|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
In this essay, I am examining painting systems, because, painting
for me is not simply a matter of copying what is before me, nor
is it a matter of merely slapping on paint arbitrarily to see
what happens. I have developed a process of production, a painting
system that follows predetermined directives and steps, leading
my paintings to their inevitable conclusions. Consequently, I
have cultivated a deep seeded curiosity in trying to understand
how other artists reach the conclusions of their compositions
or end aesthetic, by analyzing their work in terms of painting
systems. In particular, one artist, working during the beginning
of the twentieth century, whose conclusion of composition and
end aesthetic has always intrigued me, is Piet Mondrian. In contrast,
another artist I will focus on, working during the end of the
twentieth century, generally thought of, as having a "notoriously
ambiguous oeuvre" is Sigmar Polke. By organizing Mondrian
and Polke's processes of production into specific principles and
the theories behind their rationale into theoretical steps, I
will compare and contrast the similarities and differences with
my own painting system. However instead of following the normal
practice of using the artists work to support my analysis, instead,
I will use my interpretation of Mondrian's and Polke's painting
systems to create my own compositions as examples.
The first time I saw a Piet Modrian painting I was fascinated
by its aesthetic, because, to me it insinuated a dialogue and
rationale reaching beyond the simplicity of the geometric elements
of which it was comprised. It was obvious that the composition
was not accidental, that he must have been working with a well-defined
criterion within strict parameters. In Mondrian's case, the objectives
of his paintings were predetermined and motivated by his desire
to transcend beyond the figurative and communicate on a spiritual
level. It was Mondrian's pursuit of this objective and the application
of his rationale that determined the ideation or process of production
and impinged on the aesthetic of his paintings. The painting itself
was only an object of the process and the action of painting merely
an adjustment supplicating itself to the ideology behind the objective.
This is why many of Mondrian's paintings were simply entitled
composition number 1or 2.
It is impossible to examine Mondrian's processes of production
without first looking at the principals that guided his aesthetic
because it was his dogmatic obedience to these principals that
ultimately directed his methods. Even before Mondrian's article
"De Nieuvwe Bleeding in De Schilderkunst" (The new plastics
in painting) was published in eleven installments, 1917-1918 in
the review DE STIJL, Mondrian was already translating Theosophic
concepts into visual expressions. As Serge Lemoine points out
"The 1912 Nude- which shows a perfect mastery of the lessons
of Cubism - is clearly a Theosophic painting, freed of the formal
level from the somewhat illustrative aspect seen in the Evolution
triptych." Evolution triptych is Lemoine's description of
Mondrian's painting entitled 'Evolution' painted in 1911. It has
three panels with the central figure undergoing a transformation
in each panel, evolving from the realm of matter and flesh into
the spiritual. Lemoine goes on to say, for "Mondrian, replacing
realistic forms with geometric ones was a way of visualizing Theosophic
concepts and affirming his idea of art…" Although this
process of replacing realistic forms with geometric ones was arrived
at through a process of elimination via Theosophic reasoning and
the influence of Cubism, you could say that it was also the first
step in Mondrian's system of painting i.e. reduce everything to
geometric form and "eliminate all figurative elements, keeping
only the essential structure, referring to one reality, that of
the painting itself." By applying this formula to any composition,
the subject of the painting is reduced into pure mathematics enabling
the artist to transpose the visual plane into the intellectual.
I will demonstrate this by applying Mondrian's formula, or Step
1, as I have identified it, to an ordinary bowl of fruit sitting
on a table. The bowl of fruit will be imaginary and will consist
of two oranges, three pears and a banana.
To further the elimination of figurative elements, the other table
leg is placed on top of the table then the top and bottom ellipses
of the bowl are added (a) and (b), and a banana (c), triangular
pairs (d), finally oranges (e).
Figure 2, underlines the relationship between principle and composition by showing how the directive in Step 1 impinged on my composition. Firstly, I reduced everything in my imaginary still life to a geometric form, which determined the aesthetic of the elements in my composition. Why I chose triangles for my banana and pears and ovals for my oranges was based on a subjective interpretation of this directive, as was the number of elements I chose to represent in my composition. The value judgements I made had no logical foundation and are just a subject of my personal experience, education and sensibilities to line, space, rhythm, balance, movement and the formalities of composition and ability to draw on the computer. However, if I did not eliminate the figurative as well as replacing forms with geometric ones, the design of my composition would still be figurative and I would have a pictorial representation of my still life as in figure 3 below.
To eliminate the figurative I destroyed the pictorial relationship of each element. This forced a negotiation between each component, other than that of its original function. If you consider a painting as the artist's story, the elements of the composition, in their new role as visual adjectives for the artist's rationale, can be manipulated to create tension and drama between the elements. Take my oranges for instance, freed from gravity, allowing them to float within space, so regardless of shape they can no longer be read as oranges. Considering the juxtaposition with the horizontal line, one oval above the line ascending upward and the other trapped below the horizontal line create a tension between the relationship of the two figures. There is also an implied drama is played out in the metaphysical of this diametric. A more suitable reading would be that they were metaphors for life and death or the quest for mortality as in Mondrian's 'The Nude 1912'. Using Step 1, Mondrian was able to manipulate his elements as visual adjectives, to dramatize his Theosophic aesthetic dialogue. While I was composing my still life I spent considerable time moving elements around until the overall composition satisfied my own artistic sensibilities. This is interesting because while applying Step 1 of Mondrian's system or process of production, I unconsciously employed one of his studio methods. "In the white space, (of his studio) cardboard squares in primary colours were thumb tacked to the walls. They frequently changed place, thus allowing numerous experiments and the permanent transformation of the environment." A further deepening of Mondrian's rationale was "positioning all elements horizontally and vertically." This could be called Step 2 as rationale impinges even more heavily on Mondrian's aesthetic.
To produce this composition in figure 4, I have taken my still
life composition and extended all the horizontal and vertical
lines. Then I extended the horizontal and vertical lines from
the outer points of my other elements such as the oval oranges
and the triangular pears. The last step in the process of designing
this composition was to eliminate all other lines that did not
run on the horizontal and vertical plane. In other words, I turned
all the elements into rectangles and squares by extending the
outer point of each element along the vertical and horizontal
plane. The diagram below is an example of this process. Again,
the rationale behind where the lines finish was a subjective product
or intuitive part of my design process. An example of one of Mondrian's
paintings that has a similar composition to the above diagram
is Composition: "Light Colour Planes with Grey Contours,
1919."
The other important factor in Step 2 as in Step 1, is "keeping
only the essential, structure, referring to one reality, that
of the painting itself." This directive when applied to Step
2 is specifically related to Mondrian's colour theory.
The new plastic art will never have the form of natural or concrete
representation, which, it is true, always to a certain extent
indicates the universal or, at least, hides the universal in it.
"The new plastic art will never be embellished with the things that characterize particularization, i.e., natural form and colour. On the contrary, it can only be based on the abstraction of all form and colour, i.e. the straight line and clearly defined primary colour."
Here Mondrian is articulating the directive and objective of Step 1- the process of reducing all forms to its geometric counterpart to enable those elements to communicate past their physical appearance into the spiritual. The founding principle articulated in the last line, that the new plastic art can only be based on the straight line and clearly defined primary colour, equates to Step 2, extending all vertical and horizontal lines then eliminating every other line. This restrictive key in the structure of colour is what I would describe as the directive for Step 3; Limit your palate to the use of primary colours and non-colours only. By applying the directive in Step 3 of Mondrian's colour theories to my still life imaginary bowl of fruit, we can see how it also directly affects the aesthetic of the composition and ultimately the painting. In the composition still life imaginary bowl of fruit number 1, I have followed all the directives in Mondrian's painting system except for Step 3, instead, I have extended my palette or colour key to ten colours and did not use yellow-
Still life, imaginary bowl of fruit number 2, below is an example
of closely following Steps 1, 2 and 3. I have not contained my
primary colours as in Mondrian's, Composition in colour A, 1917.
Still Life, imaginary bowl of fruit number 3, is a representation
of Mondrian's painting system according to directives I have outlined
in Steps 1, 2 and 3. -
At this stage Mondrian would take the essence of this composition
and rearrange them until his rationale and objectives were in
line. In other words Step 4: take the essence of the composition
i.e. the primary coloured shapes and rearrange them to make new
compositions. I will demonstrate Step 4 on still life, imaginary
bowl of fruit. -
Once a suitable composition was decided Mondrian would repeat Step 2 and extend all vertical and horizontal lines as in still life, imaginary bowl of fruit number 4. (Shown below)
By elliminating the large primary yelow rectangle from still life imaginary bowl of fruit number 4, the permutation becomes Still life imaginary bowl of fruit number 5-
For Mondrian this became an on going process of the exploration of compositions through a process of reconfiguring the essence of the composition, that is the primary coloured shapes and the way he connected them. From this point, the combinations are endless and he only settled on a configuration or design when his rationale and object were in line. "Mondrian often worked for months on end on a single painting, applying layer after layer until he was satisfied with the result." Regardless of how long or how often Mondrian reconfigured the essence of his compositions, the end aesthetic remains typically 'Mondrian.' That is to say, the style of a Mondrian painting remains constant.
In contrast to Mondrian, Sigmar Polke's processes are more
idiosyncratic and therefore Polke has a less readily identified
style, so it is hard to say with confidence "That's a Sigmar
Polke Painting!" For the theme that underlines many of Polke's
objectives and impinges on the overall aesthetic of his style
or ambiguity, is the deconstruction of style. In Thomas McEvilley's
insightful essay 'Sigmar Polke: Betrayed Lover' the author begins
by stating that the common consensus emerging from the numerous
writings about Sigmar Polke is "the actual significance of
Polke's notoriously ambiguous oeuvre." McEvilley supports
this statement by using quotes from the critics, Kevin Power,
Donald Kuspit, Paul Groot and Prudence Carlson that support the
notion that it is difficult to pin down Polke's style or aesthetic.
McEvilley says that this consensus is derived from Polke's statements
and by an observation of "the apparently contradictory confluence's
of visual elements in the work. Bendy dots combined with organic
abstraction; images from history with unsuitable chemicals thrown
over them; images from pre-history alongside images from popular
culture" He points out the irony in the critics reading of
Polke's work by asking, if Polke's work is so hard to read and
find meaning in then "how come there's a complete and ultimately
easy consensus about him?" McEvilley sees this portrayal
of Polke, as the ever changing "Skeptical de-constructivist"
lacking in the fact that it over looks important qualities in
Polke's oeuvre, such as "its thematic integrity and stylistic
wholeness." I would agree with this statement because I think
to understand Polke's painting system, first you must consider
the objectives behind his work. In this respect Polke is similar
to Mondrian because like Mondrian, it is the objectives behind
Polke's work that ultimately determine the end aesthetic. McEvilley
says, that "Polke has expressed his aim, at least in part,
as the deconstruction of Modernist ideas of the sacredness and
integrity of the artwork." McEvilley explains that Polke's
intention is the "Betrayal of Modernism" as Modernism
stood for the "reflection of universals and since universals
don't change….Practice or style couldn't either." Therefore,
for Polke not to settle on one particular aesthetic or style,
as is the case of Mondrian, Polke betrays Modernism. McEvilley
then steers his argument towards defining Polke's work as so Post-Modern
it becomes Modernism, by posing questions like, "Isn't there
enough aesthetic and thematic coherence in Polke's oeuvre for
it to be regarded as a style, rather than a non style? Isn't there
a polished style of studied contradiction and artfully planted
cross-currents?" While I would answer yes to these questions
in this context, McEvilley's insights can also be used to identify
the directives and elements contained within Polke's painting
system. In this light, the phrase "aesthetic and thematic
coherence" can be interpreted as Step 1: choose a singular
theme for a body of work.
The theme I will chose for this body of paintings, is digitally
engineered fruit. For the example, I will use a slice of orange
and a bunch of bananas taken from Microsoft Word's clip art, shown
in figure 6 below, as my elements.
I would see Polke's stated intention "the deconstruction of modernist ideas of sacredness and integrity of the artwork" as wanting to change styles with each new investigation. As he also states "Knowing full well that the whole world is waiting for one to come up again and again with something new, but coming up with nothing of the kind" Incorporating Polke's stated intention, the directive now becomes, Step 2: Conduct experiments into your theme using different processes to vary the outcome.
Figure 7
The phrase in McEvilley's second question "studied contradiction and artfully planted cross-currents" relates back McEvilley's deduction for why the critics see Polke as having a "notoriously ambiguously oeuvre" and Polke's objective, the deconstruction of style. By mixing visual elements that contradict the overall aesthetic of the painting such as the abstract with the figurative, you are reconfiguring a new meaning between these elements and the overall style of the work. This juxtaposition of elements that contradict the overall aesthetic of the work is similar to Mondrian's directive of eliminating the figurative; it also forces the viewer to renegotiate their preconceptions of these visual elements. Except in Polke's case you can no longer pigeonhole the work into any particular style. Step 3; therefore would be to corrupt your process with contradictory elements. In Polke's case, some of the many contradictory elements he uses include, Bendy dots or raster dots that are out of focus and other elements that question the notion of sacredness in painting. Like satire in the form of homage to the potato or instructions from the higher beings to paint a corner black or command him not to paint flowers. Other contradictory elements Polke includes are, painting on pre-printed fabric instead of canvas or painting on both sides of the work. I will now apply Step 3: corrupt your process with contradictory elements on the works in figure 8.
Figure 8: do you mind if we swap positions?
The corruptive element in figure 8 is the text. It endows the abstracted orange and bananas with feelings and alerts the viewer to the complicated and sensitive relationship between the two blobs. It also takes a po(l)ke at abstract expressionism.
Figure 9
The corruptive element upsetting the style of design in figure
9 is the line drawing of the bowl, grapes and pear. In the triptych
below entitled 'Kermit Sucs", line drawing is still the disruptive
element, however I change the viewer's perception of the orange
and banana by turning them into the figurative, 'bitter orange
banana frog.'
This triptych uses the same theme as Mondrian's 'Evolution', my central figure; the 'bitter orange banana frog' travels on a spiritual journey from sobriety to enlightenment. Another disruptive element, helping with the deconstruction of modernism, is of course humor. By choosing a new theme with every body of work and varying the process of each experiment, then adding elements to contradict the process, Polke ensures that he will maintain an elusive end aesthetic.
By giving visual forms to what previously were verbally identified
systems of art making, I have demystified Mondrian and Polke's
processes of production and clearly shown that they were using
painting systems. Mondrian would deny using a painting system
because it reduces the complicity of the Theosophic rationale
behind his work to simple steps and negates the importance of
his beliefs. As my examples show, they reached a comparable conclusion
of composition to that of Mondrian's but were derived purely from
a design perspective only. Similarly, Polke must deny any connection
with a regulated process in order to maintain his de-constructivist
objectives. Therefore, the common denominator in Mondrian and
Polke's process of production, even though they were coming from
completely opposite perspectives, is the fact that they were both
using a painting system to achieve the objectives behind their
rationale. Consequently, I believe that you can apply this conclusion
to any artist working in the medium of paint, regardless of the
rationale behind the objectives that motivate their processes.
If you analyze their theory, rational, objectives and conclusion
of composition, you will uncover a painting system. This is why
I embrace my painting system and why I do not deny that I use
it to generate paintings. Being prepared to acknowledge this fact
sadly disqualifies me out of the genius category, gaining inspiration
from a higher source but it does allow me reveal how I reach the
exciting conclusions of composition found in my paintings. Having
said that, without the privilege of this knowledge, it is impossible
for the viewer of my paintings, to know at a first glance that
there is a system in place. However, I do leave clues, which I
will talk about after I explain the rudiments of my system.
To explain how my painting system works, I must first give an
overview of step 1, which can be broken up into four parts. These
four parts are the foundation of my system and they are,
Step 1, part A - grid up a canvas
part B - write text in the grid
part C - give the alphabet a key i.e. A= blue, B= purple
part D - paint my story with the key, that is, paint every A blue
and every B purple etc.
An unusual aspect about the way I operate my painting system, is, all the major decisions are made prior to the commencement of the painting. In Step 1, for instance, before I begin, I will chose or write the text based on what I want the painting to say or subliminally project. In most cases, the text is dealing with very personal issues like unresolved grief, death of loved ones, the past or everyday frustrations. I use humor to counter balance this heaviness of subject matter. In turn, the text will determine the dimensions of the grid, as I will count each character and line so that the text will fit exactly into the grid. I will decide what colour the painting is going to be based on a intuitive interpretation of what I feel the text is suggesting, although sometimes the overall tone of the painting will be directly or literally related to the text. Below is a picture of my painting entitled 'Garry Hall was the first kid in six class to get a real tattoo.' It is an example of Step 1, parts A to D and what I refer to as a Grid painting.
In this painting the text is an excerpt from my book
'Schoolhood Memories.' I chose it because in this body of
work I wanted to explore my past visually, as I had remembered
it in my book. I also wanted to see what this story about Garry
Hall looked like as a painting. To animate the text, out off the
page and create a different visual language. The overall feeling
I got from my story was that it was a green painting. Although
there was no logic behind this rationale, I decided that the tonal
range would be green. I mixed each letter of the key in a complimentary
tone so no matter where the letters ended up on the canvas they
would fit together, project the same visual dialogue, and create
harmony across the canvas. In this respect, Mondrian and my colour
theory, differ. Where Mondrian's ideology called for a purity
of colour, to achieve consonance through out my canvass, I must
interfere with each colour. This is will be done first by mixing
the overall tone, or what I call the 'feeling' of the painting.
I then separate the primary colours and mix derivatives of the
primaries by adding the 'feeling' tone in varying degrees, into
the primaries. I will also add tones to my key by cross-pollinating
the derivatives with each other. If I favor one particular tone
or derivative, I will also add it to most of the derivative colours.
Although, Mondrian and my own colour theories are in opposition,
my style or end aesthetic relates more closely to Mondrian's than
that of Polke's ever-changing conclusion of composition, in the
fact that it remains constant. Another thing that our systems
have in common, is that, we both work through a linear process
to define the essence of our compositions, then the conclusion
of our compositions are reached by reconfiguring these elements.
In Mondrian's case, it was the primary coloured shapes and in
mine, the essence becomes four main ingredients, text, key, grid
and space.
By exploring the different possibilities of drama and tension
between these four elements, countless conclusions of composition
can be generated. Each painting feeds off each other and springboards
into another painting. It is also why my painting system produces
an end aesthetic that remains constant because it is the composition
of the elements that gets reconfigured not the elements themselves.
To illustrate the endless permutations my painting system can
produce, I will take the Grid painting, 'Garry Hall was the first
kid in six class to get a real tattoo,' through the process of
my painting system, and produce nine other examples or paintings.
For instance, by assuming that the grid will not cover the entire
surface of the canvas immediately opens up an on-going dialogue
between the placement of the grid and space, as shown in figure
10 below.
Figure 10
The placement of the Grid painting creates a tension between the grid and the space surrounding it. In this configuration, the volume of the space gives the space an equality of importance to the grid. This segregates the attention of the viewer's eye. When the space is focused on, the grid recedes into the canvas, and alternatively by focusing on the grid, raises it out of the space. To complicate the relationship even further a complementary opposite of the 'feeling' tone can be added, as in figure 11 below.
This endows the grid with instability as it floats on the surface
of the space or recedes backwards. It also gives the space an
infinity as there is no indication of how deep it is, as there
are no reference points other than the grid, making the space
appear endless.
The last element that can be incorporated into the composition
is the key. By assuming that the key will not always be placed
inside the grid, also opens up an on-going dialogue between the
other elements and raises questions directly related to the key.
Questions like, in what form will the key be realized and how
much space will it consume? Below, questions like these, are played
out in what I call, Key paintings. Each of the 26 colours is reconfigured
in different combinations to end up with these four variations.
The key cuts across the space in various ways to showcase itself
or create different planes where each individual letter of the
key responds to each other and the space. When I first mix a key,
I will explore this relationship of key and space and colour,
resulting in many different Key paintings. I will then merge the
Key paintings with the Grid paintings. Below, are examples of
the Key paintings, merged with 'Garry Hall was the first kid in
six class to get a real tattoo'.
I believe my paintings work on the formal and aesthetic level
and in that respect, it is not imperative that the viewer knows
about my system. At this stage, the viewer will have an emotional
response to the paintings. The painting will make them feel a
certain way and can also be read in formal terms of painting,
like rhythm, balance, composition etc. It is only after the initial
impact that it is possible to discover the subtle clues I leave
as an enticement to investigate the painting beyond the end aesthetic.
Or to notify the viewer that below the surface of the conclusion
of composition there is "implicitly hidden or complicit meaning."
The clues I leave work in the same way Polke corrupts the elements,
because the purpose of a code is usually to hide the message.
Two clues that are inherent in my paintings are, leaving letters
exposed by not painting all the rectangles, and letting some of
the letters show through the key. In this way a viewer can discover
the relationship between the key, grid and ultimately the text.
From this point, my system is exposed and it is possible to decipher
the text. I do not expect anyone in their right mind to actually
transpose the key back into text, it would be too difficult, although,
theoretically it would be possible. However, I do take great care
in composing my text. For instance, one monologue entitled, 'Petrol
over his soul,' took me three months to complete. I go to great
lengths to make the text special not only because the text determines
the composition of the grid and gives the painting an extra dimension,
but, because it is a way for me to work through the issues the
text is dealing with. First, the confronting part of composing
the text, next the contemplative part of writing it into the grid,
and finally, the healing part of covering the text up with beautiful
colours, like bandaging a wound. In most cases, before I finish
the painting, the wound has healed. I forget what the text actually
says and I'm left with the enjoyment of watching the painting
and the decisions I made, sometimes six months prior to this point,
come together. In some permutations, the text is not covered,
it is left open and juxtaposed next to the key. In this way the
text does not dwell in private space anymore but becomes public
and in this configuration, my painting system becomes private
or insinuated. Other corruptive elements I engage are, not correcting
spelling mistakes and painting the letters I accidentally forget
to paint, with colours of the key I prefer rather than their designated
colour. Also, at first glance, my paintings carry the appearance
of hard edge abstraction but a closer inspection will reveal the
lack of precision in their execution, as I do not mask every boundary
or use a sharp brush, making the works very expressive. These
curruptive elements bridge the gap between modernism and post
modernism as they celebrate the indivual and humanness through
the subjective interpration of a system. Thus, anyone, providing,
that they have reasonably acomplished the skills of paintings,
could use my system and produce a self portrait. 'As no two people
think alike!' There individual working methods, their prefrences
to colour composition and text and human interference on the system,
would impact on the end aesthetic of their painting.
In this fashion all my paintings become self portraits and their
idiosyncrasies like the lack of precision in their execution,
their tempo, the text, the key and configuration of the elements,
the smudges, spills and splodges, are all 'tail-telling' signs
of my process of production, and the way I go about things. For
instence, the way I choose not to mask my boundries and just smudge
paint that has gone over the line with my finger instead of wipeing
it completely away with a rag, reveals a lot about my nature.
Finially, it is only when I feel that I am over the issues the
text is dealing with, that I will create a new key and begin the
process again.
By analyzing Mondrian and Polka's, theory, rationale, objectives,
process of production and conclusion of composition to uncover
their painting systems, I realize that is possible to do this
with any artist working in the medium of painting. Therefore,
it would be fruitless even silly for me to deny the fact that
I generate paintings using my painting system. I also do not feel
the need to change my style or invent other painting systems for
the sake of post modernism. By reconfiguring the elements, like
Mondrian, I have automatically created a new aesthetic. Also,
I have shown with Polke, acknowledged as a post-modernist artist,
he to, achieves his 'notorious ambiguous oeuvre' by using a painting
system. I will, however, invent another painting system when the
end aesthetic generated by my present one, ceases to excite me
or when I run out of permutations, or when my painting system
no longer allows me to deal with and express, my creativity and
the heart felt issues I am concerned with through the medium of
painting. This will not happen in the near future, as my next
body of work will be dealing with the media and the power of print.
With the anger and frustration I feel now as discourses surface,
like Aboriginal-related issues and the realization that the knowledge
I innocently accepted as a child, like the discovery of Australia,
was written from only one perspective, the European. I can not
think of a better way to vent my anger, express my concerns and
make some amazing paintings other than using my painting system.
Bibliography
Deicher, Susanne, Piet Mondrian 1872-1944: Structures in Space
Taschen London 1995
Lemoine, Serge, Mondrian and DE STIJL translated by Charles Lynn
Clark, Art Data England 1987
McEvilley, Thomas, 'Sigmar Polke: Betrayed lover' in Sigmar Polke:
Join the Dots Judith Nesbitt (Ed) Tate Galleries Publication,
London 1995
Polke, Sigmar, Sigmar Polke, Sigmar Polke : the three lies of
painting Ostfildern-Ruit : Cantz, 1997.