Saturday, September 29, 2012

Assignment 2: Figure/Ground, Dropped in Color

In Assignment #2, students  drew and composed the flower on the page. They then painted the background first, leaving the flower untouched. To do this, they wet the whole page excluding the flower, and dropped color in.  After the background was painted, students put shadow and detail in the flower.  Because  the background was put in first, all their attention went into it, and the result is an  expressive and dynamic negative space (ground) wherein the flower (figure) can exist. Asija did an exceptional job in preserving the whites in her painting. This gives the work a high value range and creates luminosity.


 
Asija Wuorenmaa

David Baxter

Kathryn Zupsic

 Claora Styron


 Gladys Lyn Lapuz


Fred Gutzeit Interview

/Interview with Fred Gutzeit

The Crux: A Conversation with Fred Gutzeit (Part 1)

Fred Gutzeit, WORK GLOVE–7-18-86, 1986, watercolor on paper, 30" x 22" (image courtesy of artist's website)
Fred Gutzeit, WORK GLOVE–7-18-86, 1986, watercolor on paper, 30″ x 22″ (image courtesy of artist’s website)
Fred Gutzeit‘s transition from his earliest explorations of pattern in the 1960s to his current output has it’s roots on the Bowery. He has the momentous ability to be both absurdly aware of his contemporaries while riding his own theoretical momentum. Gutzeit has always been one to mutate forms. Artistic triumphs and defeats are opportunities to realign his curiosity with his work, and this can often mean a completely new direction. I spoke with Gutzeit and attempted to acquire the understanding of where he’d been and where is going next. 
Lynn Maliszewski: So what are you working on right now?
Fred Gutzeit: I am grappling with how to be the most natural in doing the SigNature series. I’ve frozen and stylized gesture in these paintings. I consider it a classical way of thinking, where you take something and you shape it to get it to some kind of ideal. I balance it out by working with a process where my line and thus hand gesture aren’t too controlled; the line is imperfect. Right now I’m concerned with what I call ‘color buzz.’ I’m working with color like a musical chord. I’m not concerned with the gestural, physical performance part of it. It’s not Richard Anuszkiewicz and it’s not Willem De Kooning. I’m falling between the cracks as far as what the process is, but I live with that because I have an idea of developing a statement with color and developing the forms. That trumps the gesture for now. That trumps the gesture for now.

LM: Your abstracted landscapes were the first works of yours I connected with. They were flat, amoeba-like renderings of energy, which has been a thread in your work since from the digital renderings to your current SigNature series. What role does self-control play in taming such wild moments?
FG: Making art is making things clear, so you have to control things in a certain way. Painting, for me, is organic and implies a kind of process where you can do something and change it and develop it in the spirit of Matisse or Manet. It’s not just creating the finished object. The finished object is important, but it’s that past of the finished object that makes it a painting. But there doesn’t necessarily have to be paint. The painting itself might be photographed, digitized, shifted around on the computer, looked at again, changed with more paint or by pasting something onto the canvas, whatever gets it to that feeling of completeness.

Fred Gutzeit, LM - SigNatureWC (artist proof), 2012, watercolor on board. (Image courtesy of the artist)
Fred Gutzeit, LM – SigNatureWC (artist proof), 2012, watercolor on board. (Image courtesy of the artist)
LM: What gets the creative juices flowing?
FG: A good night’s sleep, going out on a good date, being on vacation or reading something. When I sit down to paint I usually pick up right where I left off automatically. When I’m looking into it and trying to solve problems, I’m thinking of all kinds of ideas. Too many ideas come up when I’m painting. This has been the process for almost as long as I’ve been working in art. Extra ideas are kind of maddening because I can’t work on everything at once so I jot it down in sketchbooks throughout the years. There was a time when I would get in a state of frustration about what to work on. Ideas were all over the place. In 1994, I started a sketchbook, re-drawing pages from earlier sketchbooks. I’ve never written poetry, but I’ve had one poem I was trying to write for decades and it starts out, “Stitches, Bridges, Words and Vision.” That’s as far as I got, but I thought it might be an interesting group show. They’re like money in the bank and my process now is cashing in the bank account. I’m looking back at the sketchbooks and pulling things in.

LM: You’ve been a practicing artist for nearly 50 years, and you’ve embraced a number of styles and modes of production. Can you tell us a little bit about your train of development?
FG: When I first really settled in New York in 1967, abstraction was the thing to do. I really wanted to be hip so everything I did was voiding the figure in some way, but I implied the figure by including work gloves. That was the human element. I wanted to make a comment on industrial society and products and so forth. I would see work gloves as I walked down the street, either left there or thrown away, and it resonated. I thought my work gloves might refer to something that’s been done, an act completed. I had a whole collection of them and I did installations with them. The work glove was a product, but it was an anti-product. It was my idea of conceptual art. Believe me, nobody understood it. Then I started making objects out of the work gloves. I got a bunch of cotton gloves that I soaked in acrylic then built them up. Everything that I put on them was like an analogue for activities that had been part of that glove. I did a series of those in 1968, and then I did them again in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982. I was teaching a course at the University of the Arts, then the Philadelphia College of Art, and it was everything but painting so I figured I would learn how to do installations myself. The work gloves were like building blocks I could mix.

Fred Gutzeit, WORK GLOVE #m77, 1984, acrylic paint on glove, 11” x 8” (image courtesy of the artist's website)
Fred Gutzeit, WORK GLOVE #m77, 1984, acrylic paint on glove, 11” x 8” (image courtesy of the artist’s website)
LM: In certain incarnations they feel like amputated digits, paralyzed and useless. But you shifted them into this moment of positivity, where they were morphed into an object of beauty, a trophy of hard work. They also fluctuated, even in your own language, between being sculptural independents and painterly components.
FG: Right, the installations defined the space with objects and the gloves transformed when they were placed in different places on the wall, climbing up a column, or attached together to make a screen. Then I was walking down the street in the West Village and looked through this fence and saw a bunch of kids playing off in the distance on the playground. Looking through the chain link I saw bright jerseys and different colors, and became aware that that was all I could see. It started me on a whole series of painting the chain link which, at the time, was my way of being a Minimalist. It suggested an idea about society for me, where fences make good neighbors. I was working within severe limits and defining a space in a simple, geometric way. I would show one link in the painting with a different color or texture behind it. The link was like a neon light line. This implied psychology to me, Freudian psychology, where the link was the ego, the linear idea, and the field was the unconscious. I think it’s re-emerging in my way of dealing with a line. Now the line comes from people’s handwriting, taking the initial out of their signature and placing it on a field.

LM: The fence defines, and the viewer must then consider which side of it they are on. Sounds like an internal conflict many young artists must consider regularly. Without the line, you’re floating in ambiguity in relation to space and that isn’t necessarily the best thing.
Fred Gutzeit, Chain Link series (image courtesy of artist's website)
Fred Gutzeit, Chain Link series (image courtesy of artist’s website)
FG: Right. I was talking about these things when everyone was seeking freedom. When I was working out these ideas trying to come out of Minimalism, I was thinking about limits. I thought that I was all over the place. I needed something to define my methods. Now I’m working with a line and I’m limited to the form that somebody else generates but I’m taking it and shaping it. I’m still trying to keep to the spirit of the person’s gesture and not change it completely. It’s my play on identity and simultaneously a newly created identity. I was thinking of these as having the same kind of truth and identity as somebody’s hair-do. You can take on a particular look and you can decide whether it’s somebody’s profound personality or not. Although we are really quite different, I kind of admire Andy Warhol for the identity he could create. Whatever he did, it seemed like it just unconsciously happened.

LM: The SigNatures feel conceptually similar in their flashy aesthetic that is really more of an obscuration of identity. The slickness fools you into thinking design, but it does more to make the subject ambiguous than it does to reveal who they are in the way graphic design might.
FG: Portraits are vehicles for commentary but can consider many different aspects. Chuck Close, for example, never referred to his work as “portraits.”  He was at Yale and the spirit was abstraction, so he named them process paintings when he started out. What amazed me was how his process developed. In his film, he talked about his painting technique and I was recently struck by the sentiment. When he starts the painting it’s just kind of random colors. He’s not really fussy about it, he’s putting colors down he feels might work in larger blocks. You’re reading it like you would a Seurat at a distance, where the colors pulse together. Then he goes in and, on the colors that are there, say there’s a cerulean blue, he might go and take a light yellow blob over there, and they mix and make a light green from a distance. He’s nuancing the colors. He might take a color that’s totally wrong and add another color to it and make it right. I think this is a great painting process, where you have your idea at the beginning and you can kind of let it unravel, then work into it to bring it back into focus. I’m trying to apply it to what I’m doing. He’s working within this extreme limit for the portrait that he’s doing. You can’t make it go all over the place spatially, you can’t make it go all over the place as far as color goes. He managed to inject creativity into two naturalized techniques, generating these fantastic colors that ring.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Nice Watercolor by Kim McCarty

Kim McCarty
Reclining Figure “Long”, 2012
Watercolor on paper
42 x 108 inches
Value: $22,000
Opening Bid: TBD
Courtesy of the artist and Morgan Lehman Gallery

It's being auction off at ArtWalk New York, a benefit for Coalition for the Homeless

Sunday, September 16, 2012

A former student had questions about the Charles Burchfield show so I directed her to a review in the New York Times on his work.  Here is the review by Holland Cotter. He says it all!

Nature, Up Close and Personal


Summer, which can be hard in the city, could be heaven to the painter Charles Burchfield, the 20th-century mystic of American light. Because he spent most of his time in a leafy suburb of Buffalo, to him the season meant trees aureoled in noonday sunshine, afterglow skies as cool as the song of a thrush and gardens pulsing with the music of crickets in moonlight.
Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute, Museum of Art
“The Insect Chorus” (1917), a Charles Burchfield watercolor in which the vegetative world becomes an anthropomorphic force. More Photos »

Albright-Knox Art Gallery
Burchfield’s “Sun and Rocks,” a 1918 image of geologic upheaval, was transformed in 1950, with a cruciform star, into a scene of mystical visitation. More Photos »
Krannert Art Museum and Kinkead Pavilion, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
“The Four Seasons” (1949-60), a watercolor by Charles Burchfield. More Photos »
Yet he was never at ease. Even with nature he was tense and agonized. Early on, Burchfield concluded, as God once had, that Paradise meant no people, and he rarely painted any. He also learned that Hell was a society of one: himself. A natural ecstatic, he was also a chronic depressive: not a passive shut-down case, but a lamenter and yearner. “Oh God — How to get back there!” he wrote in his journal, “there” being childhood, innocence, home.
A mood-swing dynamic seems pronounced in the survey called “Heat Waves in a Swamp: The Paintings of Charles Burchfield” at the Whitney Museum of American Art, maybe in part because the show was organized by Robert Gober, the contemporary American artist whose own work mines the neurotic underside of the American psyche. Yet even while emphasizing certain aspects of Burchfield’s career, Mr. Gober gives us nothing but Burchfield himself. The peaks and valleys are all right there in the art.
Born in Ohio in 1893, Burchfield, as early as he could remember, was acutely responsive to nature, in part as a substitute for a lost religious faith. His father, the son of a Methodist minister, had angrily renounced orthodoxy. And when later Burchfield’s mother felt shut out from a local congregation, he rejected religion completely.
He spent four years in art school in Cleveland, absorbed in the thinking of the artist and philosopher Arthur Wesley Dow (1857-1922), who taught that nature should be depicted not realistically but as graphic patterns. In 1916 Burchfield left for New York City with a scholarship to study at the National Academy of Design, but once there he balked and dropped out after a single afternoon. He managed to land a solo show in a bookstore-gallery in Manhattan before heading, desperately homesick, back to Ohio.
By then he was already doing interesting things.
He had settled on watercolor — technically demanding, almost entirely about luminosity — as his primary medium and on landscape, both observed and imagined, as his subject. He was pulling aesthetic stimuli from everywhere: childhood nature books, Japanese prints, Chinese scrolls, Arthur Rackham’s Wagner illustrations, Léon Bakst’s sets for the Ballets Russes, and painting by Romantic artists like William Blake and, surely, Samuel Palmer.
In 1917, which Burchfield would call his “golden year,” this eclectic mélange generated some of his best-known images.
In one titled “The Insect Chorus” the vegetative world becomes a keyed-up anthropomorphic force, with trees rendered as jazzy swirls of bumblebee yellow and black, and the buzz of cicadas notated as clusters of dotted lines.
The same natural energy becomes crushing and funereal in “Church Bells Ringing, Rainy Winter Night,” a picture of a steeple looming like a great bug-eyed bird over a squat town as black rain pours down. To Burchfield, at that point simultaneously agnostic and terrified of damnation, the painting expressed the dread that religion instilled in him.
It also incorporated one of his most distinctive conceptual innovations, a lexicon of some two dozen semiabstract designs meant to symbolize negative emotions. These “conventions for abstract thought,” as he called them, include a gaping mouth to stand for “dangerous brooding,” a pair of blank eyes for “imbecility” and two black whirlpools to represent fear.
He planted these elements in his paintings — the fear symbol dominates the church picture — to give his decorative patterns an expressive personal subtext. Mr. Gober has installed the initial 1917 drawings of these forms at the very beginning of the show, as if to suggest that the art that follows should be read in their light. Much of it can be, but not all.
In 1921 Burchfield moved to Buffalo, married and worked as a designer in a wallpaper company, transferring his nature imagery to a commercial medium. Meanwhile his career as an artist was building, with gallery solos leading, in 1930, to a show of his “golden year” paintings at the fledgling Museum of Modern Art.
Feeling trapped in a job that left him little energy for painting, Burchfield quit commercial work in 1929 only to land in a different trap. He was now painting full time, but the pictures people wanted were of American industry and small-town life, popular subjects during the Great Depression. It was hard for him to say no. Magazine commissions kept coming, and they were turning him into a celebrity.
Again the art he really cared about seemed out of reach or only peripherally in his life — mainly through his habit, which had the character of a compulsion, of drawing wild, sensuous semiabstract designs on stray scraps of paper: telephone notes, shopping lists, card-game score sheets. He dismissively called the sketches “doodles” but pasted thousands of them into albums for safekeeping.
Then in 1944, after his first career retrospective at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, he decided to do what he had always longed to do, get back to the beginning, to where he had started in his art. He retrieved paintings from around 1917 and began to study and change them. He enlarged their surfaces by adding strips of paper, then reworked and expanded the original images.
One small painting, “The Sphinx and the Milky Way,” became an entirely new work at three times its original size, a rapturously spooky fairy-tale version of van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” A gnarly little 1918 image of geologic upheaval called “Sun and Rocks” was transformed in 1950, after the addition of a cruciform star, into a scene of mystical visitation.
By that point Burchfield had made his peace with religion, joined a church and returned, refreshed, to the subjects he loved: nature and light. As a consequence the work in the show’s final section, which Mr. Gober has labeled “Great Art and Death,” has a mood of holiday euphoria.
In “Clover Field in June” (1947) sunlight falls like a snow of gold pollen over a world seen from the perspective of a bee on a flower. In “Midsummer in the Woods” (1951-59) a fir tree levitates in a misted clearing. And in “The Four Seasons” (1949-1960) winter, spring, summer and fall recede sequentially into the distance like a succession of brilliantly colored stage flats.
“The Four Seasons” is equal parts Christmas card (Burchfield designed many), Gothic altarpiece and “Fantasia” outtake. It’s kitsch or something close, though the continuing presence of the old codes for fear and brooding indicate a charge of disturbance that faith didn’t touch. In “Early Spring,” left unfinished at Burchfield’s death in 1967, a tree bristles with thorns or spikes. Nature is in tatters; scrawled at the bottom of the picture in the artist’s hand are the words “very dark pit.”
So right to the end it’s hard to know exactly what to do with this doubter-believer and his confessing, witnessing art. Mr. Gober, in collaboration with the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles and the Burchfield-Penney Art Center in Buffalo, presents him with sober, tender attachment. (And tenderness is necessary; some of the paintings look shockingly fragile and faded.)
Burchfield’s intensities are not for all tastes. But this summer if you’re looking for visionary company in the city, someone who has a deep investment in the way light falls, who loves the world with a romantic’s anxiety and avidity, and who will now and then excuse himself to go to “some secret place to think about God,” he’s the artist for you.

“Heat Waves in a Swamp: The Paintings of Charles Burchfield” remains through Oct. 17 at the Whitney Museum of American Art, (212) 570-3600; whitney.org.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Charles Burchfield at Franenkel Gallery

As many of you  know, Charles Burchfield is a major American watercolor artist.  He recently had two major retrospectives in Los Angeles and New York.  Franenkel Gallery has a respectable show of his watercolors paired with  the work of photographer Ralph Eugene Meatyard that just opened at Fraenkel Gallery.  It's an amazing show and I highly recommend that you see it.

There is also a good show of mixed media/watercolor work by a South African artist, Lyndi Sales. at Toomey Tourell Gallery.

Both galleries are at 49 Geary at Market Street.


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

REQUIRED READING

Well, highly recommended anyway! 

 Erich Fischle talks about his watercolors in this interview with the National Post.
"For 30 years, iconic New York artist Eric Fischl has painted the body as battleground — one that’s often psychological, sometimes visceral and almost always seductive. Now, with some surprising new watercolours showing in Toronto at Barbara Edwards Contemporary gallery, Fischl talks to Leah Sandals about painting, poses and finding (a small measure of) peace."

2001 watercolor by Erich Fischle, watercolor on paper, 40" x 60"