View Full Version : You will not take me drawing

11-29-2004, 09:29 PM

Please explain it to me. Thoughts and comments

11-30-2004, 01:11 AM
the burl is not the branch
and yet stands manifest
evulsed in the pustules
of unrelenting obsession
with just the part believed to knarl
an otherwise healthy growth
spewing angry cartiledge
begging to be stuck
down to waste
in a brilliant race
blind to the redemption
of the passionate fury—

that evidence
of the divine—

which first existed

Reminds me of what Jackson Pollack might have drawn, were pen and ink and literal representation his passion. Best example I can give is his painting, she-wolf (http://lonestar.texas.net/~mharden/artchive/ftptoc/pollock_ext.html). You'll have to scroll down and select the actual painting to see it properly.


When I see this image, I see where he has outlined a wriggling skull heart, pointing directly, in red, to the birth canal of the wolf (or alternatively, from the way I see it in the smaller picture, the rump of an animal positioned in coitus encased in the body of the she-wolf) and if you look at the larger picture, you can see that were he to have tried to render this in a realistic way with only lines, there would be many spouting, spurting, interconnected, tormented images — each incubated and sprung from each other.

I won't get into a dissertation about Pollack. You asked for comments about what was seen in your work and what it might mean. But I chose Pollack to draw a parallel. I don't think Pollack liked women very much. I think he wanted to, but hated the dissonance he felt in that desire. The beauty/brilliance/divine of Pollack, to me, is his dialogue with paint in trying to understand this about himself without consciously (or realistically) acknowledging/embracing the actual thought.

Now about your drawings. I think I've seen another like this from you. Interesting that you make a hardcore, unambiguous statement.

I see an unacceptance of integration. Everything must lead to the same conclusion as though it can be exorcised, but in that expulsion becomes a weapon to unravel or destroy or be destroyed. A hard thing to look at. But maybe somehow a delight or obsession to draw?

That is acceptable (as in readily embraced by the creative community) so long as it is beautiful. The drawing is beautiful, but doesn't make me want to love it on its merits—only appreciate the talent. This doesn't let the observor draw their own conclusions (as in being led there through beauty which can come from the lyrics of composition and color), but forces the viewer to swallow what can be a harsh, foreign, image if they are unfamiliar with the kind of anger being portrayed. Which brings me to my own, armchair, explanation.

Please explain it to me. Thoughts and comments

To me it says: I'm angry. No matter what else I am, what I see is the anger and disgust which consumes my efforts. It is a neverending cycle (sort of like Goya's Saturn Devouring One of His Children (http://www.artchive.com/galleries/goya/saturn_zoom1.html). It is a genre of artistic representation. Not one of my favorites, but one I think is very important for the artist and those who can relate to the art.

The real problem I have with it is that it is not specific. To me, were you to deal with the specifics as your subject matter (as did Goya), and capitalize upon the beautiful drawing, the power of the artwork would be exponentially increased. This would break the endless circle of anger and permit the viewer to go somewhere with their appreciation of the art.

Just my thoughts and comments.

11-30-2004, 07:50 AM
Well damn! Wouldn't you KNOW Patty beat me to it. I swear. :p

11-30-2004, 05:14 PM
What she said.....

Nice work, great details. Wish I had that kind of imagination/creativity.

Hardcore art of this sort rules, for me at least :evil:

12-08-2004, 11:07 PM
Thank you ill have another piece up soon.