Tom, after a few busy days I just wanted to make sure I come back and post and at least thank you for your reply a few days back to my questions. Other than that, no big big thoughts. Just a couple of things.
You say, "I'm as bad as an ex-smoker about trying to talk people out of painting," and perhaps I'm going to put myself on the opposite side as a smoker, in keeping with the analogy, who's feeling relegated to puffing away outside the bar on the sidewalk on a cold night, who passerby look at pitilessly, as a stupid, unhealthy anachronism.
Wait, that's a sad thought: a wheezy, yellow-fingered, hacking person whose drink is back on the bar, ice melting, napkin covering the glass to keep a finger print-smudged glass from being taken away.
Let me try this instead: the painter is the healthy person who never smoked before, never took a puff, and is oblivious to the zealot nonsmoker...
Ah, maybe extending this whole analogy isn't all that effective Nevermind. What's my point?
You say, "As for painting, I have no plans to do it--I'm more interested in the problem-solving of how to make interesting, resonant, stand-alone objects with the computer, printers, photocopiers, etc., and intertwining that practice with purely online things like animated GIFs." So, you're not exactly saying that you'll never paint. And I'm not trying to make you. I guess I'm wondering if you're leaving the option open so that if, at some point, a situation presents itself that tells you that the meaning you're working on requires the use of paint, whether, say, as enhancement or contrast, or for expression or irony, would you recognize that and not just follow a rule that says no paint, but instead follow the work and use paint?
And when I read your thoughts, '"real world grit" I was referring to the legal pad, office paper, product boxes and such that I've incorporated into the work,' you're referring to materials that have in themselves a whole load of received meaning, and that could have, for some viewers, a kind of grit, or romance, or revulsion. You know, is it possible that at some point the viewer says, "Oh, the use of office materials in art is dead," as has been said about painting, as will be said about installations, and large photos mounted on aluminum panels, and the creation of characters for video or performance, and whatever else you're going to find in all of the galleries everywhere this "season."
I'm just trying to make the obvious point that probably no one is arguing against anyway that paint, in the many ways it's possible to use it, is, and will continue to be, a viable technology, whereas someday my HTML drawings will no longer be viewed in their native environment. The technology will fade. And I'll have no control over that. In 25 years using MacPaint will probably be pretty hard, but you'll always be able to buy a ten-color watercolor set at a stationary or educational supply store.
OK, it's fair at this point to bring out the institutional criticisms about native and non-native environments for painting...
To end: I like the stuff you're showing here, and I enjoy seeing how it's made.
|
You say, "I'm as bad as an ex-smoker about trying to talk people out of painting," and perhaps I'm going to put myself on the opposite side as a smoker, in keeping with the analogy, who's feeling relegated to puffing away outside the bar on the sidewalk on a cold night, who passerby look at pitilessly, as a stupid, unhealthy anachronism.
Wait, that's a sad thought: a wheezy, yellow-fingered, hacking person whose drink is back on the bar, ice melting, napkin covering the glass to keep a finger print-smudged glass from being taken away.
Let me try this instead: the painter is the healthy person who never smoked before, never took a puff, and is oblivious to the zealot nonsmoker...
Ah, maybe extending this whole analogy isn't all that effective Nevermind. What's my point?
You say, "As for painting, I have no plans to do it--I'm more interested in the problem-solving of how to make interesting, resonant, stand-alone objects with the computer, printers, photocopiers, etc., and intertwining that practice with purely online things like animated GIFs." So, you're not exactly saying that you'll never paint. And I'm not trying to make you. I guess I'm wondering if you're leaving the option open so that if, at some point, a situation presents itself that tells you that the meaning you're working on requires the use of paint, whether, say, as enhancement or contrast, or for expression or irony, would you recognize that and not just follow a rule that says no paint, but instead follow the work and use paint?
And when I read your thoughts, '"real world grit" I was referring to the legal pad, office paper, product boxes and such that I've incorporated into the work,' you're referring to materials that have in themselves a whole load of received meaning, and that could have, for some viewers, a kind of grit, or romance, or revulsion. You know, is it possible that at some point the viewer says, "Oh, the use of office materials in art is dead," as has been said about painting, as will be said about installations, and large photos mounted on aluminum panels, and the creation of characters for video or performance, and whatever else you're going to find in all of the galleries everywhere this "season."
I'm just trying to make the obvious point that probably no one is arguing against anyway that paint, in the many ways it's possible to use it, is, and will continue to be, a viable technology, whereas someday my HTML drawings will no longer be viewed in their native environment. The technology will fade. And I'll have no control over that. In 25 years using MacPaint will probably be pretty hard, but you'll always be able to buy a ten-color watercolor set at a stationary or educational supply store.
OK, it's fair at this point to bring out the institutional criticisms about native and non-native environments for painting...
To end: I like the stuff you're showing here, and I enjoy seeing how it's made.
- chrisashley 9-12-2004 11:10 am