Above: John Pomara, oil on paper, ca. 1987. Speaking of painters braving the switch to 1s and 0s, the piece above is what Pomara was doing in '86 and '87 (gorgeously painted semi-abstractions with roots in AbEx, the east village, and '60s sci fi book covers) and below is a detail of a recent piece:
Pomara starts with a pixelated blow up detail of an image such as a face and gets busy crunching in an imaging program, refining and deforming and refining until something that looks like modernist architecture emerges. He does still paint, and these images are used as stencils in that process and also printed out as stand-alone photo-works. I maintain that a painterly eye transcends media and we're too fixated on the physical stuff: obviously output is important, and that's something we're all wrestling with. I'm confident that solutions will continue to be found that will save us from the dreaded fate of becoming printmakers. Calling the output "photography" is one conceptual end-run around the problem.
That's a gorgeous image. Funnily enough I've never had a problem with the idea of painting extending and broadening into a pictorial made with other means. Its where I started and it continues to inform everything I do that doesn't involve paint.
(but I will admit to having a chuckle over that dreaded fate of becoming a printmaker, fortunately I know some brilliant artists who are able to produce a glorious argument for any means of picture making that they may produce)
|
Above: John Pomara, oil on paper, ca. 1987. Speaking of painters braving the switch to 1s and 0s, the piece above is what Pomara was doing in '86 and '87 (gorgeously painted semi-abstractions with roots in AbEx, the east village, and '60s sci fi book covers) and below is a detail of a recent piece:
Pomara starts with a pixelated blow up detail of an image such as a face and gets busy crunching in an imaging program, refining and deforming and refining until something that looks like modernist architecture emerges. He does still paint, and these images are used as stencils in that process and also printed out as stand-alone photo-works. I maintain that a painterly eye transcends media and we're too fixated on the physical stuff: obviously output is important, and that's something we're all wrestling with. I'm confident that solutions will continue to be found that will save us from the dreaded fate of becoming printmakers. Calling the output "photography" is one conceptual end-run around the problem.
- tom moody 9-16-2004 2:41 am
That's a gorgeous image. Funnily enough I've never had a problem with the idea of painting extending and broadening into a pictorial made with other means. Its where I started and it continues to inform everything I do that doesn't involve paint.
(but I will admit to having a chuckle over that dreaded fate of becoming a printmaker, fortunately I know some brilliant artists who are able to produce a glorious argument for any means of picture making that they may produce)
- LM (guest) 9-16-2004 6:25 am