I am so very glad you came back to this painting to explain so intensely articulately as to the hows, whats, and whys of what you're trying to accomplish in this specific goal of typographic painting. Also pleased that you photographed/catalogued the original painting before you painted over it and explained why you did as that gave me a better understanding of why you did. Your precise explanation as to the process gave me such insight to how you think/work/produce........reading and absorbing what you wrote reminded me of doing acid back when, and following each and every facet of what's involved in doing something that's important/meaningful. To use an antiquated phrase, I am blown away!; not by what you explained, but that I actually understood it as it made perfect sense to me and I didn't have to re-read portions of it again and again to "get it". You're using your entire mind to create an idea, a feeling, to do what may seem almost impossible to do without giving up in frustration. I'm not stroking your ego here but merely giving kudos in not only achieving what you need to do but doing the difficult part in explaining it to us, your readers. I'm inspired!
and by the way, I am making a distinction between the musical paintings and the typographic paintings. The typographic ones I have successfully figured out the beginning, middle and end. That is the problem with the music paintings; figuring out the beginning middle and end has been my big problem that I am trying to solve. And to do it in a way that moves along fast enough that I don't get bogged down. I am sure composers have the same problem working out all of the instruments in a symphony as compared to a quintet. It is exponentially more complex to write for so many instruments and account for them in the composers imagination as he/she is working it out. but it is just constant practice till you figure it out and then you are off and running. That is what I am trying to get to. Actually I should try to find a composer who would explain to me how they do it.
It's a great idea to pick a composer's brain as to how they do it yet, it'd be really interesting to pick many composers' brains as I'm sure, like all artists, each has their own methods and ways to achieve their goals.
Thanks for the kind comment Annette. I feel like I need to explain it in words to myself. Art - the creative process is so non-verbal that it is a challenge to be able to explain what you are trying to do. When I go back researching for this kind of work I am very frustrated by how little the artists explained about what they were doing and thinking and then you just end up with all of these institutional curatorial explanations that I don't believe are on the mark with what the artists were actually thinking about that drove them to make the work. So I am attempting to preempt that problem by being as articulate as possible. and it is not easy! Of course I am writing this with the assumption that anybody will give a shit in the future. But, like all artists, you put your message in a bottle and throw it into the ocean and hope for the best.
I am reminded of the few times I would be in a show at the gallery and some art-critic would analyze my work and never interview me at all to get the actual meanings as she'd write some weirdness soundbites and psych gobblygook about what she thought I was trying to say in my art. I don't mind different people's interpretations of what they see in the work, but to ignore the artist's meanings and only go by what they think/feel is not telling the entire story.
I am so very glad you came back to this painting to explain so intensely articulately as to the hows, whats, and whys of what you're trying to accomplish in this specific goal of typographic painting. Also pleased that you photographed/catalogued the original painting before you painted over it and explained why you did as that gave me a better understanding of why you did. Your precise explanation as to the process gave me such insight to how you think/work/produce........reading and absorbing what you wrote reminded me of doing acid back when, and following each and every facet of what's involved in doing something that's important/meaningful. To use an antiquated phrase, I am blown away!; not by what you explained, but that I actually understood it as it made perfect sense to me and I didn't have to re-read portions of it again and again to "get it". You're using your entire mind to create an idea, a feeling, to do what may seem almost impossible to do without giving up in frustration. I'm not stroking your ego here but merely giving kudos in not only achieving what you need to do but doing the difficult part in explaining it to us, your readers. I'm inspired!
and by the way, I am making a distinction between the musical paintings and the typographic paintings. The typographic ones I have successfully figured out the beginning, middle and end. That is the problem with the music paintings; figuring out the beginning middle and end has been my big problem that I am trying to solve. And to do it in a way that moves along fast enough that I don't get bogged down. I am sure composers have the same problem working out all of the instruments in a symphony as compared to a quintet. It is exponentially more complex to write for so many instruments and account for them in the composers imagination as he/she is working it out. but it is just constant practice till you figure it out and then you are off and running. That is what I am trying to get to. Actually I should try to find a composer who would explain to me how they do it.
It's a great idea to pick a composer's brain as to how they do it yet, it'd be really interesting to pick many composers' brains as I'm sure, like all artists, each has their own methods and ways to achieve their goals.
good point!
Thanks for the kind comment Annette. I feel like I need to explain it in words to myself. Art - the creative process is so non-verbal that it is a challenge to be able to explain what you are trying to do. When I go back researching for this kind of work I am very frustrated by how little the artists explained about what they were doing and thinking and then you just end up with all of these institutional curatorial explanations that I don't believe are on the mark with what the artists were actually thinking about that drove them to make the work. So I am attempting to preempt that problem by being as articulate as possible. and it is not easy! Of course I am writing this with the assumption that anybody will give a shit in the future. But, like all artists, you put your message in a bottle and throw it into the ocean and hope for the best.
I am reminded of the few times I would be in a show at the gallery and some art-critic would analyze my work and never interview me at all to get the actual meanings as she'd write some weirdness soundbites and psych gobblygook about what she thought I was trying to say in my art. I don't mind different people's interpretations of what they see in the work, but to ignore the artist's meanings and only go by what they think/feel is not telling the entire story.
and possibly telling the completely wrong story!