Boo Ritson, using paint, props and make up to clone the sitter into an image of themselves in another role / life. The results give a caricature of the person which when examined takes on the aspects of a painting, a photograph and a sculpture. The tonal changes are caused by the actual light rather than the paint itself. The paint is layered on thickly which gives a pasty quality to the painting and to the sitter.
Rachel Russell, in this video the artist paints a version of Philip Guston’s “The Studio”. Dressed as a shark an using Guston’s iconographic images. I found it interesting initially but soon became tired of the video.
A mixed bag of different ideas which cross various disciplines, painting, sculpture, theatre and film. A melting pot of ideas.
Paula Rego using props and puppets as models for drawings. Outfits used to give form and inspire imagination into her work.
Pawel Althamer’s life size sculptures that appear to be made from strips of cloth and bones. The ability to be able to see through the sculptures gives them a sense of movement and an ephemeral ghostly appearance. (See example at the top of this blog)
Lisa Milroy uses clothing and paintings of clothing and often invites the viewer / observer to arrange the work into a composition that they like.
The three examples given show how oil paint can be used in different ways to convey a multitude of moods, feelings, textures, light and tone. In all three the palette is muted and the colours nearly monotone. Philip Guston’s, “The Coat, 1977” has exaggerated forms which have been simplified into basic shapes. minimal tonal effects have been utilised. Vincent Van Gogh’s “A pair of shoes, 1886” is all about the richness of the paint and the thickness with which it has been applied to the canvas. The clever use of tonal contrasts conveys a bleakness in the painting. In Lisa Milroy’s “Shoes, 1985” the paint shines. On first glance the pairs of shoes could be confused as opened mussels. The wetness of the insides of the mussels amplified in the shine of the shoes.
In all three the paint has been laid down quickly but different techniques used. In Guston the paint has been applied thinly and mixed on the canvas. Mixing the paint on the canvas is also apparent in the Van Gogh painting. However in this painting the paint has been laid down generously in thick brush strokes. In the Milroy painting the paint has a sheen, carefully applied and the tonal highlights have been emphasised.
I knew that this exercise would be a challenge as soon as I had read the brief. Undaunted I would plunge into it although I did procrastinate for a few days. I prefer to think of it as time to get my thoughts together and subconsciously explore options as to how to approach the task. An option that I considered was to make a mannequin using old clothes. This I dismissed as it didn’t seem to be in the spirit of the exercise. It seemed to be more akin to making a ‘Guy’ as in, Penny for the Guy, which I remember doing as a boy. The process that I undertook and the results are documented on a separate blog.
My reflections on the results are as follows. the initial cut-out t-shirt shapes and the fashioning of these into a stand in for the garment were disappointing. This was for two reasons. The first was my limitations as a model maker. The re-made t-shirt was cumbersome, stiff, plain and unrealistic as a stand in for the actual object. The second was that although it inhabited a space it did not act as a stand in for the human form. It looked to be what it was, a model. This was true in whatever situation that I placed it in. Some were slightly less incongruous than others.
Four photographs of initial model
The second phase was to try to make the model more true to the t-shirt. This was done by the addition of a logo ‘Logo’ and a label ‘T shirt’. This had the immediate impact of breaking down the visual barriers and it started to take on more of a life of its own. The notion that it was a stand in for the human form became more apparent. The model not only occupied a space but represented form, albeit in a crude manner. The photographs from this stage have a curious interest to me.
Four photographs of painted model
I still felt that I hadn’t explored how the model could replace the human body. Although not in the spirit of the exercise I clothed the model in a lab coat. This immediately gave it a greater presence. The lab coat indicated greater form. The arms gave it gestural qualities which were enhanced and accentuated by the flow and form of the coat. The photographs from this stage are much more satisfying. I was able to pose the model in various situations where it took on a replacement for the body. It could be placed in a position and had a presence.
Four photographs of lab coat clothed model
The last stage, and the most satisfying, was to revert to painting. The four paintings that I made were completed quickly, each one taking less than 30 minutes. There is a definite feeling in the paintings that the model is occupying a space of its own. It is animated, it suggests the presence of a human body. In one of the paintings in particular it hovers and remind me of some of Rene Magritte’s surrealists paintings particularly ‘Son of Man, 1964’. although my painting doesn’t possess the religious significance inherent in Magritte’s painting.
Rene Magritte, Son of Man, Oil on canvas, 1964
A further inspiration for the headless prop that I used was inspired by the suggestion in the course material to examine the work of Yinka Shonibare and his use of headless models. In these he is exploring cultural identity, colonialism and post-colonialism. His choice of working in Dutch Wax fabric is much more colourful than a Lab coat and manufactured t-shirt.
In summary the exercise was a challenge which forced me to confront territory that I wouldn’t ordinarily have considered. The final outcome resulted in four paintings which successfully resolve the process. They also help to confirm to me that I consider myself a painter rather than a sculptor or a model maker.
This blog is about the process that I undertook for this exercise. I will write a further blog on my reflections and learning from the exercise in a separate blog.
I selected an old t-shirt and jeans as my initial items and only ended up using the t-shirt as a model.
I made a 1:1 scale model in paper, held together with cellotape, stuffed with plastic and a coat hanger. I photographed the cut out shapes, these were more interesting than the model.
Cut-outs
It looked a pale parody of the original garment. However armed with it I set about photographing it in various locations around the house and garden. The results were mixed the best of which are reproduced below.
Photographs of model T-shirt around the house and garden
The biggest disappointment was that the model was not taking the part of the human form but only as itself. I made some amendments to the model first painting it and later clothing it. I then made a further series of photographs.
Painted photographs, from around the house. These are slightly more animated than the previous set of photographs. This is mainly due to the settings that I put the model into. As previously it seems to be representing itself rather than as a stand in for the human form.
Photographs of painted object around the house
This is now the third day of living with my clothing object. Today it has taken a new form in that I have clothed it in a lab coat. As previously I have taken it around the house and garden and taken a series of photographs. The addition of the lab coat, the use of a microphone stand and the positioning of the arms of the coat has given the prop an animated quality which was not apparent previously.
Photographs of clothed object around the house and garden
The last part of this exercise was to make some quick paintings of the object in various positions. I made four paintings. One indoors from one of the photographs and three outside in the garden. I worked quickly using acrylics trying to capture light and feel rather than accuracy. The four paintings are shown below.
I’m happy with the outcome and as I stated earlier will write up a separate blog regarding my reflections on the process and the results.
I found that this was a challenging essay which took me some time to understand. I will start with my understanding of the essay and later describe how it resonates with my personal experiences.
Analysis of the essay
The use of the term Literalist art to describe Minimalism was initially distracting. I found that the Tate’s description of Minimalism was helpful to my understanding.
Minimalism = extreme form of abstract art developed in the USA in the 1960’s which typically composed of simple geometric shapes based in the square and rectangle.
I found that when I researched the work of the artists highlighted in the essay it was easier to understand the points that Martin Fried was making.
The essay starts with an explanation of what Martin considers to be literalist art and how it aspires to displace modernist painting and modernist sculpture as a way to establish itself. In many ways it is about the shape of an object. It is what it is, a whole, and not the sum of its parts. To quote from the essay ‘What is at stake in this conflict is whether the paintings or objects in question are experienced as paintings or as objects: and what decides their identity as paintings is their confronting of the demand that they hold as shapes. Otherwise they are experienced as nothing more than objects.’ The object has to suspend its own objecthood. The concept of non art is discussed and how the look of non art has moved beyond painting and onto sculpture. The term objecthood is adopted to encompass what literalist art is. However by doing this it becomes theatrical in how it confronts the beholder. The experience of literalist art is of an object in a situation. That much literalist work is large forces the beholder to keep their distance from it and be confronted by it. The object includes the beholder, large scale but not overpowering, too large. The object confronts the beholder, perhaps unexpectedly, by being in his way.
The theatricality of literalist art is inherent as the object is a statement of confrontation. In trying to explain theatre as an experience or situation as a work of art, which it isn’t, the experience of theatre is replaced by the object but the object is not there. Paintings and sculpture are not objects but by comparison literalist art assimilates objects to be art.
In trying to break or suspend objecthood the work of David Smith is held up as the prime example. His work occupies a space in which its part become entirely optical, part of ambient space but are still seen in terms of objecthood. The sculptor Anthony Caro’s work resists objecthood by imitating the efficacy of gesture.
To be able to defeat theatre literalist art degenerates in that the work only needs to be interesting. This is not a mark of quality. There is also a literalist preoccupation with time, with the duration of the experience which in turn is theatrical. The argument, essay, comes full circle in that in summary it states that we are all literalists most of our lives.
How does this resonate with my own experiences?
I can’t honestly say that I thought about my making during Part two in terms of literalist or minimalist art. I hadn’t considered questioning whether painting or even Combines were objects. They were the sum of their parts and presented as a work. I was trying to understand the language of working in a new way. Using new materials to create and assimilate into my work. It is only with hindsight that I can see parallels with the challenges that confronted artists such as Robert Morris in that I was considering the shape of objects. However I was nowhere near trying to limit the scope of the shapes down to simple geometric forms. That the literalists were trying to remove the association with anthropomorphism was contrary to what I was attempting. I wanted my work to be relatable and to contain gesture. I do remember having to consider the confines of the support. To me. the confines were in two dimensions and I didn’t really feel that I was working on a sculpture. This I feel was even true when working on the construction piece. I felt that I was assembling rather than sculpting.
My conclusion is that after reading the essay, and the points documented therein, I can see that the logical extension to pursuing a path of trying to simplify form and present work as an object removed from anything else would lead towards literalist or minimalist art. This was not a conscious consideration in my making. I was working to create pieces that had form and were, I hoped, aesthetically pleasing.
It took some time for me to embrace this exercise. I read through the requirements and was not inspired to get started. I needed to stop and think about how I was going to tackle it. As a distraction I embarked on a painting of a photograph I had recently taken. It was whilst completing this painting that I collected some objects together and started trying to manipulate them. The brief asked that the initial ideas be based upon the collection of objects pulled together for exercise 1. This I did more in idea than in using the actual objects. My main material was going to be polystyrene. The intention was that it could shape to replicate the shapes from the table. Easier thought about than done. I found that cutting and shaping the polystyrene was much more difficult than I had expected. I fashioned a piece that resembled the shape of a harmonica other shapes would be problematical. At this point I looked for other materials that I could manipulate, cut up, re-arrange. An empty crisp tube and egg boxes were added. I had a vague idea of using music as an underlying idea, perhaps creating a representation of a radio or boombox or alternatively some sort of stage.
The objects were not too large but large enough to need to be placed on a table. This could be moved around and worked upon from different aspects. The initial construction is shown in three photographs below.
Initial construction
The initial construction was extended. The work started to take on its own life. Another piece of polystyrene was added which gave the work height and another piece was used to provide support. I continued to move the object around and supplemented them with further objects. An empty yoghurt pot, garden wire, a cellotape dispenser, small bouncy balls, string and elastic bands. The piece grew.
Expanded construction
I now had a relatively fixed idea of how the objects would be arranged and connected. The next step was to consider colour.
I followed the links to the work of Jessica Stockholder and Katherina Grosse. It struck me that colour and paint was used both as a skin and a way of bringing the objects together and blurring the edges between them. Colour itself has a quality, it is ephemeral and embodied. Its application is also part of its quality, applied by hand, applied in gestural ways with brushes or other tools. I would try to incorporate these ideas into my work.
For the main blocks I thought that black would give them a look of solidity. All painting would be by brushes but I would keep it as loose as possible not worrying whether any underlying colour was visible. I would end up using three colours, black, Naples yellow and green earth. Other colour would come from the coloured balls and garden wire. After painting their was a connection between the objects and pieces that had not been apparent before.
Painted pieces
The task that remained was to construct the pieces into one coherent work. I would use the garden wire for two purposes, to aid in stabilising the work and as a link between the separate parts.
I found that the completed work was difficult to photograph and video without getting interference from its surroundings. It needs its own space in which to exist so that it can be itself. I used some cardboard to separate it from its surroundings. I then set about photographing and videoing the work. Whilst I was a non instructive name for the piece arose, Construction 1. Detailed photographs below.
Detailed photographs
What did I learn from this exercise?
I found it problematic to find inspiration. I was limited by what materials I had available and therefore had to adapt. The importance of colour in providing unity was revealing. I have continued to think of other ways I can create similar works and my approach to creation of work has been expanded.
Two photographs of construction 1 below. I also have four videos which will be added when I am able to.
I started my blog on Exercise 1.4 with a few words regarding the Rauschenberg exhibition that I had attended at Tate Modern in 2017.
Exhibition Guide
Prior to this exhibition I had confronted Abstract art, installations, and avant-garde sculpture but had not confronted Combines. The exhibition covered all of Rauschenberg’s career and only a part, room 3, included the Combines. This room along with ‘Material Abstraction’ were the two largest rooms. The Combines were different. They seemed to be about painting but had other aspects to them which at the time I didn’t come to terms with. I couldn’t make sense of them. As I recall the one that made most sense was ‘Bed’ which was completed in 1955 at the beginning of his Combine period.
Bed, 1955
It was obvious what it was but why was it contained with a frame with paint. It was a painting that utilised oil paint and pencil on pillow, quilt and sheet. It now makes more sense having worked on my own Combine and also having read more about Combines. The bed itself is an ordinary object. It is usually confronted as horizontal. Here it is presented to the viewer vertically within a frame. this was the intention to endow ordinary objects with a new significance. This topic is explored further in the article ‘On Rauschenberg – Art Theory 1900-2000’ which is similar in content with the Exhibition guide. The guide walks through Rauschenberg’s artistic life in a chronological order and explains his development. The many collaborations, the challenge to conceptions and continual experimentation with the art form.
Returning to the Combine’s they started to make more sense after reading Leo Steinberg’s lecture piece on ‘Other Criteria – The Flatbed picture plane’ in which he explains how the picture plane
“was moved from the Renaissance picture plane, which are experienced in the normal erect posture, to the work of Rauschenberg whose work challenged and overcame this so that the pictures no longer simulate vertical fields but opaque flatbed horizontals. They no more depend on head to toe correspondence with human posture than a newspaper does.“
Having read these pieces and reflected upon them I returned to Link 21 and looked to explore a couple more Combines. I selected two which are reproduced below along with my comments.
Collection, 1954/55
Rauschenberg’s Combine painting ‘Collection’ looks on first glance to be just what its title suggests, a collection of coloured shapes on which paint and been very loosely applied and allowed to run and mix. It is only when it is viewed close up that it starts to reveal a greater collection of materials and information.
On closer examination the support appears to be made up of three wood panels. However the painting is described as being on canvas. Is this a play with the idea of the triptych or another use of the title word ‘Connection’? To the frame of the paintings further wooden pieces have been added along the top. These pieces of wood have paint and fabric attached to them. Were they found like this or have they been added by the artist? The painting is made up of pieces of fabric and cloth, torn pieces of newspapers, magazines and comics which have been randomly adhered to the support. Hardly any of these have been placed in a position to be read naturally, often they are upside down or at various haphazard angles. Paint of many different colours and texture has been loosely applied by daubing, dripping and painting. Much of this paint has been allowed to run and to be absorbed into the fabric. The paint partly obscures the paper, some of it is translucent allowing the viewer to look behind. The whole painting looks faded. To me it is a collection of ideas, materials and, paints.
Magician, 1959
Oil, fabric, wood, printed paper, printed reproductions and metal on canvas with fabric pouch and string.
I find this painting very difficult to read. The techniques involved are similar to that used for ‘Collection’ but to me it is more refined. I guess that this is mainly due to it being painted 4/5 years later. The paint is more restrained, more refined and the whole composition is more coherent. However although I can observe this attributes I struggle to make an association between the painting and its title. Is there meant to be one? I note that there is another painting titled ‘Magician II’ which was painted two year later in 1961. Is this a companion piece or perhaps a follow on piece. There appears to be little connection between the two. I will return to these paintings and I hope over time some more of their secrets will reveal themselves.
Lastly I found it pertinent given the global crisis currently being endured that the strapline at the top of the Rauschenberg website is
“Artists always have been the first to rally around any national or international problem, acting as a conscience.”
When I read through the requirements for this exercise I expected a challenge. I had confronted Combines previously when visiting Tate Modern and took the opportunity to visit the Rauschenberg exhibition in 2017.
I found the Combines confusing and very difficult to read. Thinking back I was looking for a narrative to the paintings. At the time I was far more comfortable with representational work. I feel that my studies have now brought me to a place where I am better able to make some sense of Combines. However this exercise was asking for me to try to construct my own Combine. This started a train of thought as to how I could go about the process?
It took me some time to make progress. I started with trying to solve basic problems like what support to use? What to use? How to use it? A further limitation on the process was the prevention of going out to purchase a suitable support as the country had entered lock down due to the Coronavirus pandemic. This situation, in hindsight, was a benefit as it forced me to consider what I had available. The brief pointed in the direction of a canvas. I wanted to work quite large and the only two large canvases I had were used. Should I paint over these or incorporate them into the work. Whilst not my best paintings I felt that both were representative of a phase in my evolving practice and therefore I should preserve them. The two paintings are replicated below.
Old canvas paintings
I reflected on what solutions I had used during ‘Concepts in Practice’ and remembered a large work that I had completed called ‘Who, we, you’ where I had used the cardboard that had come with the delivery of our washing machine. The work was now stored in the loft and was unlikely to see the light of day again. I could use a section of the cardboard for the Combine. Prior to its re-use I made a video of the work for my records. Two photographs of it are shown below.
‘Who, we, you’
I now spent a lot of time thinking about what to do? How to do it? Thinking about what to incorporate, solving problems, searching and finding objects, considering them, dismissing them. I seemed to be making little actual progress. It was all planning and no action but it certainly wasn’t procrastination. Eventually I decided on a way forward and started on the construct phase. The laying out of a couple of objects on the support and then the attaching of them broke the impasse and I now had a physical work in progress.
Combine – work in progress first steps
The physicality of what I was doing was far removed from the act of painting but it felt creative. A process was unfolding where I was adding, taking away, moving, arranging, considering and reacting to what I was placing on the support. Did the objects look and feel right? What was I trying to say about them? did I need to say anything about them?
Combine – work in progress continues
A pleasing aspect of the process was that I didn’t feel constrained. I felt an energy towards the work. It was tactile to move objects around and to move around the work. Whilst working I took time out to look at Rauschenberg’s Combines and to try and draw inspiration from them.
Combine – Work in progress approaches conclusion
Combine – Work in progress video
I noted that many of Rauschenberg’s combines were titled and my mind considered many options for naming my work most of which I thought were pretentious. I should allow the finished piece to convey its own meaning if it has one at all. The last step was to add paint. Again I spent more time considering, reflecting and pondering how to add paint, what colours to use, controlled or random application. I finally arrived at applying paint loosely using a brush.
Combine – finished workCombine – finished work
The addition of paint seemed to bring the work together and gave it a coherence that wasn’t previously present. The objects now had a relationship to each other became unified. Have I completed a Combine that can be read, does it say something, is it interesting to look at? I am unsure. I enjoyed the process, particularly the act of creation, but wonder at the result.
I did make a couple of short videos where I moved around the painting and spoke about it. The video of the finished can be found vis the link below.
This is the place where I spend more of the daylight hours than anywhere else. It is situated in the conservatory at the back of the house. The room is entered via the sitting room. I still consider it to be a shared space but in reality I am the only one who uses it. It can be cold in winter and hot in summer but mostly it is a pleasant place to be. The view from the studio is to the back garden to which there is a door.
The room contains all of my art equipment, materials and supports which are all easily accessible. I do feel the need to keep the room reasonably tidy. I consider it to be part of the living space of the house but as said before I am the only one who uses it. It does have a dart board and dart mat which I like to keep free for practice and distraction. Rather unusually the room also contains a sauna and shower room. The sauna is rarely if ever used and currently I use it as a storeroom for supports, canvases and paper, and old paintings. The space above the sauna is where I keep old sketch books and packing materials.
Inside the sauna
Whilst considering my studio for this piece I feel that it could do with some reorganisation. It was partly reorganised so that I could set up the table of objects required for exercises 1.0 – 1.2, this is still in place.
The table of objects with background of plants and paintings
I tend to keep on display the paintings that I have recently completed, I live with them for a while until I have moved on to new works. My desk has been described in an earlier blog. It always has my laptop, my OCA course book, my sketchbook, my notebook, my diary and my ipad mini which is mainly used for listening to music. Listening to music is a constant. sometimes I am not really listening.
My studio is a pleasure to be in. I like working in it, sitting in it. It is comfortable. I take my breakfast into the studio everyday. It is part of my routine which if I have no other commitments runs something like this.
9-10am Breakfast, emails, actions and update my diary
10am – 1pm Current OCA projects
1pm – 3pm Lunch and walking the dog
3pm to 5pm More work and painting
5pm – 11pm Other activities, I’m not usually in the studio during this time, often out.
More photographs of my studio
A Day in the Studio – Uri Aran
My first impression when looking at Uri’s studio was that it had an area displaying completed works and an area with work in progress. The works area is messy and confused and Uri explains why it is so. He states that a lot of his work is trying to organise, make sense of things, waiting, thinking, reflecting, trying out ideas and what I found most interesting, letting things age together. His process is about trying to tell a story and to represent this story using the objects in his studio. I was curious to find out how objects made there way into his studio but that I another activity. Collection and selection.
Valerie Mrejens ‘Start working’
This is a piece about procrastination.
Whilst I can sympathise with the feeling and notions expressed I have over the years been driven by deadlines. In my professional life, before retirement, my life was a series of deadlines, daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I seem to have retained this discipline and use the setting of Assignment deadlines as one of my motivations to complete the next task and keep moving forward. I do read ahead and try to ascertain what the next projects are and think about how long they may take. Is the deadline realistic? Do I need to get a move on? I keep a record of how much time I spend on my OCA studies. This helps to assure me that I am on course. I do put other tasks on hold at times so as to prioritise my studies. There is plenty of work to do in the garden as spring is here, what gets done gets done what doesn’t is left undone.
Where I sometimes struggle is with inspiration and this can lead to procrastination. This is particularly true if the task or project doesn’t resonate with me. It is then that I have to try alternative strategies. This can involve anything from walking the dog, going and playing my guitars and ukuleles, listen to music or perhaps painting something I want to paint. Once I regain focus on a task I find that I tend to get on with it, often with a rush to finish before the inspiration goes. The danger with this is that the full realisation of the idea or project is left without being fully explored.
Mark Taylor 'Studio Practice' 