On Drawing

A rag, dipped into a box of powdered charcoal, is dragged with across the surface of the paper. More powdered charcoal is sprinkled onto the surface and subsequently scraped across using an old square of cardboard. There is no particular purpose or end product other than the act itself. This done the tones are obliterated with a clean cloth, reducing them to mere shadows of their former self and the process is begun again. The artist suppresses the impulse to render. Yet patterns, whether due to body mechanics or random imperfections in the surface itself, do emerge suggesting forms in space. Some forms are re-enforced by drawing with vine charcoal. Certain propensities, such as a personal fascination with the human form, assert themselves. Nebulous figures coalesce from the shadows and smudges and re-submerge in much the same way that buried memories emerge from the labyrinths of the psyche. An image is wiped down. This is not necessarily to eradicate it but rather in order to see it with fresh eyes. Remnants of these previous patterns then re-assert themselves in unexpected ways, either becoming the matrix for new images or creating a dialogue between the old mark and the recent1. Since visual experience does not present itself to the human eye readily outlined, the process of drawing, that is representing or delineating, is, to paraphrase Derrida2, a blind venture into the depths of the unknown.

Reality or Symbols

Ultimately, we are faced with the paradox of whether we interact with and react to reality or our mere symbols of that now defunct reality and its simulations? As Baudrillard points out, this cycle of simulacrum and subsequent simulation now exists out of our control until, nature, or God, imposes actual catastrophe upon us, thus permitting us to experience the authentic.

How this concept relates to the artist can be summed up in this query: Does the artist contribute to the continuance of the cycle of simulacrum or does the artist strive to illustrate the true nature of reality? If it is the latter, how best might the artist do so and what form should that illustration take? This is a purely rhetorical question. However, it cannot be answered by the critic, the art historian or the institutions of art. This answer, it can be suggested, must come from each artist according to their nature and through the rigorous self-evaluation of their work and motivations.

Ghostly

I'm facinated with the doors. Having to open and close or to move through a door reminds me of relationships. The fact that there are people painted on them is somewhat ghostly. Was that your intent?

I am reading Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. It was recommeded to me by a figurative artist and colleague. Digesting this text is proving to be a challenge, however, I am hanging on and find that Baudrillard's writing as presently indecipherable though it may seem, provokes some facinating imagery that I am compelled to explore. Presently, while I can appreciate Baudrillard's argument, I cannot totally agree with his premise as it applies to representational (mine or other's) painting since the very act of representation is mitigated by the fact that images produced are but an interpretation of experience. As such, this interpretation, visual or otherwise, regardless of the medium, is itself a unique entity.

A systematic survey of the critique received, contradictory as though it may seem, in fact, serves to re-enforce many of my own concerns regarding my work and its content. Those concerns can be distilled into the following:

What is the content or focus of my work?
How well does the imagery and composition reflect that contend?

Are the additional materials, i.e. doors, found objects et al successfully integrated into a coherent piece of work and do they also relate to content and if so, how?

By way of reconciling these concerns, I propose adopting a deconstructionist approach. Essentially, it may be best to break my work down into components, imagery and my use of non-art materials and how do these relate to the content. The implied goal is to later reintegrate these components during the course of my graduate school tenure. The first phase of this process addresses imagery and content. A return to basic drawing, painting and visual composition will be undertaken in an exercise to reconnect with basic issues of visual language.