Following on from Jackson's dripping and pouring technique, Helen's soft stainings are often attributed to the development of the Colour Field school, as my good friend Matt Lyon says, she led and the guys took over. What I admired about her paintings is that, as Michael McNay expressed in his obituary in the Guardian of Wednesday 28th December 2011 www.guardian.co.uk "Painting became once again, as in many of its best periods, an insitinctive coalition of hand and eye and controlling intelligence." Something I totally subscribe to in my own work and as with Helen, I am not that interested in theory for its own sake either, especially new theory!
In my opinion, theory is in danger of strangling the life from art making. So often recently I have been to shows where the writing that supports the work is more interesting than the art itself and this is terribly wrong. I have no quarrel with art theory really, but I hold strongly the opinion that the physical quality of the art itself should arrest the viewer, make them stop in front of it and consider it for more than a few seconds. If, however, the writing that supports the art holds the viewer's attention for longer than the art itself, then the artist has failed. Does anyone reading the above have a response to this?
Rant over, RIP Helen and thanks for some wondrous paintings and prints.
While I am in reflective mood, here's thanks also to other artists of greatness who died recently:Dennis Oppenheim, John Hoyland, Stephen De Staebler, Leonora Carrington Cy Twombly, Lucian Freud, Richard Hamilton, John Chamberlain.
Sketch book work: The Departed, Dec2011/Jan 2012, graphite
As above
Large drawing, The Departed, 4.1.12. Graphite on Arche paper
Detail, large drawing, The Departed, graphite on Arche paper
Detail, large drawing, The Departed, graphite on Arche paper
Happy new year to all who read this!
No comments:
Post a Comment