Four new pieces, in progress.
Here are the first four of a new figure series, unfinished yet. Two more have been composed and the panels are curing now. I still have work to do to describe the forms correctly, and some of the darker values are still in need of more development as well. I have a question for any of you that care to answer it:
Do any of these pieces strike you as overtly sexual? Sensual but not sexual?
I’d like to tell how much I love your blog. It’s so informative for a stay at home mom to learn what she loves. The info about how you started out struck me the most because I’ve experienced university without technical training and by the end I dove into deep depression because I was not doing what I paid for. But not being a quiter I completed my honours degree in fine arts. Finding your site was a light towards enriching my artistic development and kind of support in some strange way. I feel somehow connected. It’s really neat. Anyway, to get to the point of your two questions…. I feel that the images are artistically sensual but not sexual. Reason 1: they are highly posed, in a static way(not to be offensive, just an observation). Reason 2: too gorgeous. Reason 3: artistic elements like composition, colour and mood created is highly stylized so it creates an artistic subject rather than a purely sexual subject. This is coming from a feminist painter..lol. I realize that its only my interpretation. I’m sure others may think differently. That’s my two cents. I reiterate when I say I LOVE your blog!
Ok…a few more words. These words are dear to my body of work. I’d like to address the concepts of scopophilia, the gaze and the nude vs. the naked. I see the women in your paintings above as being aesthetic subjects rather than sexual objects for more reasons. The gaze these women possess appear to be confrontational rather than inviting. So I get the sense that they do not welcome the viewer to possess them as sexual objects. They are nude rather than naked because the formal elements and principles of designed are clearly forced into the poses. Even though they welcome the viewer to look at them, being highly aware aesthetic subjects(seen in their gaze), they do not communicate sexual subordination to the viewer/buyer.
Hi Khan,
Sorry for the delay. I’ve been in the Sierra Madres visiting a gold mine. I enjoyed your blog as well, especially the Tiger. What size is it? As an aside, I avoid Liquin like the plague. If you want a medium that produces similar results and is usually dry within two days max, check out Jim Groves’ web site. He has re-created many old mediums and they are of high quality. He is also a very nice guy. I use his Copal Gelling Medium in all of my work.
Thanks for your kind words on my blog. This is exactly the discussion I hoped to provoke. I understand exactly what you experienced in university, and am very aware of the blessing I received in being mentored by Graydon for two years.
So, to reply to your well-considered replies:
1. They are statically posed, although I intend to expand on the series as I go. The first three were done as an experiment and I was quite unsure how they would be received in the gallery. My dealer tells me though that the response they got from viewers was “unbelievable”, so I continue to explore. These are built upon some of the ideas of the Pre-Raphs in that the subjects are presented as representations of Beauty, rather than an observation of a living person.
2. All my subjects are fashion models, so there is an inherent aspect of the viewer’s gaze for without that the model doesn’t exist.
3. I am glad the stylization negates, to some extent, the sexual interpretation. I’ve posted one of them (the first one shown here) on rationalpainting.org, which is a private forum run by Graydon, myself and two other mods. (I think you would get much more out of the forum than you can get here, so I invite you to join.) I got a range of responses with the majority thinking there was sexuality present because of the nudity, but that it was not overt sexuality. The extremes were represented as well, with one person saying it looked like she was climaxing, and another not seeing any sexuality at all.
I’ll reply to you other post in sequence.
I am glad you see the aesthetic over the sexual. I was pretty disappointed in the inability of some to see beyond the breast to the theme, which is beauty and death.
You’re correct about their gaze. I choose models that were able to gaze at the viewer while being viewed. There is an ambivalence present, in that without the gaze they are a tree falling in the forest. They want the viewer’s presence, but not the basest responses. Their choice is to gaze back directly, possessing the viewer as the viewer possesses them.
Thank you for being generous with your words. The painting you inquired about is 16×16 inches on wood panel. It took me way too long, I see tones of mistakes and areas of struggle in the painting. And don’t get me started with the terrible composition.
I was encouraged by two professors at York University to pursue my masters degree after they saw my post feminist paintings. One professor is Janet Jones and the other is Tim Whiten, two highly intellectual professors I had the pleasure to be taught under. Unfortunately, I was not confident enough in my technical skills to even apply for my masters. I knew that my hands could only replicate 10%(or less) of what my eyes could see. My intellect was sufficient but my skills were/are shameful for my level of education(student loans I owe).
Now I’m a mother of two babies and it’s almost impossible to travel for much needed classical training.
I’ve registered with with rationalpainting.org, thank you very much for the invitation. I was not confident I would be included in the discussion/site due to my lack of technical skills.
I’m really looking forward to reading every post in the discussion panels. I’m starving for art conversations with like minded individuals. I’ve been out of the art loop for 5 years and I’m so fortunate to have found such an individual like yourself(and soon many others) to enrich my artistic development and my life long passion.
So, many many thanks to you Richard.
No worries, I — and many others on the forum — came back to painting without the needed knowledge of technique and materials. The purpose of the forum is to dispel the mumbo-jumbo that surrounds the methods of making paintings, and contribute towards the overturning of the post-modern art world.
Don’t be shy, post. I’ve enjoyed and appreciated your thoughts and observations so I encourage you to jump in.
I love these new (unfinished) paintings! I must say that I don’t see them as sexual, but considering my own work, I see nothing wrong with even the slightest sexual inclination. They are beautiful women, and I don’t think a “male’s gaze” or a “female’s gaze” makes them anti-feminist.
I agree with your comment about the tree in the forest, and wanting the viewer’s presence.
I like your combining the figure with the landscape, and flowers. Can’t wait to see the paintings finished!
Thanks Suzy! Can’t make any claim to intellectuality but I’m glad you like the new work as well as the wrapped pieces. How’s the show coming along. Let me know when you have a date so I can post it here.
Let me know if you want to discuss Munsell in more detail. If you want a primer check out the Student book. It can be found for around $30.
Thanks Richard, I will try to find the Munsell book. No definite date yet, but closer…..I’ll let you know.
There is nothing overtly sexual about these images. They are quite sensual on the other hand, though not in the erotic sense of the word. Classic.
On another note I agree totally with your sentiments about JC Groves and his mediums. Top notch in both respects.