I'm the new King, I'll take the queen

I'm the new King, I'll take the Queen (series work), acrylic on canvas.

 As a print artist my practice is defined by the processes inherent within it and raises a number of tricky questions that, I believe, need to be addressed and overcome. The most prominent of which is that of artistic proximity. During the US print revival of the late 50's that found artists flocking to the medium a number of prominent American artists, most notably Jackson Pollock and De Kooning , were vocal in their concerns. 

They felt that the process heavy nature of the practice acted as a barrier to artistic expression. This is hardly surprising given both De Kooning and Pollock's own practices, but also raised doubts about the artistic validity of print itself. Many famous artists have utilised the medium as a means to generate income it is after all a cheap alternative to buying an original Picasso, but can a print ever be anything more then copy of thing rather then the thing itself?     

For my series I wanted to turn those questions around. If paint is truly gestural and artistic proximity a given then what would happen if I utilised print processes in my own paintings, effectively removing my hand from the painting, and what affect might this have on the reading of my work? It might be argued that the affect would be very little. To most people a painting is a painting and is judged along purely aesthetic lines, you either like a painting or you don't and process is more or less irrelevant. 

But the manner that we go about creating work of artistic value is as important as any contextual considerations we might make and helps us to frame our thinking. Pollock's practice defined his career not the subject matter of his paintings, but how he created them. Rauschenberg and Litchtenstein also and no reading of their work can preclude it.    

 It may seem like basic stuff, I'm sure that for some it is, but for me it was an eye opening revelation. The processes inherent in print are not a barrier to artistic expression they are simply the context of the works creation. Prints processes, I would argue, frame the work in a world we all recognise, play a part in and subscribe to on a daily basis.Print can, at its best, subvert and manipulate the expectations placed upon it. 

Andy Warhol's series work can be viewed as a media reflexive gesture that draws our attention to the eradication and replacement of what is truly authentic.  Rauschenberg's work is an over load of visual information, where no one image takes prominence over another. These artists embraced print and its processes because it offered them a new set of visual tools and means of expression. 

 Of course all these artists still recognised the gestural nature of paint. Paint has oddly emotive qualities that print does not, but these qualities do not necessarily mean that a painting holds any greater artistic merit then print.  

 Paint now forms an important part of my practice. Paint allows me to work with a sense of immediacy, to effect change in the instance it occurs to me and to create work that is as surprising to me as I might hope it to be for anyone else, but  I use it as just another tool for experimentation. 

For instance this series was based on a print, the stenciled image of the tree was taken directly from that series and a second print was made based on these paintings.

 I like the cyclical nature of working that way and for me if offers the greatest creative freedom, but I still consider myself a print artist primarily because of the processes inherent in my practice.

* I'd just like to point out that I am in no way inferring that these paintings should be compared or considered alongside any of the artists referenced, but rather this article outlines my thinking when they were produced.

These little injuries

These Little Injuries Acrylic and debris on canvas

 Darwin introduced the idea of the struggle for survival in nature, until then many Victorians simply assumed that the English countryside was a playground and that they were its chief beneficiaries so it must have come as a shock to discover that, for the most part, the animals sharing the world with us were in fact facing violent lives and daily struggle. In this way the painting has more in common with my other works (Bride and Groom lie hidden for three days and I'm the new King I'll take the Queen) and explores similar themes and ideas. As an artist my concern is that I may be a little overly pre-occupied by sex and violence.  

 This painting was simply a progression of ideas I had been experimenting with in my other paint work, process and materiality. For this painting I included card, newspaper, rubber shavings, dust, earth and animal saw dust. The more organic materials were chosen for obvious reasons as I felt that they gave the piece more legitimacy in terms of subject matter. However I really should have pushed these ideas further within the piece. My relative conservatism in the materials I used was a conscious effort on my part to produce a painting that would retain a more pleasing narrative structure, but has only led to limiting the piece and robbing it of any real impact or lasting impression. It's a nice enough image and some of the tonal and textural variations are interesting, but the work feels a little under worked. I could of course continue to work the painting, adding layers of paint and debris, but I think as an artist you know when you've taken it as far as it will go and in this case I just don't think the imagery or my initial approach were strong enough to begin with.

It's not easy judging when to finish a piece. It's a difficult balancing act. Too much and the work is a mess, too little and the viewer will be underwhelmed and somehow short changed. It's a shame that this piece isn't better, but it's themes and subject matter are ones that have occupied a lot of my thinking over the year and should become clearer as I progress.

Sex and Violence (updated)

Bride and Groom Lie Hidden for Three Days, Acrylic and debris on Canvas.  

The title of the work is actually the title of a poem by Ted Hughes. Obviously it might have been preferable to make a less direct reference to the poem, but I had the work so clearly in mind while I was making the piece that I couldn't help making that connection explicit for the viewer. I suppose I wanted to subvert the poem's romanticism and introduce a more visceral vocabulary, but the violence implicit throughout might actually have robbed the work of any real beauty and instead could be read as simply another painting about sex and violence. 

 I never intended to create a violent work. The nature of my practice, the methods I use (rollers squeegees, no brushes) and my own choices along the way may give the impression of frenzy, which might be unfortunate given my intentions. For me the piece would be a lot stronger without those connotations and it's a shame that I didn't exercise more restraint or think things through more clearly when I set out. 

  Robert Rauschenberg wanted to drag everyday objects into his paintings in order to create a sense of conflict, which is an idea that I've been really interested in incorporating into my own work and one that has found its way into a number of my previous paintings, but with this piece I felt I could be more confident about the materials I chose to include. I used bin bags, pencil and rubber shaving, sweet packets an old hair clip I found in the street. It is interesting what happens when you use these everyday materials even if, for the most part, no one will ever really know. 

 For me I suppose it allows the work to speak more directly about the world we live in rather then any personal agenda I might have, but then paint is seen as inherently gestural and unlike print generally viewed as a more personal artistic statement.
Over all despite it's obvious flaws and limitations it's not without any merit in terms of my own practice and I hope it represents a step forward for me even if it falls very short in a number of areas.