination. The latter type should be instantly recogniseable via all of the prosthesis that we use to surmount the natural limits of our all-too-human bodies: speaking across continents, moving through highway space at 70-90 mph, flashing pictures and video via a weblog back and forth to friends al over the world... superhuman stuff. One end of the scale is calling out to the other: "Come over here, be with me..." as we call out to others to see what we've got cooking in our studios -- and sometimes (if we're lucky) those others will call out for us to meet them on their terms.

The other day, a friend returned from New York and took a look at the big painting in my studio and said many good things that I welcomed, and then he said with a testing challenge: "Now can you do this again at this scale?" Again? Well, of course... but what is this, chopped liver? I was astonished that my recent accomplishment had such a short shelf life, measured as it was by the criterion of show business. But such is the way of the mediated, celebrity, branded, pop star agency that we have to adopt (or put up with), especially as we are living in this information age.

We made something vivid first for us and then for others, and we conveyed that through the scale defying medium of the web... it's natural for people to wonder if the wonder they are experiencing is enhanced by the technology, or will they still be as enchanted when they see the artwork up close. The big question is whether one must rise to the occassion or should one find a way to compell the audience to come closer and see what you/we are seeing in our bubbled artworld. I cite the great artists who stayed small and compelled the public to like that scale as much as the artist does, such as Richard Tuttle or Giorgio Morandi.

How does one make sure that the imagination serves human visceral experience and not the other way around? One way to make something (art) that is so powerful that the media can only capture an aspect and not the whole thing. And why not that other way around (viscerality serving the imagination)? Because in that way lies tyranny.

Enough blather. Good exchange, all.

Honolulu Dogfight said...

"Dad, thanks, now you can see why I can never assume "Anon" is you. I mean, I have to take it on faith that honolulu dogfight is george, I can't project more than that."

what?! take it on faith? my little icon looks exactly like me!
jesus!

matthew said...

Marga says:
but i don't think pure abstraction looks like what a human thought thinks it looks like. if it did, it would be recognized, and therefore, wouldn't be pure abstraction.

That's kinda what I was getting at. Seems to me that imagining pure abstraction requires an emptiness of mind that humans are maybe incapable of. Maybe.

So the most any of us can hope for is to hover at the threshold of perceptibility, getting (or giving) a fleeting glimpse of the possibility of abstraction. (as with Turrell or Reinhardt)

Linda Sue said...

where is m picton's work going to be in SF?