Morandi’s Bottles

Coup D'Etat, 2009

The large, multi-figure painting is finished. I pushed to try and finish it by the end of last month and as a result, I neglected my sketchbook and this blog. Since then, I’ve been trying to take a decent image of the new works which has proved difficult. I am trying to set up my studio with the right lighting so I no longer have to carry the large paintings outside to shoot them, especially since there has been constant construction outside the building here in the Navy Yard. Even the dust that collects inside the studio and a great deal on the surface of the paintings is borderline unbearable.

I am happy, for the most part, with the painting. I feel that it accomplishes what I had set out to do- whatever that is. There is a substance to the surface. The image feels composed of slippery color that weaves in and out of itself to form the people and the objects. Derrik’s proper left shoulder is as blue as the mountains behind him and the watermelon by his feet makes no sense. These are the “accidents” that make a painting interesting. I do spot, from time to time, others that add nothing to the image, and in fact, take away. It’s a fine line deciding when to go with an “accident” and when to “correct” it. A painting is not about describing reality. In fact, I don’t think it ever has been. It has always been manipulated to convey something that can transcend reality, to fit the mind of the times.

The byzantine approach to the figure and the style of the Middle Ages was intentional. It wasn’t that the artist/craftsman couldn’t draw. A figure was distorted, flattened and broken down into geometric forms and linear notes because the style suited the philosophy of the day. Man was humble and god-fearing (or at least was to be perceived as such) and according to christianity, was created in God’s image. So as a humble, god-fearing artist, one would choose to represent the figure in a style that does not dare replicate the likeness of what the christian god had created himself. One can go through time and see how the styles have changed based on the different philosophies of each civilization. The classical style of the Greeks was a style of rules and ideals, because the Greeks spent much of their energy struggling with the unknown, and then trying to contain it, to explain it, to put rules to it. The Romans borrowed this style but, I believe their hubris allowed them to push the figure further towards a more realistic depiction. The Romans ruled most of their known world, their reality. They were in control, and therefore, why not depict what they owned? Of course, there were still stylistic varieties at different points throughout the Empire. The idealized portrait of Augustus was shipped throughout the different conquered lands. And the idealization was to suggest that Augustus, himself, was god-like and to be feared. (The exact opposite intention of the Byzantine-christian style that would come hundreds of years later.) The Renaissance, of course, “reverted” back to the idealized, classical style of the Greek and early Roman periods. With the advances in science, rise in wealth and perceived stability, man was no longer concerned with being depicted as less than the image of God, but instead, (with a boom in science and wealth) man was to be depicted in all of his glory as an image in the likeness of the christian god. And with the rise in a humanist philosophy came a rise in interest in antiquity. The Greek and early Roman idealized style was therefore adopted as the style that could best fit the new pursuit of the ideal. Ok, enough of the art history. With the globalization of today, it is impossible to pin down a single style. The style of art today is a heterogenous compilation of randomness. And this, I suppose is, in itself a style, and quite possibly the only response suitable for the globalized world of mass information that we live in.

I picked up a copy of Gerhard Richter’s writings (essays, journal entries, letters, etc) titled appropriately, Gerhard Richter, Writings, 1961-2007. No sooner had I finished my most involved painting to date, Richter’s writings are forcing me to solidify, if not rethink my personal values as a painter. Painting from life is something that I believe is and always will be a key element to my work, just as painting from a photograph is to his. Whereas, he paints from the photograph to remove the influence of himself and his environment, I paint from life to invite those influences in to my work. I want the dialogue between myself and my model and my own personal values to be present in my work. One thing, however, that he speaks about and that I want to start doing in the next body of work is stripping the image of unnecessary information, including a bit of my own ego and the bravo of the technique. It will be like going from Rubens to Morandi. There has always been something refreshing and deeply satisfying about Morandi’s bottles.