In the beginning, at least for me, there was Matisse. I respected all of the greats: Picasso, Gris, Modigliani, Giacometti, etc. As most painters do I began studying more modern artists: De Kooning, Pollock, Kline, Rothko, Still, etc. Then more contemporary painters: Twombly, Basquiat, Schnabel, Clemente, etc. Finally I came across Diebenkorn, which in turn led me back to Matisse. Matisse and Diebenkorn focused their energies on what surrounded them. For the past 10 years I to have focused my energies on my surroundings. Flowing fields and trees in a constant state of flux are found throughout my work.
Much of my work has been revisited and reworked many times over. Songs for Harper Lee # 84 has evolved over the past two years. The 4 images below are only a few of the states the painting has taken during that time. The first state was very simple and direct. As I revisited this work I wanted to promote more movement across the painting. To do this I added lines that mimicked the Southern landscape or really landscape in general. The lines in the second image were too flat, direct, and needy. They seemed to be looking for attention. The viewers focus became the lines and only the lines. To diffuse this I changed the color palette to warmer colors. The thinner layers allowed more depth and color to show through. Just as I thought the painting had resolved itself I began to experiment with the lower left quadrant of the painting. The color and black lines interested me but seemed a bit stiff. This led to the final state below. (With the hazy light of late I have had difficulty capturing color correctly in a few of the photographs.) The lines carry the eyes across the surface. Layers have been scratched/textured and pulled back to create a sense of depth from within. I am going to let the painting breathe for a while. I do not plan on revising the painting at all. It will either succeed or fail on its own. I feel it will stand up over time and will lead to newer ideas and rhythms in my work.
none
Clayton Colvin
Space Mountain
Dec. 9, 2011 – Jan. 21, 2012
The recent show at Beta Pictoris features new work by the artist Clayton Colvin. The artist has filled the space with paintings in various states of undress. At first glance the paintings appear to be somewhat simplistic and minimalist in nature. Upon further review one is struck by the complex lines and patterns that weave their way across the surface. Colvin uses a strict economy of markings and staining that are subtle yet bold.
The current work is a departure from the glossy and color riddled paintings of the past. Not that the previous work was inferior but one gets the sense that the artist is comfortable with his craft. The work owes much to the act of drawing as it does painting. Conte, charcoal, and pencil are evident throughout. Paint is used sparingly at times. Too often color detracts from a work. Our emotional attachment to color and flesh, will at times, blind us to the spirit of a painting. The palette is bold but not overwhelming.
Although non-objective in nature, works like Midnight River(above) and Wrap Yourself in Destroyed Recordings(below) appear to indirectly reference landscape. From a distance a work reminds me of an old Corot print. After revisiting the gallery I got the feeling the artist is headed in an interesting direction. In an earlier interview with the artist he stated, “I like to think of my work being seen over and over; lived with, and so having a long term sort of role in a viewer’s experience. “ I am eager to see what direction Clayton takes next. The show runs thru the 21st of this month.
none
Brief studio interview with Antony Gormley.
none
Anselm Kiefer discussing his current work at White Cube. I enjoyed his insight into how a painting unfolds.
none
When I came across Lasker’s work in the late 90′s at the Birmingham Museum of Art I wasn’t very impressed. To me, at the time, the work was painted in a foreign language I couldn’t/didn’t care to understand. A good friend of mine was surprised at this. He commented that Lasker, much like Jasper Johns, was a painter’s painter. At the time I favored Rauschenberg over Johns. Since then both views have changed. Although I am not a huge fan of Lasker’s I do admire the vocabulary of markings and swaths of paint. It seems that I am not alone in my views on Lasker.
none
