Tuesday, February 24, 2009

. . . thought about it




Here is one of my paintings that will be going away on Friday, hopefully to be snapped up by a discerning buyer. I need to take photos to document my work and to keep a record of what and when I painted and where it is. However, it's a problem because, since they are unstretched, I have to rig the canvases up somewhere vertically to take the pictures. I brought this one up from the studio and taped it to the wall with blue painters tape. But the photograph is not of good quality since the lighting is so bad. Oh, well, I hope you get the general idea. This painting, as yet unnamed, is approximately 36 x 36". My son told me it looked like a garage floor. Is there a name in that?


I like this painting. It looks deceptively simply, I think. I spent a lot of time getting those blocks of neutral to be interesting, by varying the colors, making marks, lots of texture. That appears a bit in the gray area on the top right, except it just doesn't have that much of a yellow cast in person. And the blue, too, is actually the result of multiple layers of many different colors of blue. And what appears to be a black oblong on the left side of the painting is really a deep purple. I really took the quote in Nita Leland's book to heart. . . I tried to make sure that this painting actually had a change in color within every inch.


Am I, as the artist, supposed to have an explanation of why I painted this piece? I mean, am I supposed to have expressed in this painting my innermost feelings? Because I am unaware of it if I did. Granted, I'm not the deepest thinker. But can my explanation for why I chose to paint this piece be nothing more than I liked the colors? Or I was working on my neutrals? Or I was influenced to paint geometric shapes by the collages I had done for a couple of months before I went back to painting? I guess I could always say something to the effect that my personal life was in chaos and I chose to harness that chaos by painting something rather structured. That sounds interesting, but is it true? Was I actually thinking or feeling that when I painted this? Somehow I doubt it. There are other pieces, yet to be photographed, that reveal a lot of chaos, the latest one I did especially. Maybe there is a kernel of truth somewhere in there. . .

10 comments:

Leslie Avon Miller said...

What can I say? Yes, yes and yes! I wish I had this painting, and I wish I had done this painting. No, no, no, I'm not supposed to covet my friend's work. I hear you thinking your thoughts, and they are all good ones! Great work, great thoughts and, well, Wow Mary!

Jazz said...

I wouldn't worry about interpretation. Someone somewhere will read tons of meaning into it (that might not necessarily be there) but since people really like to analyze stuff it's bound to happen.

Blue Sky Dreaming said...

I think this is a beautiful piece...color, texture...all beautiful!

Jeane said...

this is a good strong painting Mary - isn't process all the things you mention in your post? and your painting shows all of it - don't get stuck in your head - just paint....

Margaret said...

It is! No need for reasons for being.

I love this piece for its neutrals, order and subtly energy. It is deceptively simple, but I would continue to look at it if was in my possession. Nothing attracts me more than subtleties.

Still questioning why I'm putting so much information in my own work.

Mary Buek said...

Oh, Leslie, covet all you want. I certainly covent your work. Thank you for your always-supportive comments. You are already a great life coach.

Jazz, I agree. It's just that my art rep will want to know. And the goofier the story, the better he likes it. Perhaps pity sells art, who knows?

Mary Ann, thank you. I wish it had been a better photo.

Jeanne: Good advice. That's what I do. It isn't until it's done that I worry about stuff like "meaning".

Margaret, that's one thing the photo didn't capture. . . details that are all over this painting. I try to make paintings that look good from a distance, but look even more interesting up close.

Catherine said...

hey, Mary I'm back...and you know I can't resist an opportunity to describe your work.....this one obviously (*grin*) is entitled "Meaning" - an examination of the human need to analyze and interpret; to identify our personal shades of gray and the fine lines that define our boundaries...."

how's that? or.....

"Meaning Schmeaning...a response to the media culture's never ending dissection of our daily lives...."

or....you know I just make this stuff up, right? To make you grin.

Seriously hoping everything is ok with you (or soon will be) - concerned after reading the last two week's posts...

Seth said...

Deceptively simple is a good description. There is such a beauty in the design and colors and such depth to the layers here as well.

Mary Buek said...

Oh, Catherine, you are back just in the nick of time. I actually will use your suggestion to explain this painting (trying hard not to smirk.) Yeah, I know, some of my last few posts have hinted at some upheaval, but everything is beautiful, good, etc. Hope you had a wonderful trip, wish I could have been there, too.

Seth: Faithful commenter, thank you for your insight.

bob cornelis said...

Mary

Wonderful piece! I, too, am working on my neutrals so understand how challenging it is to make them interesting, as you've done here. Seems we spend more time making small, subtle adjustments than the big sweeping ones!

I understand your comments about seeming to work without specific ideas in mind - often the process of painting is just what allows me to empty my busy mind, which is such a relief that I don't want to mess with it by thinking too much (or at all!).