BWAC Opening

 BWAC

The crowd

Putting My Face On, officially installed.  

The opening was great fun.  I spent most of it enacting the bizarre meta-voyeuristic experiment of me watching people watching me performing in the video...I repeat, great fun.

I realized pretty quickly that the installation across from mine actually provided the perfect lurking spot.  I could hear what people were saying from there, and I could conceal myself among the hanging objects while I took photos.

 

Watching people look and listening to them talk to each other, I got the idea to add my notebook to the podium with a note asking people to write down their thoughts and feelings about the video.  I wanted there to be a more direct vehicle for people to communicate their thoughts to me, but I didn't want to interrupt their experience or color it by talking to them as the artist. 

The notebook ended up being an enriching element to the piece.  People actually got closer to read what was written, and stayed longer at the piece, thinking about the question.  It prompted them to have more involved discussions with one another, and prolonged solitary experiences.

 

And people actually wrote things!

I wish I could have left the notebook there for the entire run of the show, but it's the notebook I'm currently using as my sketchbook, and my mom and I went right from the show to the 2-week family beach vacation I'm currently on, so I really couldn't bear to leave it behind.  It's definitely a prototype for the kind of engagement I'd like to incorporate in future installations though.

I think the smaller scale did lend itself to a different, more intimate experience of the piece--it was powerful to see people standing face-to-face with it.

Also, the nature of it playing on a loop became important.  People would walk up to it when it was already halfway through, and they would stay to see how it began.  I like the idea of the process revealing itself in a different way to certain people, depending on when they encounter it (more specifically, I like the way it messes with the chronology, expectation, narrative, suspense of the experience).

Watching children engage with it was also great.  There was a pair of little girls who were sisters.  I saw the younger one sitting and staring for a while.  She got up and returned with her older sister...

She squealed, "Isn't it SO CREEPY?!"

The older one agreed that it was, and lingered, watching it for a full 2 loops before scurrying off to catch up with her sister and mom, who'd migrated to a different area of the floor.  I saw her tug her mom's skirt and point back at the video and I heard her say, "Mommy, I like the red one!"

Some other overheard responses include:

"I don't know if I'd call it art...I mean, I know it's art...it's just not my kind of art"

"Now that's an interesting piece"

"I wonder what motivated her"

"It's a shame it's not larger.  The installation itself leaves something to be desired"

"[looking at the title] That's hilarious! [watches closely] It really does make you think about getting ready to go out...how you cover your face to do it..."

"Her face is so pretty.  I don't know if the lipstick is enhancing or detracting from it"

"The ending is great--I just wish it were longer"

"I feel weird watching this--kind of perverted...voyeuristic?"

"It's like she's putting on war paint.  Look how she's sweating.  Look, you can see the sweat!"

"The technique of how she's applying it--so measured and even...and what a color"

"That red!  It's so...it's overwhelming.  Powerful.  Yeah, powerful"

The piece won Best Assemblage/ Installation, as chosen by Brooke Kamin Rapaport herself!  They added a ribbon label to the podium and gave me a certificate and even some prize money!

Exciting stuff folks.  The show is up through August 19--go see it for yourself if you find yourself near Red Hook before then.

Crit Notes 9/19/11

Some visuals for reference:







And here we go...

Me: I've been collecting broken glass that I find on the street--that's what these boxes consist of. The canvas is covered in torn paper (that was a summer project), and the wood pieces are scrap...That's all I'll say for now

SD: Can you say more about where it comes from/ the motivating choices?

Me: Basically, just walking around the street, picking up glass--I guess I'm attracted to the way it reflects light, contains color; the aesthetic of the gutter/ the spray paint patterns that happen on the sidewalk--it's like a whole weird construction language. There are all of these found compositions...I take a lot of pictures

AS: Is that in the work here? That jaggedness/ graffiti effect

Me: Not necessarily--the idea of the discarded/ forgotten objects is I think

SD: I think there's a change here from your work from before. There are stronger sensibilities--color choices were more about design principles/ they were more polite. Now things have gotten this gothic-y, more baroque symmetry/ this primary color idea. That could be pushed. Reminds me of artists dealing with subcultures without tropes. Choosing specific sensibilities--you could pressure the tension--how do they grow

AS: Louise Nevelson's wood sculptures--transforming something found into something...spiritual? You're amassing material, line inside of the entire building of it. But also challenged by the paper--the contained experience working on the canvas versus the semi-pictorial structured sculptures

Me: I feel like the canvas was kind of a vehicle toward the boxes. I started gathering the glass because the shards were like physical, ready-made color versions of the paper scraps. It's a more organic thing in a way, picking them up and deciding how to use them

AS: I'm more drawn to the wall sculptures. The painting alone is inward versus opening up. You have this mass-oriented aesthetic. Think about limiting it/ canceling out, trying out help focus/ work with the mess

Me: It is kind of limited already--the palette is limited by virtue of the glass--it's chosen for me. There are predetermined elements--it becomes more about how to present them

AS: Even more

PK: And the color for the light comes about how...

Me: Experimenting, figuring out how it works. The red and yellow made sense. For the green and blue, I had to play around--red was too much, etc.

PK: How are you choosing the texts?

Me: Basically, they physically fit in the space underneath the boxes, so they worked in that utilitarian way. Other than that, I mean, they're books that I chose to buy and read and have around on a shelf in my studio

PK: Did you compose the boxes so that we'd see the books/ the egg carton?

Me: It sort of just worked out that way--I needed a support system for the light bulbs, and that's what I had on hand that worked best (I tried tupperware containers, but they weren't stable enough)

PK: If we run with the clues (the associations that can be drawn from the books), is that good or bad?

Me: You can do that. It might not be what I'm doing explicitly, but sure...

SD: off of what PK's saying, the relation to subject matter--you talk about detritus, but then you use this perfect abstract, formal language to make the objects. Push the deliberateness of the subject; pressurize provisional decisions (what fits better, and why?)

Me: You mean, in terms of why I decide that something works better than another? (like, why blue light vs red light?)

SD: Yes. Formally, not purely balanced. But what you look for points to what you need to find--strong feeling.

PK: I mean, you have these propped up on books about women artists and art school...I just think that's something that can be pushed, directed

CA: I'm interested in the wall sculptures and how they relate to everything else. Yes, the process is similar, appealing, created in the same environment, but there's a huge difference--painting the wood white obliterates the content. Plywood, 2x4s have content--painting them all white papers over the distinctions. The books retain their content--they're intact--that's a different strategy in play. Not saying the same each time, but is the content of the wood not important?

SD: Suspiria, Dario Argento--shattered colored glass--> 70s horror, but not bad. Your visuals/ interests illustrate/ enrich the subject

JW: Are the wood sculptures done?

Me: Don't know--gesso'd them to unify them, but it's only one layer, not really enough, but basic

JW: Gesso'd with intention to paint them?

Me: not really...

JW: It's clear that you're still building a language, that it's really early on--kinks still need working out. I like the expansiveness of the process, that it's inclusive--it's clear that it's in process. I lose the location of the light when I squint, which makes it better--it's not quite the transformation it could be (with the light bulbs). Maybe if the cube could disappear. That pink reflecting on the wood is my favorite part. You're in a tough but great spot. The problems, but also the options are at the forefront. Your folded drawing uncollapsed. Branching out. Push on, expand more, focus on taking it to the level as is implied--theatricality/ subcultures--focus, open towards; make decisions inside the work

SL: Excessiveness--organic out of nonorganic parts. Not the light-- out in the woods/ in the thicket. light unneeded--out of destroyed is glowing of light--stained glass--> spiritual, serene form. The white wood pieces are moderate in scale-- trying to hold back/ be succinct?

Me: More like outbursts--the canvas was such a slow process, wanted something faster to get out what I was trying to do, engage in 3D. Scale is determined more by my arm span/ the table than anything

SL: Out of flat?

PK: The light boxes with broken glass are starting to create space--created, animated explosion. The way they're arranged with the wood pieces creates the kind of space I think you're trying to go for more than any individual piece (walking around the box and almost colliding with the wood piece on the wall behind it, etc.). The red one more than the blue one

NL: Are the boxes finished?

Me: not necessarily. They're the kind of thing that could be built up forever...I'm still collecting glass, I could see adding to them

NL: Have you thought about pushing the drawing farther out from the wall?

Me: Not really. I did turn it around a lot to see horizontal vs vertical...

PK: is the light behind the canvas attached to the wall?

Me: yes.

GC: Do you have a guide for judging when something is working, for judging what is right and wrong? Interest in the impulsive. Reciprocity in how you are doing?

Me: It's more like trying to get at a feeling that matches the feeling of the initial encounter. If it translates, if the feeling matches, then it's 'right' or 'working', if not, then it isn't

GC: since you make a large number of works, is there room for one to critique another? Agree with JW, you're in an interesting place, but this is homeless work, unclaimed, on the cusp of something. You are always open with your work, always granting and responding intuitively--your intuition s getting really strong, but the next step is to bring in torque and tension to that. Important issue to contemplate through making work? Have discourse in the work

SD: work could get a lot more fierce, develop language. divine from the tea leaves, telling you about standardized installation, graphic. suggest and say something, divine the manifesto being presented by the work. Don't keep in niche. Charles Burns--graphic artist. you've got the language of traditional modern, formalized abstraction, but what's emerging is fierceness as sense from the work--that's what could be pushed

GC: said differently, there is of course always a level of energy involved in your work, but the ways of reaching it are not quite up to the same pitch as the energy you're bringing to it. Think blunt and dumb--if you glue the books together , how is the visual image compromised? Even for the gesso--there's something so recognizable about gesso--its absorbency...the white on the wood pieces could reach the same pitch in an energetic way--not that any of this has a laissez-faire energy or the energy of a yawn, but some resolutions don't meet on the same plane.

Me: when I was talking to you before about the mirror piece feeling contrived, I think that issue of pitch is exactly the perfect explanation for what is wrong

(this is the mirror piece, which I didn't show at the crit)

GC: Try in this process. Be flat-footed. Don't ignore or be a gymnast. Seen it from the beginning--theatrical, more lighting from behind doesn't take off. Black-white drawing has its own quality--it hasn't begun to transcend itself. Too accustomed. What is your task-master? What disturbs, pushes? I mean, to me, the lights turn it into some kind of jack o-lantern pumpkin piece...which is really selling it short

CA: picking up on GC etc. Bold moves--all problems on the table but critical eye to see what parts work. You say you have more boxes made, but why aren't you questioning the fact that they're boxes. Are the boxes really doing a service? Alright, it's a quick fix, but how can you make the intuitive better? What if you build forms from just the glass--what about one color? What would that drawing look like with just one light? Does it have to be those colors? Put out with a response, go back, question the elements, one premise at a time. Methodical for critical eye, come back again and go beyond contrivance

SD: make a lot of work. more raw--pull out again--look for what happens in the in between spaces--taking shots of work. I like the little glows--subtlety could come in. Red and blue vs black and white

GC: photograph, draw, paint, document from it, take it apart and put it back together

Extremely Belated Notes from my Final Review

I just realized that in the whirlwind, I completely forgot to post the notes from my final critique, which a friend and classmate of mine took for me...Here they are, about a month late...

Me: I’m playing around with different textures, space. To access something beyond illustrating what I like or what I am attracted to. Figure out what works and what the best way is to go about what I’m trying to do – experimenting with different media and different ways of making what it is I want to make

JL: too much! [I brought a lot of work, because I'd made a lot of work]

SD: how many things do you make a day?

Me: Some days I crank out 50 mono-prints

SD: You have an incredible amount of energy and urgency. It’s a great time to put up certain parameters to get more of a sense of where things are going. Take energy that you make 50 thing in one week and make one thing (smaller). You know that you are going to keep making and making and making, begin to implement structures

Me: Had to stop (come closer) because I was going to go crazy if I kept working on it, this one (come around) was more specific – about space

SD: Definition for ambition changes [when you have this much work] if you did something 10x more ambitious, what would that be?

JL: Your work, more and more has a style. You work towards a signature style, crazy production in the service of creating a very distinctive style

SD: Some of these resist that style, force you to think on your feet a little

SL: (come closer) I like this because it is so inconsistent, has so many styles and layers, find some of the other things too consistent and fast. I think having something bigger than you so you are out of control of is good

KM: Wish I had your energy, always had so much to show me. Not sure if this [9 panels] goes much beyond shreddedness. Think about pushing it, where can you take it? Think about putting something crazy next to something that is less crazy, most successful when it’s crazy next to something more peaceful that I can rest my eyes.

TF: (sculpture) you didn’t feel impulse to put paper on top of this?

SD: Such an urgency about your ideas that you just have to get out ideas and move on. See that really intimidating way, (compare to Picasso show) try so many different ways of attacking the same subject. I think you have to keep nurturing the things that create these things, the feelings, and intuition

SL: doesn’t look like you undo and redo – you don’t stay with one thing and question it enough. How the metamorphosis of one thing can take you different places

JL: waiting for diagonal gesture that cuts across the whole process. Maybe the thing about this work is how much of it there is. I think it would be interesting to consider -- I’m sure you don’t like the idea that the most interesting part of the work is the quantity, but maybe recognizing something like that it might help the work to move forward. All of a sudden there is tons of work, and then the most noticeable part of the work is that there is tons of it – its all about finding some sort of act that can cut across the whole process, to redefine the field.

GC: Here we have a senior undergrad, in a way you can begin to see that there is a system, a belief in a certain sort of language, I think this is a pretty stunning development, changes that are made of it. Within liberal arts context, having the amount of time to make this much stuff is very impressive. I’d like to have it stated that this has been a tremendously important year in terms of opening up the systems of belief in your own structures of working. It is important to make sure you are challenging yourself so you aren’t repeating yourself. Language has opened up a world, this semester this world has been more embracing of different stimuli. How does anyone get into this language when they decide this is what they want to do? This doesn’t seem over productive. But there are things here that need to be picked up on about what they propose.

SD: If I was to think about what are the most important pieces, never seen a senior that has this much quantity to choose from. Take advantage of ability to dive in and give yourself a bunch of evidence – idea of choosing which are best, or is how they are arranged, do they need to exist as a single unit? Do they require a sense of quantity?

PK: I find it frustrating that I can’t figure out [looking at work on ground] if there is a “whole” or entirety. I find this one exciting (come closer) because it has an entirety? – if quantity isn’t something that is satisfying, then you need to figure out what it is about

SD: Working toward a style, resist idea of working things out to a completion. Robert Smithson “all clear ideas tend to be bad”

GC: I think you flirt with just about everything, and nothing is left out. Real journey from earlier pieces hard to imagine that last 10 x 8 would get itself out of painting that is leaning against that wall, but it did. I would rather that it be an evolution, pushing, I think you do respond well to what is visually there and present. It just looks like a lot but it isn’t a lot. Its not about quantity, but it is recognizable in this situation.

AG: What I recognize here is that you’ve allowed the structure of the drawing class to manifest itself in a way that you continue into the painting class. The one place that has shifted this dynamic is when you made (come closer). The only thing you need to do is move away from the beginning of the structure of the drawing class, build 10 of these (come closer) it will slow you down. You had a wonderful year, one that I could not have predicted. You have reinvented yourself with exuberance and incredible energy.

SL: Last summer you said you were interested in the idea of peeling walls, have you abandoned that? Is it inspiring, metaphoric of the kind of image that you want to make?

BU: I’m always looking at things that have elements of things I’m looking for. (pictures of branches, decay, textures and patterns that exist in the world) don’t want it to be that I’m illustrating these things.

TF: these (small, original cut paper studies) are really monumental to me, they are very different than the (9 panels). Never seen the rug look good until right here (white cut out piece)

GC: there is so much happening in this work that we aren’t recognizing, what is the possibility? What is the potential of a non representational shape? What can it carry? What can that world be? We see it in Islamic art. I don’t think it’s building toward object hood, I think it’s building toward the mystery of the layering, what gets locked into that kind of orientation. What gets subtracted and added? Are you really looking at what is below the clusters? Its very mysterious, How do those paintings feed themselves? The work is very delicate and very demanding in terms of looking.

JL: biomorphism is not form, it is anti-form. That can partially account for whether or not there is a lot or not of work. Biomorphism will endlessly proliferate itself, not a way of producing a sequence of forms. So in that way I think this is a lot of stuff, part of the reason that there is a lot of stuff is because you might be regarding these images as a sequence of forms when I’m not actually so sure that they are.

GC: total misreading. This comes out of shape not form. The shape begins to journey through a narrative by the way that is folded. Looking at Picasso’s folded steel sculptures. It isn’t about looking for form, it’s a shape narrative that becomes form.

Highly Necessary Update

Wow, it's been a while! I've been extremely busy--the final show is fast approaching (May 4th from 5-7; we install on the 2nd!). So I've been cramming for that. I'm making a new piece, plus several auxiliary panels, all of which will be finished within the next week and a half. Yep. Will.

Let's see, what's been going on that's worth sharing...

I "finished" and named the giant white drawing. It's called "Come Closer". I don't have pictures to post really because I've been kind of putting off taking pictures of it. It's a pretty involved piece, and I haven't really felt like tackling it with a camera just yet. But it's ready for the show...sort of. I'm going to have to do this really complicated thing in order to move it from the studio to the gallery (it's too big to fit through any of the doors...). It's going to be a minor nightmare, but I'm kind of excited about it.

I had a studio visit with Natalie Frank! She was so lovely. My favorite moments were when she asked me if I had a background in figure painting, and when I told her yes, she said she could tell because it was like I was painting the body without actually painting a body (!!); and when she said it's like I'm painting with paper (!!!!). I felt like she really understood what I'm doing, which was a really pleasant surprise--I was sort of nervous about the visit because her paintings are so representational/content-oriented and mine aren't very much of either (they're not even really paintings anymore, if you wanna get technical...). But she was great--she gave me a hug after her talk and said she was genuinely excited to see where I take my work. Swoon! Oh yeah, she mentioned Elliot Hundley, Matthew Ritchie, and Donna Nelson during her visit, which was thrilling because I really like all of those people. She gave me many names actually...I'll have to do a List installment just dedicated to her suggestions.

Oh! Judy Pfaff gave a talk at BU! I adore her/ want to be her. Favorite moments include:

• Every time she talked about herself as a painter trying to work her way through/ figure out sculpture (oh the affinity)
• When she talked about color: "Everything alive is full of color. They think they've seen color, they ain't seen nothing yet". This was related to her feelings of being anarchistic/ "on a tear"/ a guerilla fighter without knowing who or what she was necessarily against: "How dare they think color is bad! How dare they think I'm like an explosion in a glitter factory. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!"
  
• When she talked about evoking sensation rather than any kind of graphic sensibility, and about learning through her work
  
• When she casually mentioned that she was married to a particle physicist at the age of 16 and said things like, "all glassblowing men are handsome", or, "that guy was so handsome I couldn't look at him for 2 years"
• Her story about buying all of the woks in a kitchen supply warehouse because the cashier told her that Frank Stella worked nearby and she was afraid he'd have the same idea.
• Just her voice

Yeah, she's awesome.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot--I decided to do the Post-bacc program next year, so I'm staying in Waltham. Forever. Hmmm, that would be funny if it weren't so ominously possible...

Well, I'm going to sleep now. I promise another List installment and hopefully some images soon, most likely after the show.

Feedback All Over the Place

So, I haven't posted in a little while because I'm busy working on an 8x10' drawing/ collage and it's been kind of intense. I do have some fancier images of the sculptural paper pieces I discussed last time, so I'll be sure to post those soon. In the meantime, I've had about 4 studio visits within the last week, which means there's a lot swirling around in my head right now that I need to parcel out. I'm going to post brief summaries of what each person advised me, just so that I have a clear, definitive sense of what's been put out there.

First I requested a visit with JL, because I knew he'd interrogate what I'm doing. I wasn't disappointed. As I predicted, he had a problem with the fact that one of the first things you notice is the labor involved in making them--he feels it's problematic because it sort of inhibits a deeper reading of the pieces. He suggested that I consider incorporating a sort of obstacle to the reading of the pieces, or a counterbalance to the pristine-ness of them: this could involve an element of chance (showing a piece of ripped paper; broken wood to interrupt the precisely arranged thing), or a totally new and different method (what if the paper I start out with already has an image on it? That could make the cuts respond to something, and would involve a whole new set of formal choices--which images to include, how to coordinate them, etc.). He said that I clearly have an expertise for formal relationships and color, and he likes the three-dimensional aspect they're taking on, but he'd like to see an obstacle thrown in that you'd have to deal with. The tagline for this visit was "make yourself stutter"

I met with SL the same afternoon. She was generally enthused by the amount of momentum I had going. She praised the fact that I was clearly really concerned with honing the craft of building them--that I had discipline and focus about them. She said that although they are small in size, they still struck her as monumental in scale. She suggested I look at Japanese textile patterns, as well as Stella's later work. She also advised me to not let anyone make me feel like I have to be making paintings; if this is what is driving me, I should pursue it

PK finally came to see the new pieces last night. He knows me more from my art history perspective, so the main reaction he had was that there seems to be a gap between the things that I'm passionate about in contemporary art/ society and what these pieces are saying. He likes both (the things I say/ write about, and the cut paper pieces), but asserted that I'm more interesting than floaty organic abstractions. He felt they lack some of the volume/ force/ opinionated nature that I otherwise present to the world. I showed him a list of words that I keep to remind myself of the feeling I want the pieces to have, and he felt like the words/ verbs suggest something far beyond what the pieces are suggesting; that the concerns I otherwise express in full sentences suggest something far beyond what the pieces are suggesting. He assured me that it's kind of a cliched young artist problem--trying to figure out what you want to say/ how to say it (he said if I'm having trouble finding my voice/ figuring out what it would mean to work for me, I should look to the people that inspire me and work for them). But also, the work is clearly transforming and taking me somewhere, which is a good thing--the cuts in these new ones are already so much more imaginative/ inventive than those in the earlier pieces; there's more complexity in the layering. It might even be fine if my words and my work don't necessarily relate very directly right now. It's up to me to figure it out--I don't have to prove anything to anyone; I'm going to pursue this regardless, and that's what counts. (PK also brought up Stella's later work--guess I need to take a closer look at that, huh?...maybe a new installment of The List is in order...)

I talked to GC today, and he urged me to just let the work tell me what it needs. In the end, it just comes down to me and my work, and it's up to me to figure out what works and what doesn't. He'd be cautious about imposing anything onto the work (an idea; language--"Don't be a gymnast"); he feels the work/ the world I'm creating is already presenting so much for me to react to. The real question is, do I really think they're as magnificent as they can be? And if not, what could I do to get them to that point? He's really excited that I'm taking things up in scale with the large drawing, would encourage me to keep trying things out like that in order to discover/ embrace/ pursue what the work is capable of. The work will tell you what it needs, will take you to the place you need to be; it's just a matter of experimenting/ transforming things to get there. Testing out new ways of getting back to painting is a part of that. He mentioned several painters who break away from the rectangle/ square, and essentially suggested that there are so many options as far as materials and formal manipulation that it's just not fair to myself to completely avoid painting altogether--which I'm clearly not doing because the issues I'm having are primarily painting issues. He also advised me not to marginalize formal concerns--that formal issues are integrally important, and are frequently only found in great works of art; never in poor works of art.

So, I clearly have a lot to think about/ deal with, which really isn't any sort of departure from my usual mindset. Honestly, I like getting a lot of feedback from a lot of different sources because usually all it really does is solidify the ideas, thoughts, concerns, anxieties that I've already been having about the work. Usually, I end up with a lot of potential ideas to consider, and that can be overwhelming, but I know that ultimately I can either pursue those ideas or not (and if I choose to pursue them, they'll either work or not). Anyway, I think it's always valuable to hear how the work is working for people other than myself (especially if those people are people I respect and admire/ people whom I feel know me fairly well). And now I need to take some alone time, possibly a nap or food break--sleep and food can always be counted upon to improve everything.

Honors Review

I just had my Honors Review, which means I stood in the gallery in front of the full studio faculty and explained the progression of my work/ where I'd like it to go, in the hopes that they will let me be a candidate for Honors. It was really fruitful--they gave me a lot to think about. In the interest of remembering, I'll post the notes from the review here:

Me: Explained how I'm sort of in two places at once, but with the same concentration--xacto drawings; tactile paintings, both involving shapes, layers, intensity. Goal is to somehow bring those the two together. Told them how I'd made 3 large 8'x5' canvases, how one is designated for the potential touchable painting idea (explained/described)

JL: Thinks it's asking a lot for people to touch a painting--painting especially because it's so ingrained. Painting is tactile with out having to touch it--you don't have to touch it to experience it--it's enough to want to touch them. Not sure if breaking that particular barrier is in the particular concern of painting

TF: Likes that the same relationship to paper can be seen in relationship to paint--useful and informative--feed off of/ into each other. Also likes assemblage woodcut pieces--like the tip of a great explosion. Also liked consideration of install

SD: Asked if I've thought about different scales--4x8 sheets of plywood--see where that goes.

Me: Told about crates of excess woodcut shapes, desire to gesso them, build them in a way that allows them to climb and creep around over the wall

SD: Liked decision to hang pieces at different levels--freedom

AG: Idea of transformation/ touching paint/ audience participation: agrees with Justin, encourages me to be primary participant/ be the one to transform the painting--eliminate restrictions and initial impulses. Just think about transformation as continuation of what you're doing. Book is testament to how, when focused within limitations (the lightness and subtlety that comes out in those compositions), it can succeed. Paint from that. Different premise--don't be distracted by pre-determined thing. Last year--staying with it transformed. Dwell (move the red, move the orange, find the shape)

SD: In the same way as breaking out of the square, think about breaking away from the wall--cutting open, opening up into the space

JL: Suggested book: High Times, Hard Times about work in the 70s that questioned a lot of the same things--forgotten for a while, but feels relevant again. Interrogating painting--interviews about process/ coming off the wall

SL: More tactile, atmospheric than older work--painted plane was more impenetrable. Likes areas around big globs--like landscape, dissolving into shimmering distance. Would be interesting to touch. But what if you focus your interest on touch, and the painting ends up not looking good? Willing to compromise visual aspects? Some paintings you want to eat, but you don't do that. Seductive quality is the tease--look but don't touch--they do incite the desire

GC: Work coming out of the fact of the material? Book is a physical fact--cuts into material generate the object. Dilemma=positive/negative space. Physical fact sustained--enough ordinary/ extraordinary. Making decisions external to the painting, then back

TF: Suggested Mark Bradford at ICA--video: sanding/ peeling back paper

JL: Interested in what Graham was talking about. Forming shapes, creating support, but isolating surface from support--could get too collagey, not sure of the solution. Woodcut pieces end up looking folksy

GC: Decorative almost

JL: Brought up Supports/Surfaces: Parisian group of artists (André-Pierre Arnal, Vincent Bioulés, Louis Cane, Marc Devade, Daniel Dezeuze, Noël Dolla, Toni Grand, Bernard Pagés, Jean-Pierre Pincemin, Patrick Saytour, André Valensi and Claude Viallat). Questioning boundaries.

AG: Cover of book is solution to painting


So tomorrow they have a full departmental meeting (with Art History) to decide who will be eligible for honors. I'll find out on Wednesday (fingers crossed!)