jimmy rice artist schoolhood memories petrol over his soul paintings

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

During a discussion I proposed that by pigeonholing Piet Mondrian's work as purely formal or tight or Jackson Pollock's work as only expressive or loose was limiting towards the point of an ignorant bias. While these generalizations seem to prevail as the norm, (O'Donovan 1995), it was also demonstrated when an art historian gained the support of many others in our lecture by arguing that Mondria's work was formal because it was based on mathematics and could easily be reproduced. Where as Pollock's work could not, as it was expressive, intuitive and carried no formal qualities. In this essay I will refute this type of over simplistic, stereotypic and superficial criticism as it negates works into a position where they cannot be fully appreciated. Firstly, by showing that Mondrian's end aesthetic, while appearing tight and formal on the surface was instead, the result of an intuitive, trial and error (Schiff 1995) and subjective process. I will then show how the discovery of fractals in Jackson Pollock's work by physicist Richard Taylor, dispels the myth that Pollock's work was purely chaotic in the sense of unordered and wild. Possessing only the expressive qualities of accidental or loose. But bears a more striking similarity to chaotic behavior in nature of the repetitive and cumulative way in which patterns are formed. (Taylor, Micolich and Jonas 1999). Lastly, by way of expressing what I believe my paintings stand for and accomplish, I will answer the question, is my work formal or expressive?

Although it is a typical generalization, to say that Piet Mondrian's work can easily be reproduced or is simply derived mathematically, it is a grotesque statement that trivializes his work. O'Donovan (1995) states that even Mondrian's admirers tend to categorize his paintings this way because "it is only a careful eye that can discern the diversity and complexity of his work." Another factor that contributes to the belittling of Mondrian's work is

that while it may not be easily reproduced it has been "ripped off" (Plagens 1995), or dumbed-down into graphic designs that mislead people into thinking that they know what a Mondrian painting is all about (Perl 1995). As Robert Hughes puts it, "it was vulgarized on millions of grid-design dresses, bedspreads and rolls of linoleum, and it is parodied in a thousand cartoons" (Hughes 1971). In other words, if you whack in a few black vertical and horizontal lines and fill a couple of the rectangles up with primary colours, your not doing Mondrian, your doing a shallow and offensive imitation. For me it would like hearing "Rain Dogs" my favourite Tom Waits song used in a commercial. Or making the error, of judging Mondrian's work from a book or a post card without ever experiencing the intimacy of an original, up close. Here Hughes (1971) eloquently underlines the subtleties of what is lost from viewing a reproduction of a Mondrian painting and the original

This emphasizes a fact that we all know but often forget viewing the original is a completely different experience from seeing it in a reproduction. With Mondrian's work as Hughes points out all the subtleties are lost. Peter Plagens (1995) reinforces this statement by reiterating the same sentiments,

It is important to note here that even originals can be misread if the viewer does not negotiate the paintings from several views. Imagine evaluating a pointillist work from close up without looking at the work from a distance, your criticism could embark on an abstract perspective, where as from a distance the effect is clearly representational. This fact is exemplified by Holland Cotter (1995) about Mondrian's, Composition in Line 1916-17,

It is these reworked and covered lines that dispel all mathematical notions as the objective by revealing an ongoing subjective dialogue between artist and painting (Cotter 1995). In fact they highlight Mondrian's intuitive quest to appease in concrete the ideology that drove his process. An ideology that was founded in Theosophical concepts, "which taught that mankind is evolving toward a universal spiritual brotherhood - and that its progress can be expressed by geometric forms" (Plagens 1995). It was this theosophical doctrine and the influences of Cubism that persuaded Mondrian to reduce everything figurative to geometric forms (Lemoine 1995). Or as Mondrian put it himself,

It is in the implementation of this seemingly formal directive where the irony between the diametric of reading works as either formal or expressive lies. As it is impossible to escape all arbitrary or subjective decisions no matter how formal the intention is. Here is an example of how a conversation between the formal voice (F) and the expressive voice (E), trying to implement Mondrian's directive might unfold.

(F) The first rule is that nothing is allowed to have characterized particularization and must be based on the abstraction.

(F) That's logical, now you have to eliminate the figurative by abstracting it into the geometric

(F) You need to destroy the pictorial relationship of each element to force a negotiation between each component, other than that of its original function.

(E) Do you mean, move my shapes around so it doesn't look like a bowl of fruit sitting on a table anymore?

(F) YES, it doesn't matter because the logic lies in the elimination of things that characterize particularization

(f) That's nice but you need a logical reason, like it's more balanced, there is a rhythmical dialogue between the elements that emanates peace and suggest a higher order?

(E) Sounds good, but unofficially I'm choosing it because I like it. What's next?

As you can see even to compose these few "formal" examples, the subjective, illogical and intuitive decisions I made were many. Can you imagine over a lifetime of painting, how many Mondrian would have made? Expressive lines, subtly of tones, spirituality, intuition, and a subjective ideology were all-important ingredients of Mondrian's work. Therefore to dismiss Mondrian's paintings as purely formal is nonsensical. So to answer the question, is Mondrian's work loose or tight? I would have to say, yes it is.

The fact that Jackson Pollock's paintings are easily recognised to me implies formality in his methodology. A sustained and regulated approach, a control and technique that ensured consistency. Pollock's paintings would not look the same if he indulged every urge that came into his mind, because eventually, if he were not editing his process, his paintings would loose their coherency. This is exemplified by Richard Taylor's pendulum painting experiments in which Taylor uses a pendulum to drip paint on a canvas. When the pendulum is not interfered with "it follows a predictable non-chaotic motion" (Taylor et al 1999). Then to emulate Pollock's painting technique, Taylor builds up the painting " trajectory by trajectory through the use of different launch conditions"(Taylor et al 1999). The result is a remarkable similarity between Taylor's pendulum painting and Pollock's painting Number 14, 1948 as shown below.

The top picture is no chaotic, the middle is drip trajectories generated by a pendulum and the bottom is a detail of Pollock's Number 14, 1948 (Taylor et al 1999)

Taylor et al (1999) formulates then, that because the above patterns were generated by chaos and many natural chaotic systems form fractals, the common qualities that would be expected in the patterns left behind, would be fractals. To verify if the patterns in Pollock's paintings are using statistical self-similarity; the same as the way nature builds its fractals, Taylor et al (1999) uses visual clues. The first visual clue Taylor et al (1999) says is evident in Pollock's paintings, related to "fractal scaling," is that the "patterns obey the same statistics at different magnification." The second visual clue Taylor et al (1999) found to be uniform across Pollock's Number 14, is that at "different spatial locations, the patterns can be described by the same statistics and gain a uniform character." To confirm the fractal content of these visual clues Taylor et al (1999) calculated the fractal dimension of Pollock's drip paintings, "using the well established box-counting method". This revealed that Blue Poles: Number 11, had a fractal dimension of 1.7 compared to 1.25 and 1.3 which is the "typical value of coastlines and lightening" Taylor et al (1999). Taylor et al (1999) analysis also found that fractal dimension in Pollock's paintings increased over the years. That each layer had a different fractal dimension and in most cases the first layer had a "significantly higher fractal dimension than any of the subsequent layers Taylor et al (1999). This dismisses notions that Pollock's painting technique was unordered, accidental and wild. It clearly indicates that Pollock knew exactly what he was doing and with each new painting, he deliberately set about refining his painting technique. So to answer the question, is Pollock's work loose or tight? I would have to say, yes it is.

By now the notion of viewing any painting as either this or that, should seem absurd. For to make any painting, regardless of the end aesthetic, as we have seen, one must negotiate their way through both realms. Yet when it comes to abstract art even "art wise" people make the mistake of jumping to the first or obvious conclusions. This was demonstrated during the same discussion when most of the class was happy to classify Mondrian and Pollock's paintings as either formal or expressive or loose or tight without even exploring the possibility that there might be another perspective. It was also illustrated when I asked the same question, about my two paintings and not even one person got out of their seat, three meters away, before they made their judgment. It is only years after their deaths that we are beginning to understand Mondrian's and Pollock's work in a closer dimension to that of their true nature. When Pollock said, "I am nature" Hilton Kramer (1999) a respected and experience critic, put it down to a megalomaniac assertion. Yet as Taylor et al (1999) says about Pollock "he described nature directly…adopted the language of nature…he was in many ways ahead of his contemporaries in art and science". Really, Pollock had found a way to explain nature better than anyone or anything before him so there was substance to his claim. I can't help but wonder if people actually took the time to truly understand his paintings and what he was saying about them, whether or not scientists would have discovered chaos theory and fractals much sooner.

When reading my paintings it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions as their exterior carries an air of formality that seems decisive. However, after one's eyes adjust to this initial visual impact and the formal surface appearance dwindles then the nuances of the expressive voice as well as the formal emerge. Their voice so finely equilibrated it is possible to hear both with clarity making the paintings impossible to classify in an either or sort of way. Both sides draw your attention and make their point while the other waits patiently for their turn. The formal and expressive qualities emerge and recede in a resolution of fluidity. Where Pollock's subliminal voice is one of chaotic reasoning through fractals, mine like Mondrian's, loosely clings to it's scaffolding of the geometric abstraction on the surface, but underneath, sings with the harmonies of the expressive. First the dissonant chord of the city is followed by the consonant chord of nature, one binary dissolving into another rain steal straight curve logic accidental deliberate soft hard aggressive gentle beautiful ugly intelligent unintelligible absurd. My paintings live as a representation of the human experience, the natural and familiar and yet are totally ambiguous, foreign even alien in nature. They are human frailty, strength and achievement, greatness sorrow pity despair hunger thirst pain and belonging. The human condition in a box, escaping retreating, lost and found. They are blood happiness joy fear the beginning and the end. They mean everything but nothing and nothing but everything.

So to answer the question, is my work loose or tight? I would have to say, yes it is.

Cotter, H. (1995). Abstraction and the true believer. Piet Mondrian, Museum of Modern Art, New York. Art in America, Nov 1995v83 n11 p68

DANTO, ARTHUR C. (1999). Pollock and the Drip. (Jackson Pollock exhibition at The Museum Of Modern Art, New York, New York)

Hughes, R. (1995). Purifying nature: a superb exhibition traces Mondrian's quest for images that express a universal order. (Piet Mondrian; Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY) Time, Oct 23, 1999 v146 n17 p91(3)

Kramer, H. (1999). Jackson Pollock & the New York School, II. (American abstract expressionist painter) New Criterion, Feb 1999 v17 i6 p14(1).

O'Donovan, Leo J. (1995). Freeing our vision: Piet Mondrian's magical hand. (Natl Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.) America, August 26, 1995 v173 n5 p22 (3)

Perl, J. (1995). Absolutely Mondrian. (Piet Mondrain, National Gallery, Washington, D.C.) Newsweek, Oct 30, 1995 p76 (2)

Plagens, P. (1995).When less was more. (sculptor Constantin Brancusi, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; painter Piet Mondrian, Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York) The New Republic, July 31, 1995 v213 n5 p27 (6)

Schiff, B. (1995). For Mondrian, art was a path to the universal. (painter Piet Mondrian, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C./Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York) Smithsonian, June 1995 v26 n3 p98 (8)

Richard, T., Micolich. A., Jonas, D. (1995) Art, science and chaos: The physics behind the paintings of Jackson Pollock. PhysicsWorld, October 1999, v12 n10

Carrier, D. (1998). Modernist art and its market. Art Journal, Winter 1998 v57 i4 p102(3).

Deicher, S. (2000). Piet Mondrian 1872-1944: Structures in Space. New Criterion, Sept v19 i1 p12.

Lydia, D. (1995). Ascetic esthetic. (works of Piet Mondrian) Artforum International, Oct v34 n2 p90(1)

Galenson, David W., Weinberg, Bruce A.(2000). Age and the Quality of Work: The Case of Modern American Painters. Journal of Political Economy, August v108 i4 p761.

Gibson, E., Goode, S.(1995). Mondrian art: planes, lines and primary colors. (artist Piet Mondrian) Foundation for Cultural Review. Insight on the News, July 3, v11 n26 p32(2)

Glazebrook, M. (2001). Power of the paintbrush. Spectator, July 28, v287 i9025 p37.

Lemoine. Serge, translated by Charles Lynn Clark, (1987). Mondrian and DE STIJL. England: Art Data

Mclean, I., Bennett, G. (1996).The art of Gordon Bennett. Australia: Craftman House

Rosenblum, R., Bochner. M. (1995). Plastic made perfect: measuring Mondrian. (aesthetic and influence of Piet Mondrian) Artforum, Spring v26 i2 p46

RATCLIFF, C. (2001). Jackson Pollock's American Sublime.(Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY) Art in America, May v87 i5 p104(1).

Lisa,S. (1998). A painter's painter.(Clement Greenberg; Los Angeles County, CA, Museum of Art) American Artist, Dec v62 n677 p8(1).

Westfall, S. (2000) Leon Polk Smith at Washburn. Art in America, Dec v88 i12 p118