 |
| Michael Boles, Heart in a Spin, 2007. Pencil on vellum. Available for purchase–please contact the artist. |
I am
an image-maker. I would not like to think that it is no longer possible for art
to be based on just that. Conceptual trends have resulted in invisible art, and
intellectualization often falls short of describing pure aesthetic. Just as I
cannot describe how chocolate tastes, I cannot describe how my work makes me
feel. My process of working is visceral and my art reflects clear aesthetic
choices.
I
recall being told in graduate school not to attempt to verbally justify my
work. This was the "camp" of the late 60's and early 70's. At the
time, I felt animosity toward my mentors (not instructors since they didn't
instruct); however, I realize now that they were trapped within their own
paradigm, and they were reluctant to teach because what was occurring in the
art world was nearly overwhelming to them. While being forbidden to discuss my
art in any depth made no sense to me then, and it doesn't to this day, it may
have prevented me from forming specific intellectual bases for my work. In
retrospect it may have been a blessing in disguise as I was freed to do pretty
much whatever I pleased artistically. I wasn't given a specific direction and,
perhaps in the process, I discovered what was real and beautiful to me, a path
I might not have traveled if my graduate professors had chosen a
"style" of art for me.
The
imagery I use in my work can be both specific and open ended. I often use
familiar cultural signs and symbols that change with their new context and
allow iconography to develop for each viewer. This gives my designs a playful
quality, as they change in each context. The context of the shapes also
reflects my belief system and is manifested both randomly and deliberately.
Generally, the imagery is most successful when it comes from a fluid and
intuitive randomness. But the symbolism is not purely random–it is specific to
me and who I am.
I
embrace and return to shapes that are unique to me, ones that fall within my
paradigm of art. I often think about the endless array of imagery that exists
beyond my paradigm and throughout the history of art. I am both limited by
imagery choices and structured by my images. I don't see my lack of knowledge
about facets of art as an abyss into which I could fall; rather, I see it as a
never-ending opportunity.
I
embrace the legacy of images prior to the twentieth century that are well
executed within the realm of pure abstraction. Their information lies in the
break with tradition and the embracing of modern ideas regardless of the
reason. Early religious imagery arose out of necessity for everyone involved.
This imagery is the open door. The religion of art of the twentieth century
suggests that you believe if you are drawn to the work.
Today,
intellectualization has shoved art into a chasm with sides coated with all
those things no one has ever wanted to consider as media for making art. I feel
no necessity to go there. My imagery reflects the world that I love and hate, the
world that I embrace and reject, with little or no deference to either. I am a
product of my time. I am a piece of the here and now. I could be accused of
stoking the twentieth-century flame of pure abstraction while working with a
degree of "Old World" craftsmanship; however, I do not see these as
shortcomings. The work I create makes me feel good. I make my sculptures
because I am driven to do so by a force stronger than myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment