You’ll notice I don’t say ‘material plus process EQUALS product’, because I don’t believe that’s true. I’m not sure where any of these three things begin and end, however. I have always presented my work here as a visual thing, mainly focusing on WORDS as an IMAGE, though not always. Now for the first time I am sharing something without words, which is why this accompanying script isn’t accompanying at all, it’s down amongst the comments, deliberately detached.
What’s up there is essentially a piece of colour field art. As such, there’s nothing original about it. It exists to draw attention to itself, to draw attention to the art. Pretty straightforward mid-20c stuff; but there’s nothing wrong with a re-visit, as modernism(s) is/are the biggest missed chance(s) in the history of artistic endeavour, and we have so much to add now that we have new technology.
There is a way in which material and process set parameters. There are only so many things you can do with what you have. I start with paper, markers, and colours (material), and draw on the paper (process). What results? Is it THE product, A product, merely a bye-product, or a stage in the process? These choices are academic, because it no longer exists, except as strips in the bin of a shredder. I introduce a scanner (process) and make a digital image (another product, or now material?), which I subject to manipulation (process). The parameter set by this particular platform mean that I manipulate the size of the image to a width of 500 pixels. Then I post it here.
Does that make it a product? Is the product the totality of the screen with the image posted on it? What part of the creative process is served by the designer of the blogging platform and theme? This artistic essai has been brought about to make you ask these questions, and more. More, such as:
What part of the creative process does your interpretation of the piece play?
Print it out and stick it on your wall – what part of the creative process did that play? If the work as I left it now only exists in virtuality, is what you have on your wall an original?
I am, by the way, still playing with language in this commentary…
I’m not an art historian or critic (although perhaps a bit of a polymath in my own mind) but I’ll jump in here. The composition is like Rothko, of course, but the colors seem brighter than he would have used, perhaps because of the materials (markers vs. oil paint.) I came to say that the process of scanning, photo-editing, and printing, reminds me more of the Warhol screen prints. So yes, mid-20c and just beyond, mid- to two-thirds.
I believe what one creates is a visual stimulus which is not only influenced by the artist but also by interactions of viewer attribute and by context attributes (e.g. where or how the art is seen)…Oh just a random thought before the morning coffee.
Kvenna ráð 
Material + process -> product
You’ll notice I don’t say ‘material plus process EQUALS product’, because I don’t believe that’s true. I’m not sure where any of these three things begin and end, however. I have always presented my work here as a visual thing, mainly focusing on WORDS as an IMAGE, though not always. Now for the first time I am sharing something without words, which is why this accompanying script isn’t accompanying at all, it’s down amongst the comments, deliberately detached.
What’s up there is essentially a piece of colour field art. As such, there’s nothing original about it. It exists to draw attention to itself, to draw attention to the art. Pretty straightforward mid-20c stuff; but there’s nothing wrong with a re-visit, as modernism(s) is/are the biggest missed chance(s) in the history of artistic endeavour, and we have so much to add now that we have new technology.
There is a way in which material and process set parameters. There are only so many things you can do with what you have. I start with paper, markers, and colours (material), and draw on the paper (process). What results? Is it THE product, A product, merely a bye-product, or a stage in the process? These choices are academic, because it no longer exists, except as strips in the bin of a shredder. I introduce a scanner (process) and make a digital image (another product, or now material?), which I subject to manipulation (process). The parameter set by this particular platform mean that I manipulate the size of the image to a width of 500 pixels. Then I post it here.
Does that make it a product? Is the product the totality of the screen with the image posted on it? What part of the creative process is served by the designer of the blogging platform and theme? This artistic essai has been brought about to make you ask these questions, and more. More, such as:
What part of the creative process does your interpretation of the piece play?
Print it out and stick it on your wall – what part of the creative process did that play? If the work as I left it now only exists in virtuality, is what you have on your wall an original?
I am, by the way, still playing with language in this commentary…
I’m not an art historian or critic (although perhaps a bit of a polymath in my own mind) but I’ll jump in here. The composition is like Rothko, of course, but the colors seem brighter than he would have used, perhaps because of the materials (markers vs. oil paint.) I came to say that the process of scanning, photo-editing, and printing, reminds me more of the Warhol screen prints. So yes, mid-20c and just beyond, mid- to two-thirds.
This might be a one-off, Ray. Of course it is a homage to Rothko, whom I have always admired, but I appreciate the analogy of Andy Warhol.
’tis lovely
I believe what one creates is a visual stimulus which is not only influenced by the artist but also by interactions of viewer attribute and by context attributes (e.g. where or how the art is seen)…Oh just a random thought before the morning coffee.
And not a bad one.