Nice! is that on paper?
Does this help make it clearer? (It's the back of a similar piece.) Sorry to play a guessing game here--I'm at a loss for how to present this work on the Internet.
yeah I think so. It's laser prints or photocopies on coloured papers patched together?
Yes, photocopies (of a laser print). The patching together with linen tape makes the front surface look deceptively solid. It's not even 100% clear with the physical object what you're looking at, so I don't what I'm doing posting it without mentioning the materials. I like the pattern and the crinkly texture, regardless.
I like this. In the first straight-on image the seams don't show, and there's no sense of scale, so the second image is really informative.
I like how the different colored papers form a shape and kind of space that is related to and a kind of inversion of the black printed donut-squares. There is the tension in the unexpected replacement of blue and green corners with white, whereas the yellow and pink corners are used/re-used. The middle square kind of pops out. I like the simple use of materials- paper the colors found near a photocopier of any medium-sized office, and the linen tape, the bit of puckering. And what do you know?- it's a painting: a wooden stretcher and staples.
I feel a connection to my HTML drawings: simple means (your B&W draw program or my use of simple HTML); predetermined color (your standard colored paper from the ream and my use, more or less, of 216 web-safe colors); the grid; images with a tension made by interruption or dislocation. Nice.
Since this followed closely on another post about old work (the one with drawings and hand painting) I'm unsure of the date of this work. Is it recent?
Hi, Chris. Your description and analysis of the piece are right on, and also the connections to what you're doing. The work is from 1999; I documented similarly-executed stuff here but I can see I need to go further with the details and whatnot to get it across. One problem is, if the piece is hanging on the wall you don't get to see the back either. Some people didn't know the surface was paper; most assume the paper is glued onto canvas, and some have actually flinched and gotten offended when I turned the piece around and showed how flimsy the construction is. (I remember one artist lecturing me that I had a responsibility to future owners to make objects that would "last.") Anyway, I'm going to say more about all this in a future post. Thanks for giving it a look.
If it were my image I'd post it like this. It seems okay to take out the background, only because you can see the pucker marks. The material, or at least questioning the material, is important, but on screen the frame, shadow and wall don't mean much, and they relegate the image to the role of an inferior document of the work. I also applied a sharpen filter cause on screen, crisp is the norm.
I am very interested in this online territory between showing work as document versus a new form of the work itself. It's an awkward space but I think very rich. I agree with Chris Ashley that this 'painting' has connections to his/her html paintings. Chris, I notice you post 3d paintings along with your html constructed images. They look great together and I like the mental exercise that both of you are providing with these media switcheroos. Puts a real interesting focus on abstraction itself, relegating the metaphysical implications of paint technology to the sidelines without having to lose it altogether.