The subject matter of my paintings is: color, emotion, surface quality, texture, gesture, and the process of “mark-making.” I reveal truth of color, of emotion, and of expression in my work.
I do not set out consciously telling myself, “This is a painting about being happy…” I set out using my instincts and grabbing the first color I am drawn to. I build upon that color, introducing more colors that work in relationship to it. At first glance what appears to be a red painting ends up a painting of several colors, the overall color being red. In this sense, I can be defined as a color field painter.
I also choose color based on my experiences in nature. I will see two colors together and I will find the juxtaposition of these colors interesting. For instance, when I saw the Caribbean waters for the first time, I then used the shifting blues, aquas, and greens in a painting, layering them.
My paintings are also about paying attention to subtlety in color. I did a series of white paintings which were studies of the colors present in the sky. The sky may appear white at first, but if you pay attention, you will see yellow mixed in with white and then pink. Just as when looking at the ocean, at first glance, you may see only blue, but if you dissect the colors, there are many more colors present. I pay very close attention to color, and the many differing colors in a “white” sky or a “blue” ocean.
There is beauty in freedom of gesture. The free feeling of brushwork in my paintings is a carefully thought out choreography. It is the exact same thing as a modern dance choreographer capturing expressive dance movements, but they are arranged in a precise manner. Every brushstroke is thought out, ruminated about, decided upon. Should it stay or should it go? I decide on everything. The work is only meant to appear carefree.
Because each brushstroke is considered, and is made to be visible, my work can be also defined as Abstract Expressionism. This is a movement that came out of the 1940’s New York School of Painting. This is not an actual school, but a group of New York painters including Hans Hofmann, Williem DeKooning, Robert Motherwell, and Adolph Gottlieb among others.
The idea is to build up layers of paint into three dimensions in order to emphasize the “mark- making” process. Each stroke, dab; mark is visible and is a record of the movement and expression of the artist. The gestures have a rhythm and a beauty, and are record of the “event” of the painting. The painting surface is extremely important.
Each layer is significant in the message of the painting. I do not want to hide the layers or the buildup of paint. I want to include each step that leads to the finished surface. Retention of all parts of the process, bringing the first layer forward against the final layer is also indicative of Abstract Expressionism. It creates interest and tension or a relationship between differing colors. If red butts up against orange, it responds one way, if it butts up against purple, it responds in a completely different way. The layering also emphasizes that perfection is an unattainable state, and each mistake is an irreplaceable component of the process, bringing me to the finished piece.
The obvious layers, marks, and mistakes highlight the process of making the piece. They bring the viewer to the moment when the artwork was created, in essence making the viewer “present” in the moment of creation, or in his or her own “moment” of viewing. He or she must study each mark made. This “mindfulness” of each mark on the canvas and the reliving of creation, of being in the moment, is part of my Zen philosophy.
Zen philosophy also comes into play when I am painting. I “let go” of all societal restrictions of what “art” should be, and let my instincts and subconscious take over. As Eugen Herrigel states in Zen in the Art of Archery, “If one really wishes to be a master of an art, technical knowledge of it is not enough. One must transcend technique, so that the art becomes an ‘artless art’ growing out of the Unconscious.”
Using gut instinct while painting and the term “mark-making” both pay homage to primitive art. Primitive art deals with the raw expression of being human on this planet. Symbols in caves and paintings on rock walls are intrinsic expressions of human existence and the emotions of survival. My paintings are my “record of existence” in this world. They contain marks of my physical movements and emotions. The world of today has its own primal fears, struggles and triumphs, and as human beings we still need to survive. We also need to make our mark.
I must address the fact that some viewers still have difficulty with what is called “non-representational” art. Abstract expressionism has been established as mainstream for at least 60 years, and it is the vehicle that I choose to use as my visual language. It is a sustaining vehicle for me.
However, some in the general public still want to see a clearly defined portrait, tree, or building. They do not want to have to pause or to think, or to expand their mind. This is a knee jerk reaction based on fear. If someone cannot identify something immediately, they will panic, and dismiss the work. The viewer may wish to dismiss it by saying, “Well, this person threw paint on canvas in a haphazard way…” and the truly cliché statement, “My two-year old could do this…”
In actuality, the work is meant to appear free and haphazard. As stated before, each mark I make and/or leave on the canvas is decided upon. This “dismissal reaction” is actually an escape from the effort of having to open one’s mind and/or raise one’s consciousness. If the work is labeled by the viewer as having no value, then it is not necessary to think about it, to research the history of art, to stand and take the work in and experience what the artist is attempting to convey.
It is not the job of the artist to paint what the viewer wants; it is the job of the artist to make art, and to communicate their thoughts or philosophy visually. This is where the private relationship between the viewer and the artist is formed. If one takes the time to “hear” what is being said, or to simply try to listen, a relationship begins. This is why knowledge of the history of art is vital. It allows the viewer and the artist to communicate on the same level, in the same language.
I would also challenge those who use the term “realism” to define landscapes, figure drawings, etc. A “realistic” painting is actually an artist’s interpretation of reality. It is not “real” at all. It is also taking the natural world and redefining it through someone’s mind, with their filters on it, just as an abstract painter uses an intuitive filter to communicate their vision. So, in that sense I feel “abstract’ and “realistic” paintings are not different at all. In the words of Mark Rothko, and Adolph Gottlieb (with the assistance of Barnett Newman) in their letter to Edward Jewell, Art Editor of The New York Times, June 7, 1943: “…flat forms destroy illusions and reveal truth…”.