Touch Faith, curated by Jeffrey Cortland Jones, SEMANTICS, Cincinnati, OH, Nov 7 - 28, 2009
A Few Months (HTML Drawings) (solo), Kent Place Gallery, Summit, New Jersey, Oct 19– Nov 20, 2009
The Odd Months (solo), Townsend Center for the Humanities, University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2009
Room for Painting Room For Paper, Curated by Susan Schimke and George Lawson, Shasta College Gallery, Aug 17 - Sept 25, 2009
Blue & Green Paintings (solo), room for painting room for paper, San Francisco, Jan 8 - Feb 7, 2009
HTML Drawings/Recent Work (solo), David Cunningham Projects (solo), San Francisco, Aug 7 - Sep 13, 2008

Thu 02 Jul 2009

How The World Looks

 

 

How The World Looks, 20090702, HTML, 450 x 360 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Wed 01 Jul 2009

A Good Walk

 

 

A Good Walk, 20090701, HTML, 450 x 360 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 1 Comment »

Tue 30 Jun 2009

Valdobbiadene

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Valdobbiadene, 20090630, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Tue 30 Jun 2009

Sam Tchakalian

 

samtchakalianred-claysmall

 

Sam TCHAKALIAN [1929-2004]: RED CLAY, 1984, OIL ON CANVAS, 72 X 72″

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments No Comments »

Mon 29 Jun 2009

Oahu

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Oahu, 20090629, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 2 Comments »

Mon 29 Jun 2009

Joe Zucker at Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht

 

JoeZucker1

JoeZucker4

JoeZucker2

JoeZucker3

Joe Zucker in Exile on Main Street at Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments No Comments »

Sun 28 Jun 2009

Bologna

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Bologna, 20090628, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 3 Comments »

Sun 28 Jun 2009

John Tweddle at Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht

 

JohnTweddle1

JohnTweddle2

JohnTweddle3

John Tweddle in Exile on Main Street at Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments No Comments »

Sat 27 Jun 2009

Kloster Maulbronn

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Kloster Maulbronn, 20090627, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Sat 27 Jun 2009

Pen and Parchment: Drawing in the Middle Ages

 

battlescenemetmuseumcat050ar1_49a

Battle Scene
From Book of Maccabees I
Saint Gall, Switzerland, second half of 9th–early 10th century
Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden, Cod. Perizoni F.17

At the Metroplitan Museum, NY: Pen and Parchment: Drawing in the Middle Ages

Those Medieval Monks Could Draw
Roberta Smith, NY Times, June 18, 2009

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments 1 Comment »

Fri 26 Jun 2009

Denali

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Denali, 20090626, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 1 Comment »

Fri 26 Jun 2009

Tamara Zahaykevich

 

tamarazahaykevich1 tamarazahaykevich2

Tamara Zahaykevich, from Peacocks: [left] trill(rrr), 2007; [right] Chameleon, 2006, Aibrushed Foam Core, 4.5″ x 13″ x 3″

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments 1 Comment »

Thu 25 Jun 2009

Zaanse Schans

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Zaanse Schans, 20090625, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Thu 25 Jun 2009

What’s wrong with ‘professionalization’?

 

Via Eric Gelber:

Christian Viveros-Faune provides an excellent explanation why professionalization is not a good thing for the arts at Artworld Salon:

“What’s wrong with professionalization?” in the visual arts, Jonathan asks. My answer is nearly everything.

“Because nothing happens in a vacuum, in our present art world professionalization largely means—much as it has for U.S.-based lit. programs since the 1970s—basically the “instutionalization of anti-institutionality.” Just as the marriage of poststructuralism and the invasion of academe by the baby-boomer generation produced political correctness and decades of right thinking by a neutered liberal establishment, many MFA programs (not to mention the far more pernicious curatorial programs) often promote less a canon of critical ideas than an effective art world catechism. That, in a nutshell, is the definition of orthodoxy, and orthodoxy is the enemy of critical thinking. The problem with MFA and PhD programs is not that newly minted artists with graduate degrees are receiving two or more years to develop their heads and hands (Who’s against that?), but that they rarely get a chance to think beyond the art world consensus that sucks the air out of most programs of advanced study. Artists, and everyone in their mileu—and that includes the entire daisy chain, from critics to dealers—unlike politicians, should beware consensus. Wherever it appears an idea has died and is in the gutless throes of decomposition. Cotter and Kimmelman, whom I rarely agree with, are right insofar as they point to early responses to a generalized crisis of imagination that are, in the main, retread, self-referential, and bloodless. Van Gogh and his ear don’t even enter into it. It’s just that, every decade or so, art schools along with everyone else get a jolt from beyond our dear old art world. When the dust settles, it’s no surprise that very, very little retains its original luster—or, more to the point, looks original. When that happens, professionalism is the last place to go looking for an alternative.”

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Comments No Comments »

Wed 24 Jun 2009

Elizabethtown

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Elizabethtown, 20090624, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 2 Comments »

Wed 24 Jun 2009

Jerry Zeniuk: Altar Painting II

 

jerry-zeniuk2007_altar_2-raum

Jerry Zeniuk
Altar Painting II, 2007
Oil on canvas
280 x 400 cm
Kapelle der Katholischen Akademie in Bayern, München
(Mandlstr. 23, Mo-Fr 9-17h, 22.12.07-7.1.08 geschlossen)

More views at Galerie Rupert Walser.

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments 3 Comments »

Tue 23 Jun 2009

Las Vegas

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Las Vegas, 20090623, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Tue 23 Jun 2009

Painting is a slow art, no matter how quickly viewers might believe…”

 

John Yau writes in the catalog for Twenty-Five Painters Under Thirty-Five at The Painting Center:

“Painting is a slow art, no matter how quickly viewers might believe they see and absorb a painting’s visual data. It takes time to make a painting, and it takes time to see it, in some cases far longer than it took for the artist to make it. And along the way, any number of things can happen. At a time when there isn’t any discourse telling painters what they should be doing, the situation is wide open and even scary. There is no dominant style, subject matter, or relationship to paint’s materiality or immateriality. You can work from direct observation, make everything up, or be conceptual in your decisions. There is no safety net; nothing that says this is the right or wrong way to go. Abstraction and figuration are two options among many. Some may regard such confusion (or anarchy) as unhealthy, but I am not one of them. The pot is simmering, and out of it many unexpected delights have been emerging, even if they have flown under the radar.”

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Comments No Comments »

Mon 22 Jun 2009

Keukenhof

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Keukenhof, 20090622, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Sun 21 Jun 2009

Arnhem Osterbeek

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Arnhem Osterbeek, 20090621, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Sat 20 Jun 2009

Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna, 20090620, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Fri 19 Jun 2009

Creamer’s Field, Fairbanks

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Creamer’s Field, Fairbanks, 20090619, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Thu 18 Jun 2009

Occidental

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Occidental, 20090618, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 4 Comments »

Wed 17 Jun 2009

Denali, Alaska

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Denali, Alaska, 20090617, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Wed 17 Jun 2009

A. Bill Miller’s studio

 

abillmiller

A. Bill Miller’s soon-to-be former “studio” in Milwaukee.  See those two framed prints hanging above the corners of the laptop?  Those are by me.  Bill and I traded; I have a print and drawing of his, which I like a great deal.  See more, see Bill’s blog.

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 06. Artists Comments No Comments »

Tue 16 Jun 2009

Aurora Borealis, Fairbanks

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Aurora Borealis, Fairbanks, 20090616, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Mon 15 Jun 2009

Kölner Dom

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Kölner Dom, 20090615, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 2 Comments »

Sun 14 Jun 2009

Ice Storm, Elizabethtown

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Ice Storm, Elizabethtown, 20090614, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Sat 13 Jun 2009

San Marco, Venezia

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: San Marco, Venezia, 20090613, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Fri 12 Jun 2009

Oak, Occidential

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Oak, Occidential, 20090612, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments 2 Comments »

Thu 11 Jun 2009

Cortina d’Ampezzo

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Cortina d’Ampezzo, 20090611, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Wed 10 Jun 2009

Palladio, Quinto Vicentino

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Palladio, Quinto Vicentino, 20090610, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Wed 10 Jun 2009

Fifty Two Birthday Drawings

 

 

Fifty Two Birthday Drawings (I was born June 10, 1957 at 3:17 p.m.), 20090610, HTML, 150 x 110 pixels each, 1050 x 880 pixels overall (51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45)

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Comments 2 Comments »

Tue 09 Jun 2009

Sandhill Cranes, Fairbanks

 

 

Ann McConville & Chris Ashley: Sandhill Cranes, Fairbanks, 20090609, HTML & JPEG, 740 x 500 pixels

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 01. HTML 2009 Tags: Comments No Comments »

Tue 09 Jun 2009

A Conversation with Patrick Michael Fitzgerald

 

Patrick M. Fitzgerald lives in Bilbao, Spain and Chris Ashley lives in Oakland, California. This conversation about Patrick’s art was conducted via email between December 2008 and April 2009.

Patrick Michael Fitzgerald studio

Chris Ashley: This is a rather general observation, and I’m probably simplifying more than a little, but it seems to me that, during 2008, the shapes, spaces, and boundaries in your paintings have transitioned from fields, blocks, and solids to lines, nets, and softer shapes. You’ve long had fractured shapes, but they now seem broken down more. The greater use of line allows for more visible layering than was implied in previous work of the last few years. Rather than painting in fields and shapes, the line of the brush is now more visible. Just thinking of other artists as a way to illustrate this shift, consider the mass and solidity of Morandi versus the looser, linear accumulation and openness of Giacometti. Is this at all an accurate observation from your point of view?

Patrick Michael Fitzgerald: Well, yes, what you say and describe is correct. Over the last year, I have been mostly occupied with this new “family” group of paintings, but I don’t think that there has been some kind of evolution. I don’t really believe in that kind of linear development; we succumb to chronologies because it’s difficult for us to conceive of things outside of a certain idea of temporality. I see all my work, everything I’ve ever made (including those destroyed or recycled), as co-existing in one realm or space where contrasting family groups relate to each other. Ideally, I would make lots of different kinds of paintings at the same time – in fact, I do occasionally try this – but the demands on time and concentration make it almost impossible. When exhibiting the paintings I do play around and mix new works with older ones because the idea of contrast interests me a great deal. In any case, with the new works it’s a question of trying to expand the components and vocabulary that make up my paintings, though not in an ideological or analytical way. I have recently focused on a much greater softness while maintaining fractured shapes and structures; this resulted in “nets” or “lattices” which are a way of slowing down the gaze and the initial apprehension of the image.

territories VII (blue), 2008, oil on linen, 95×82cmCA: I have serious doubts about anyone’s claim to a linear evolution in one’s art, or, for that matter, even in one’s life. More typically, I see the development process as circular or looping, iterative or intuitive, with gaps and leaps that are often surprising. I know many artists, myself included, who have said something like, “I didn’t expect things to go in this direction.” This can lead somewhere new, or even backwards and then off in another direction. I am experiencing this in my own work now, a revisiting of approaches, impulses, even imagery from very far back. I see this in many of the painters I admire most, for example, de Kooning. I would think this is what you mean when you talk about expanding the components and vocabulary that make up your paintings.

PMF: Yes, in many ways it is like a constant recycling or re-forming, which mutates everything in such a way that even works made before are re-valued and then potentially change their status, or the way they are comprehended.

CA: Some recent paintings are titled “Territories” and “Jardín.” I think of topography and landscape. I don’t think of wilderness, but instead terrain that has been marked or shaped by human presence, land that is labelled and defined, perhaps even planned, built, or cultivated. I think that in many of your paintings there is more than a hint of architecture, as well. (Right: territories VII (blue), 2008, oil on linen, 95×82cm)

PMF: In the end, nature is inevitably experienced through our representations and synthetic constructs whether it be thought, painting, architecture, the creation of gardens etc. That we are condemned to “mere” representations reflects the limits of our thinking, but I think it’s important to remember that representations are the result of creative processes and that can be a very positive thing. Painting is inherently synthetic, but that is the beauty of it, and I still believe that painting can respond directly to the world of things, experience, and “reality” on its own terms.

CA: I’m not sure I believe in any art, in painting, that is absolutely abstract and without representation. A few examples come to mind. Kandinsky’s paintings still had gravity, and Malevich was never far from the figure, often one in flight. Mondrian went very far, but one can always associate his images to architecture, plans, diagrams, scaffolds, even the skeleton. Pollock may have gone the furthest, though the color and light still reference spaces we know. Matisse and Picasso never crossed over to abstraction; each talked about the need to keep representation in their work. I often think that artists who claim complete non-referentiality in their work are simply avoiding dealing with the harder question of associations, and what the artist can and can’t control. What is abstract is how form, color, and material can provoke and confirm thought, idea, and emotion. This experience can be solitary, but being something we can share it can also be social, and I see that as yet another layer of representation.

PMF: I think the concepts of “representation” and “abstraction” are frequently misunderstood or misused in the sense that they are seen as two different, even opposing meanings. As I suggested before, I feel that all representations are synthetic and, as such, abstractions (and all abstractions are some kind of representation). This idea is not new, of course; it goes back to Arthur Schopenhauer, who thought through the problematic nature of how we try to deal with the “Kantian” thing-in-itself. Painters are often aware of this constant tension between the ungraspable nature of things-in-themselves and the reality of what is grasped through the senses – phenomena – which in his or her case is what becomes manifest in the physical reality of a painting. And through the act of painting one feels one’s way with mind and body towards things, often refocusing and reshaping the contours until paintings collapse into themselves, and what we see in a “finished” painting is evidence of this movement.

I recently heard a radio interview with a quantum physicist who said that the reality of the world on an atomic level is so utterly strange that though the initial models of discovery are mathematical and arise from mathematics, scientists constantly need to resort to images, mental or otherwise, to try and “see” what these un-seeable worlds are like. This does not differ greatly from the endeavours of the Pre-Socratics, who also resorted to images in order to make sense of the world (think of Heraclitus and his river). By contrast, images as paintings, when they are fully realized as self-conscious creations, fold in on themselves; contaminated by the world and plagued by their own impossible nature, they occupy a territory which is quite unique and beautiful. Paradoxically, they even seem to be sustained by the abyss from which they arise.

CA: I’m puzzled by this idea of painted images as things that “fold in on themselves.” No doubt, paintings are “contaminated by the world and plagued by their own impossible nature,” but I had to pause and think about what you mean by this. Maybe it has something to do with a painting being an individual creation that develops its own internal logic and reason for being, and maybe even its own external shell, an imperviousness. However, if a painting folds in, it must also fold out. Can paintings contaminate the world? To be unique and beautiful is also often to be porous and vulnerable, perhaps fleeting and risking irrelevance or being ignored; that often thought of as paintings status today. I think of the fully realized painted image as something that blossoms and retires, ebbs and flows; while a painting is by definition static, certainly making, looking, experiencing, feeling, and understanding are not static. As you say, to be “sustained by the abyss,” I think, means teetering between being and nothing.

PMF: Yes, exactly, “teetering between being and nothing” is the undeniable truth, at least in my work, of the essentially fragile nature of things and our own lives. I think that many paintings (and this is how I see my own) seem to have a force that pulls things into them – a centre of gravity – where the peculiar fragile reality of a painting transforms everything into its own mode of being. This is how I see a painting folding in on itself. It’s not a process and experience that moves away from the world, on the contrary, it intensifies it. Everyday experiences, things, places, always things close to hand and mundane; these are the starting points when I paint.

CA: You had asked me recently if I had any thoughts about the difference between American and European painters, and while I think there are distinct differences, I struggled trying to articulate that. So, to turn the tables, what differences do you see, and what do we have in common besides paint? When I asked earlier about “Territories” and “Jardín” I mentioned the difference between a landscape that is cultivated versus the wild; I wonder if this is a difference. For me, actually, it is possible to think about the images in my recent work as being connected to wilderness and to some degree apart from society. Do you see our work differently than this?

PMF: The American tradition of painting arises from the European one, as far as I can see. Perhaps American artists have felt less pressured by the past, and while not starting from scratch, can certainly work in a less cluttered historical landscape. When you talk about wilderness, I see it in this way as an historical condition, as well. Think of the likes of Richard Tuttle and Agnes Martin in New Mexico, and Donald Judd in Marfa; I’m not sure if such positions in art could have originated in Europe, but I do think that fundamentally the essential idea of painting is a shared tradition, or one that is extra-territorial.

CA: I agree that, at least in Western painting, there is a shared tradition. We have the rectangle, and, when you think about it, quite a small number of types of supports and paint and color and ways of applying it. I wonder somehow if the European attitude is, from the beginning, that the contemporary artist is working within history and is part of the lineage. Whereas the American artist, especially the further one gets out of New York or from the East Coast (and this is the point of view of a West Coast native emerging here), has to chase after and work his or her way into history.

PMF: Perhaps, but if you speak to a lot of younger European artists today, they are often not interested in the art of the past. What’s important for them is television, the Internet, different aspects of consumer culture, and above all that which relates to contemporary urban experience. History is deeply problematic and unnerving for them because it puts ones life into a greater context, which can be a huge burden to bear.

CA: That the painted plane can be seen as a window or mirror is an old idea, as well as the issues about space and flatness, size and scale. View through branches, 2008, coloured pencil on paper, 32.5x25cmHowever, put a bunch of painters in a room and it turns out that, despite how much they may appear to have in common, they can actually be quite far apart: is painting expressive or analytical, descriptive or poetic, literary or primal, political or religious, illustration or allusion, mimic or invention, critical or personal? Each painter might select various components from this menu, or write up his or her own menu. The differences between New York and LA or SanFrancisco are talked about a lot, for example, and it seems to me that these differences often reflect attitudes about life and outlook. You know, the New Yorkpainting attitude is, say, harder, darker, intellectual, urban, while the San Francisco painting attitude is softer, lighter, more feeling, connected to nature, more personal. I was talking to another painter recently who mentioned how German painters often have a position, a stance that they take and defend, which is the foundation of their work. My point is that painting is not really a single thing, that instead there are many approaches. Where do you see yourself in all of this? (Left: View through branches, 2008, coloured pencil on paper, 32.5×25cm)

PMF: This reminds me of what has often been said about New York jazz of the late 50s, that it was tight and nervy (Thelonious Monk) compared to the more serene and laid back jazz of the West Coast (Dave Brubeck), so it does seem to be perfectly valid to consider these regional cultural differences (and in Europe they are also still taken very seriously). But ultimately, I always feel it is the specific practice of an individual artist that matters, because when it breaks the mould it becomes a kind of exception, and I am very interested in the idea of exceptions. A position, a vital stance arises from this, I think, and can need a long time to mature. I prefer my work to lead me, so I try and feel where it might be going and let it flow that way. I don’t think my work has any kind of ideological motivations. It is an extension on my own sensibility, which is perhaps nomadic within a certain geographic and historical terrain.

CA: You’ve professed a great admiration for Bonnard, and have mentioned the importance of his painting to your own. Can you talk about that?

PMF: The amazing thing about Bonnard is just how generous he is. The viewer is always given a lot to take in. I always find it fascinating the way the pictures are divided up and how everything is flattened without sacrificing a sense of space. I especially love the tabletops in the interiors on which there are invariably everyday domestic objects. What’s so engaging is the way these surfaces start to rise and become parallel to the picture plane. And then there is the fact that everything seems to be painted in the same way (made from the same unstable material): pots, chairs, trees, faces, etc., are all depicted using the same rich vocabulary of marks and woven together by the same intangible light. His paintings on one level obviously emerge from a bourgeois world, somewhat withdrawn and domestic, yet there is something that seriously challenges our perceptions and sense of things in a phenomenological way that gives them a wonderful slowness.

CA: We are both admirers of Raoul De Keyser, and when talking recently about Milton Avery, who it turns out we also both appreciate a great deal, you pointed out some connections between these two painters. Can you talk about those connections, and whether anything you admire about these two painters are components of your own work?

PMF: Both of these painters belong to what we could call a tradition of “serious” painting or “advanced” painting. Maybe one could loosely describe it as “Braquian”; there is a certain austerity which is not necessarily reductionist, and a tendency to explore the possibilities of the medium without resorting to spectacle or rhetorical modes of expression. Very evident is a lightness of touch, a hinting at things, and a speculative approach, especially in De Keyser. One senses the importance of the studio, a workmanliness which is not ashamed of revealing the process, the materiality and debris of production. There is also a fragility and sometimes a humility (on occasions the paintings are hardly anything at all, hovering on the edge of extinction or coming into being), which comes, perhaps, from the acceptance of the innate problematic nature of painting in recent times. I was recently looking at some aquatints and lithographs by Braque and was struck by how much they reminded me of Raoul de Keyser. And speaking of Raoul de Keyser, who like many younger painters I feel especially indebted to, he is from Belgium, of course, where there is a specific age-old sensibility in regards to painting. And then there is Matisse, who is often regarded as a Mediterranean painter, though he was actually born and raised in French Flanders, and in looking at his work I think it helps to take into consideration this other more northern tradition as well. This way of seeing painting has no geographical boundaries, and when I see paintings by Milton Avery, I see underlying connections with both Matisse and de Keyser. Avery is perhaps more trustful of his medium compared to de Keyser, the latter being truly a post-Duchampian painter! Avery is marvellous, and we can learn a lot from his paintings today, just how well constructed they are as painterly images for example, and without any apparent hang ups; I mean, the obvious pleasure in them! Ultimately, of course, I am looking for my own way of doing things, and that means constantly working through all the external visual material that might pass my way until it all becomes something specifically my own. Painting is something at once highly personal (on an existential level, in my case), and something very impersonal, in the sense of it always being intimately related to other painters and traditions of painting. It’s for this reason that I feel I belong to the “Patria” touched upon here, in terms of my identity as an artist.

CA: What do you mean that de Keyser is a post-Duchampian painter?

PMF: Duchamp was obviously part of a larger questioning of things (at a certain moment in modern experience), the status of things and their apparent value or lack of it. Nothing can be taken for granted and meaning can appear in unexpected places. De Keyser, it seems to me, continues a tradition of painting – especially strong in Belgium and Holland – yet there is a certain underlying tension. His paintings are self-conscious in a good way because De Keyser has been able to incorporate a problematic quality by creating images which are by nature very uncertain and even fleeting. One senses a certain distance, which is ironic in a sense, but is perhaps a way of making sure there is room to manoeuvre and continue. The application of paint (light and not heavy), his touch, usually direct and loose, seems to embody this.

CA: Can you say a few things about how your painting is highly personal and, as you say, existential?

PMF: There is a basic existential aloneness (conditioned by the fact that we all disappear) that we can never really overcome. We can sense this in ourselves but also looking at others, especially those we love. This is just a fact, and people deal with it in whatever way they can, some in very desperate ways. Painting and drawing for me has always been a way of assimilating this fact and responding to a certain longing; even as a young child it was something that others recognised and helped to forge my sense of self. It is problematic because there is a desire to hold up a substantial image created from elements which are ultimately artificial, fragile, and constantly escaping one’s grasp. Reflecting on the fact that it is often too easy to side with the genuine against the artificial, or life against mere objects and the museum of objects, Claudio Magris in his novel Danube recalls a story written by a little girl and published in a local Italian newspaper in 1973. This brief little story is called The Rose. “The Rose was happy. She got on well with all the other flowers. One day the rose felt that she was wilting and about to die. She saw a paper flower and said to it ‘what a lovely rose you are!’- ‘but I am a paper flower!’ – ‘But don’t you realize I am dying?’ – the Rose was already dead and spoke no more.” All my work (so it’s difficult to speak of just one painting) has as its source this combination of an overwhelming emotion and an idea. To try to make this kind of painting is an enormous challenge, a life-long project, and for this reason a wager in the Pascalian sense (Blaise Pascal made a huge impression on me when I first read him in my youth). There is always risk, and frequently the absurdity of the endeavour tempers one’s sense of what one might have achieved. The secret is to find some joy in it all; it’s important not to underestimate the pleasure in painting.

CA: Many painters talk about the color, light, and geography of different locations. As an Irishman who has lived a great deal in the UK, what effect does the area of Bilbao have on your work?

PMF: Potentially all manner of things in my immediate environment and beyond can end up being absorbed into my paintings, as I mentioned before, even very small insignificant everyday things. Colour and light are the fundamental components of painting, but I feel they are conditioned by time, the other main concern in my work. The province of Vizcaya, where I live, lies on the northern Atlantic coast, not far from France, so the light is not Mediterranean, it’s more diffused and variable. It is the one place I have lived the longest in my life, so it’s difficult to be objective about how the quality of light has entered into my work and consciousness. I have always liked the idea, though, that paintings have their own light because after all, colour is light. The environment here combines both rural and industrial/post industrial landscapes due to the rapid process of industrialization and ongoing urbanization that took place during the 19th and 20th centuries. The visual contrasts are often shockingly extreme. Added to this is the proximity of the sea and a very mountainous landscape, which means one’s vision is always interrupted by diagonals and sloping contours. At the present time there are a number of ambitious infrastructure projects underway, such as highways and high-speed railway lines, which are very visible and give the landscape a very savaged aspect. Most cities and towns lie in valleys, and are dense and compact. Most buildings are tall due to the lack of space. I remember my very first vision of Bilbao on arriving one hot July day over 20 years ago; I was astonished at the density and energy of the place. These may be the reasons why I find it hard to work in horizontal formats: one’s view of things here seems to be conditioned by the vertical. I have to say though that my physical surroundings inform the paintings up to a point but it’s not the whole story, there is always a light and spirit proper to the paintings themselves which is difficult to define. The paintings are always something else.

territories XI (duration), 2008, oil on linen, 106×85cmCA: I wonder also if the vertical format has to do with the figure. Your imagery might originate in or connect to the natural world, but beyond being a painted, abstract response to the world, it might be that the object of the painting, and perhaps even the painting’s subject, is a vertical figure in the painting and/or the vertical figure who is outside and views the painting. Initially, this figure is you, the painter, but it is we, the viewers, who ultimately come to either stand beside you or even take your place. A horizontal format wouldn’t lend itself so well to the figurative presence. A vertical format more readily invokes a life-scale sense of the figure, while the horizontal format would more imply the inclusion of a smaller scale figure, a picture of the figure, inside the painting. This is something I think about quite a bit. However, what I don’t see in your painting is consistently vertical mark making. For example, a 2008 painting of yours, Territories XI (durations), carries a lattice-like layering of horizontal and vertical painted lines, and neither dominates. These criss-crossing lines build into an almost regular grid, and the forms that sections of the grid hold or define fill out the vertical canvas. Scattered eccentric shapes – more form – are laid mostly on top of the grid. There is very little in the actual painted marks and forms that is itself strictly vertical except for how they are distributed through the composition. I see this in other paintings of yours, too. Barnett Newman, for example, practically all of his zip paintings, is strictly a vertical painter, even in paintings that are a horizontal format. For you, the vertical is mostly a format choice, but I’m not sure I would call you a vertical painter. (Right: territories XI (duration), 2008, oil on linen, 106×85cm)

PMF: Your observations suggest the complexity of these new paintings, and I accept the figure aspect as you see it; the body, in fact, which for me at least is always present as the maker and viewer, but also in the sensuous sense. By verticality I was suggesting the format as a dynamic scenario where the painting takes place. Also, I don’t really see the lattices in these paintings as ‘grids’. I think of them in softer terms, as something like an interplay of light and shadow which results in a quality of denseness, something I like to think of as a ‘Bonnardian’ quality. They also have something of structural elements in a garden, or architectural screens such as windows, fences etc. I have no intention of making some kind of reference to the modernist grid though; I arrived at these lattices unexpectedly via the organic painting processes I employ. In another painting, Among the deepening shades (2008), the same qualities are achieved without the criss-crossing of horizontal and vertical marks. What I mean to say is that there are different ways qualities of denseness can be achieved in painting.

CA: It seems to me there are as many painters as there are reasons to make paintings. Barnett Newman says the painter paints a picture so he has something to look at, and, in essence, that idea is not as silly or redundant as it sounded to me when I first read it thirty years ago or so. The flipside of that scenario might be the painter with something to say, a position and a message,. I have in mind a continuum, where one extreme would be painters with something to say, and the other end would be those who are involved in discovery. The former comes from a position, and is more programmatic, literary, or critical, and the latter is more involved with intuition, exploration, or process. In the end, both painters tell a story, but how they tell it, and the kind of story they tell, can be quite different. Does this make sense? Of course, most painters would slide back and forth on this continuum. So, let’s pretend what I’ve said is reasonable, and that this continuum is a workable example – do you know where you might locate yourself on it?

PMF: Over time, a body of work will define its own territory. It will embody a vital position, which will have grown from what is ultimately the enigmatic heart of the work and is not imposed on it from outside; this is how I see my own work as a painter in any case. I follow it rather than it being the result of a preconceived conceptual project. I have always wanted to create a state of affairs in which the painting process has enough momentum to lead the way and carry me along and which is especially fecund when I have to struggle to keep up with it. But the real source of the work: where does that come from, what is it? Why are we so seduced by its fruits?

 

 

Posted by Posted by Chris Ashley under Filed under 05. Words Comments No Comments »

Bad Behavior has blocked 313 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Add to Technorati Favorites