Heyla, Dai. I've just been looking at your two new Escarpment paintings - oh what glorious colours. And then I look at 'Heart' that I painted before I went to Germany but needed to live with for a while before I put it up. It's dark, it's dark - so I didn't like it at first but I do now because it's right as it is, it has to be dark. I've put it on the Aja site. It's part of the Change series.Mmmm ..... but now it's the cold light of day again, I like it as little as I did before. It's an ugly picture. Maybe I'll throw it in the bin and delete it. Will think about it just a bit longer.
Another day later - I still don't like it, it's so ugly. But it's painful and pain is ugly. Anyhow, can't bin it yet because it's in Leeds and I'm not.
2 comments:
Hela Ange - I couldn't sign in for some reason - so I'll drop a few comments here.
Yes it has 'ugly' asspects - those normal ugly asspects that say simply -' My eye is not pleased by this -' As a painting piece; this is because its about a non unification of marks and surface. Think and look at some Francis Bacons again - don't bother so much with the L. Freud for this exercise. You will see in Bacon - all the 'ugly asspects'for sure - but as paintings they are beautifully wrought -Freud too of course, but that 'direct' and particular brushstroke giving a certain effect, is harder to see there. I mention the Bacon too - in terms of looking - of your studying him a bit preferably - because of the way he handles his backgrounds. You can keep disslocating asspects of your figure into your background, as is yr wont at the mo - but it is often better to leave the background( if indeed that is what you deem it to be) to drop away so that 'The Figure' - becomes the proper sole object of the eye and emotions of the painting. Its about taking a bit more control of your brush. Dont forget Jackson P. had to undergo an intense learning about drips and poured paint - ie if one doesn't take control of asspects, and become responsible for them as 'your mark' they will be doomed to some sort of underachieved scribbly thing. Nothing wrong with scribbly things - but take care of them - as a craftsman would - even if they are splotchy and scratchy.
Hope it helps - cheers fr now Dai.
Hela Ange - I couldn't sign in for some reason - so I'll drop a few comments here.
Yes it has 'ugly' asspects - those normal ugly asspects that say simply -' My eye is not pleased by this -' As a painting piece; this is because its about a non unification of marks and surface. Think and look at some Francis Bacons again - don't bother so much with the L. Freud for this exercise. You will see in Bacon - all the 'ugly asspects'for sure - but as paintings they are beautifully wrought -Freud too of course, but that 'direct' and particular brushstroke giving a certain effect, is harder to see there. I mention the Bacon too - in terms of looking - of your studying him a bit preferably - because of the way he handles his backgrounds. You can keep disslocating asspects of your figure into your background, as is yr wont at the mo - but it is often better to leave the background( if indeed that is what you deem it to be) to drop away so that 'The Figure' - becomes the proper sole object of the eye and emotions of the painting. Its about taking a bit more control of your brush. Dont forget Jackson P. had to undergo an intense learning about drips and poured paint - ie if one doesn't take control of asspects, and become responsible for them as 'your mark' they will be doomed to some sort of underachieved scribbly thing. Nothing wrong with scribbly things - but take care of them - as a craftsman would - even if they are splotchy and scratchy.
Hope it helps - cheers fr now Dai.
Post a Comment