Following the intuition that I am seeking some type of understanding — this for me is the basis of being an artist. Introspection tells me that painting is not about making a statement; rather, it is something closer to asking a question.
The feeling that a painting can be the basis for a discovery is what makes it to me worthwhile. I think it is this feeling which motivates me during the process of working and maintains my attention when the work is complete. Then I can ask, where did this image come from? What does it mean?
Karl,
This is a good picture to illustrate your topic of questioning. The gestures are so tentative. The overall shape makes me think altar, and the flat hair shapes remind me of gold leaf halos. I’m curious why you presented it in shades of gray, and I’m wondering whether the colors are anything like what I’m reading them as.
Art as questioning and discovery fits very well with my own conception. Note that discovery implies that at least a partial answer is found — is that how you know when a work is finished? And isn’t “Life is a question” itself a statement?
isn’t “Life is a question” itself a statement?
I guess so, but that’s not my statement. The viewpoint I present above is an after-the-fact attempt to describe my approach and motivation. It is at best an approximation, but it illustrates an approach that is different from the “statement first, then outsource the labor” process characteristic of so-called “conceptual art.” I guess what I am saying, and which is also reflected in your art making and in David’s, is that the most interesting concepts or discoveries are a result of the work, not the specific a priori intention of the work.
I’m wondering whether the colors are anything like what I’m reading them as.
That depends, what are you reading them as?
I like the simple setting, though the alter aspect seems a bit over-stated. I wonder why? Perhaps it puts a distance between the artist and the subject, unlike Richard’s final photo from his recent contribution.
Imbricate is a good word for our lives and our art.
I think you’ve nicely identified that the sense of questing or questioning in an artwork allows it to hold interest over a long time, at least to the extent the viewer can personally relate to the quest and continue with it. Like storytelling, it engages the viewer in a process with the artwork. Although perhaps not an explicit statement, the implication that questioning is not only valid but important is part of what such a work conveys.
I’m imagining your Flemish greens, blues,and reds, with a black top on the reclining woman.
Imbricate: lying lapped over each other in regular order. D, interesting choice of a word.
I’m imagining your Flemish greens, blues,and reds, with a black top on the reclining woman.
That’s about right, Steve. I decided not to show the colors in order to be able to try to “see” the picture for the first time myself. Later I’ll put in some details.
The feeling that a painting can be the basis for a discovery is what makes it to me worthwhile.
I agree. For me that’s the main difference between painting and illustration.
You’ve got some great things going on in this one, Karl. The use of an altar form for a sexually suggestive image. Though it could also be read as someone visiting a sick person. The way the horizontal emphasizes one figure, while the vertical emphasizes the other, as though each woman’s energy is moving in an rigidly opposing direction. There is also something interesting going on with the angles of the arms, suggesting a complex relationship between the women.
Is this a painting or a drawing? Are you showing us the b&w version of a color image, or did you paint/draw it in b&w?
I don’t have the exact dimensions of the painting here, but I think it is about nine inches wide.
Karl,
I am interested in what you discovered in this…
This is a beautiful painting that definitely asks itself to be ‘discovered’. Definitely tells a story. My interpretation would be different from yours. It seems to fall into a genre where it would seem burdened by additional appendages like a title.
In many cases titles of paintings signifies the statement that the artist wants to make.. Personally, titles are very important for me as it signifies the intent behind my paintings, but for you it seems that “painting is not about making a statement; rather, it is something closer to asking a question”
This is the kind of painting where the viewer is free to discover and decipher hidden meanings until they are reigned in by the artist’s intent.
Also, what would you intend to call it?
Titles can also be left deliberately ambiguous. They can open up possible readings, as well as limit them.
Introspection tells me that painting is not about making a statement; rather, it is something closer to asking a question.
It may not have been your intention here, but I always find it frustrating when artists make blanket qualifiers about what art (or more specifically here, painting) is, or is not, instead of limiting the qualifier to the artist herself.
The assertion of “questions not statements” as a necessary component for real art is a common one, usually used in an effort to discredit political or conceptual art. And yet I feel that something is being left out when we unnecessarily limit art to the asking of questions — especially considering that most pre-modern art was in the statement-making business (e.g., any moralizing religious painting from the Renaissance).
Maybe this has something to do with where we place the emphasis in the art process. If we view the physical, artistic ‘making’ of an object of primary importance in generating art, then it would make sense to want to leave this part of the process open to greater possibilities. But if we instead place equal value on the entire social life of an artwork — that is, the combination of making, presentation, response from an audience, and then re-contemplation — it would then seem that a statement could act more like part of a conversation, where statements are affected by interaction with a community (especially responses that disagree) and then perhaps altered into new statements or the combination of statements and questions.
Put more simply, if we are to think of art as a form of social interaction, then both statements and questions are equally important, as they are in any other form of communication.
Put more simply, if we are to think of art as a form of social interaction, then both statements and questions are equally important, as they are in any other form of communication.
Well said!
“Though it could also be read as someone visiting a sick person.”
The reclining figure seems too perky and aroused to be ill. And, of course, she has turned towards us.
I do like the quirkiness of it all: the staged bedposts, the gawkiness of the raised head and especially, how the hips turn but not the feet. Amusing.
Jason,
I love the notion you express of the “social life of an artwork.” Ideally the conversation would extend through the successive creation of multiple artworks.
Karl, I see that you not only have the colors I guessed, but my imagined golden halos have expanded to fill the entire background. I must be getting a feeling for your work!
Karl,
I like this very much. I love the ambiguity of it. Of course, one immediately reads it as possibly sexual. But then, this one (me, I mean) thought — announcement of pregnancy — the hand on the belly. And then, of course, I thought of the Biblical women and their children and of women’s communal attachments. I love it that it can go in many directions and still be true to the piece — and that whatever direction you take causes different parts of the painting to become suddenly visible.
I think your statement: “Introspection tells me that painting is not about making a statement; rather, it is something closer to asking a question” and jason’s “Put more simply, if we are to think of art as a form of social interaction, then both statements and questions are equally important, as they are in any other form of communication.” are both true (duh — that’s what jason said).
One can be true to our inner selves and the other to the fullness, the wholeness of the finished art that lies outside ourselves. As individuals, we tend to emphasize the process, but as communal beings, we are part of the communication with others.
So if I were doing this painting, the process would have involved trying to walk that exquisite line of ambiguity or opposing tensions — sexuality/announcement of pregnancy; altar/relationship between humans; two women — is there an impregnating male?; and so forth.
I of course can’t speak for the artist, only for myself as imagining the process; but as a viewer I can play outside the artistic process, seeing it, but superimposing on it my own human understandings. And then, as a comment on A&P, I get to communicate these understandings.
Jason,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I see the need to clarify. I thought it redundant to say “Introspection tells me that painting for me is not about making a statement . . .” But I can see the ambiguity when leaving out the “for me”.
My point is not that the picture does not make a statement. My point is that I do nothave that statement crystalized in my mind (say in a verbal form) before I begin, or even when the painting is finished. When I say that “painting is not about making a statement” I refer to the process itself. Painting, the process, is more like asking a question — and the question is, what is the statement? The finished painting itself should, I agree, contain some kind of statement (at least one), but what that statement is is something to be discovered by both the artist and the viewer — at least, this is how I feel.
How to relate this to art that has an explicit statement-making business? I think it doesn’t change the question at all really. What separates one artwork from another is not necessarily the gross statement (e.g., a reminder of the transience of life, the futility of pleasure and the certainty of death repeated endlessly in the vanitas). What is interesting is how each artist discovers how to make a variation on the statement.
June,
Thank you for the lovely interpretation of the painting. It is astonishing to me how you can make me look at the picture in an entirely new way!
I believe that the viewer does a lot more work than we normally give him or her credit for. The painting is completed in the mind, each viewer can become an artist. I noticed recently how much Steve’s rock photos and Mark’s café painting “changed” with each viewing. I wonder if we take viewing more seriously as an active process, would that change and enhance our appreciation? Ed also has an interesting post along these lines today.
I see two women, lost in thoughts and also communicating with one another.
The green woman looks wise, mature. She gives me a parental feeling. With her hands on her own knees, she looks self-contained. I love her posture, both turning away and towards the younger woman. The curves in her posture remind me of David’s musical painting above.
The eyes of the blue woman are searching. Through her right hand, she grounds herself on herself, through her left hand, she connects with the other woman.
An older person helping a younger person find her own way.
Brigit,
“The green woman…with her hands on her own knees… looks self-contained.”
But they are not! Her right hand is back near her rump leaving herself open for the reclining figures touch.
On her knee and hip – forgot about the curvature of the green woman.
Karl, Very impactful painting. I was stunned to see this painting. I am working on a painting of two nudes, one women is pregnant. I was not sure if I should have them touching, so I’ve created them with space separating them. After seeing your painting I am having new thought. Seeing this painting and what it suggest to me, has me reconsider what it is that I am trying to say or ask.
Bob!
You reminded me of something I completely forgot. I have another painting to show you, if I can only find it . . .