On artist statements, part 2.

I lied.
I've been a bit hasty in my debunking of the artist statement. It's strictly a vendetta against my inner artist statement writer. I had a statement I liked, a statement I was pleased with. I wrote it in 2006. Four years later, most of the overarching concerns are still true. Some are not. For instance the other day, I started a painting that references absolutely nothing. I felt cheap, like I was jumping on a bandwagon of current art world trends from 2007. Physically and process-wise, I did nothing different than I've been doing all-along, except I was diligent in forcing myself not to think about anything outside of the materials, and the application of the paint on the canvas. If a word such as rock, tree, interior, exterior, memory, sadness, happiness, entered my mind while painting, I immediately self-corrected as though I were avoiding a pedestrian that was stepping off the curb too soon. Same went for concept words such as information, communication, etc. I was simply trying to make a non-referential painting. It's difficult. I am working on two of these. I do not know if I can remain that focused on nothing, and if I don't, would the painting then become about NOT being focused, ergo, defaulting to having meaning like my house defaults to having dust? I may never know.

The other two paintings in the studio are about transformation. As I wrote that word, I realized that all the paintings are about transformation. I have written that before somewhere, but it's so obvious. All painting is about transforming raw pigment/materials into something more meaningful.

I am suspicious of beauty and of elegance. I am suspicious of esoteric statements. I am suspicious of dumbed down statements. I am suspicious of pain and hardship. I am suspicious of my palette knife. I am most definitely suspicious of the dog. Sometimes I turn around and he's right there, having appeared silently out of nowhere. It's a tad creepy. I don't like to be pigeon-holed. I'm fickle. A while back I said I was interested in technology and architecture. I haven't noticed much technology or architecture in my work lately. I'd like to say I'm not going to write about the small abstract paintings or the pools and flowers any more, but that might not be true. They too, are about transformation, but what else would I say after that? I have written quite a bit about them, but, they feel so sad. I am ready to move past the sad. I want to keep painting. My work is not project-based. My work isn't addressing a universal need that needs to be addressed, unless looking at art and thinking about meaning is a need, and I believe it is. What triggered my rebuttal, was clicking on the website of someone who didn't have a statement. I had a moment of wondering if the work "meant" anything or if it was superficial. No clues, no hints. I wondered if they had written a statement, would I have suddenly thought that the work was deeper than it appeared. I wondered if I needed the validation of a statement to look at work nowadays. I wondered if people would ask those questions about my work. I looked at someone else's work that was obviously about something. It was made with feminist materials loaded with meaning. I wondered why I will consider conceptual art forever early 90's grad school. I wondered if I considered painting reactionary or radical.

The Wandered above the Sea of Fog, Caspar David Friedrich

UPDATE: There is now a stump in one of the non-referential paintings out in the studio. Stumps are big around here. It's a nice stump too, so I'm leaving it in the painting. Maybe it won't make it in the final painting, but right now it seems kind of expensive to remove and it's not bothering anyone. Just like real life.