This exhibition really confused me. I looked, and looked, but could not quite grasp what it was he was trying to say. If anything. There are strong strident colour combinations going on here. Painted as though in a painting by numbers style of execution, with large pencil or black line drawings of flowers, or fuzzy pictures of interiors with a yellow line detail of a largely illegible still life detail layered over them. What were these conjunctions aiming to associatively conjure up or represent? I've since read the artist's statement about his creative intent and themes, and I have to say I am none the wiser. Lots of 'arty' conceptual buzz words signifying not a lot. I did not get a - now I understand moment.
What I see, and how I interpret what I see is some sort of attempt at parody, representing popular visual tropes in lurid heightened colour. The conjunctions, are just that, conjunctions. There is mostly no conversational interplay between the two. The painting surface has actually quite a sludgy finish where you can often see the layers of paint he had to apply to get colour density. Often doing a passable impression of being badly painted. Unless that was what he was aiming for. There is also something about scale here, these ought to be huge wall filling paintings. I can't help but feel the images could have benefited from a crisper style of execution such as with screen printing. The 'Pop Art' style references gesture towards what he may have being trying to convey. I found this a disappointing exhibition, the first of this second season I couldn't really connect with on some level.
No comments:
Post a Comment