|
Artist
statement:
My work has
originally evolved from taking photographs of a flytrap in an industrial
kitchen. I then deveolped these
images through using photoshop, which helped to guide my painting and
printmaking. My work was originally centered around ideas and feelings
associated with being trapped, something which everyone experiences at
some point during their lives in different situations. My concern was
how I might go about provoking these emotions in the viewer.As my work
has deveolped I have been working with and continue to work with a grid
system taken from the flytrap and have created pieces using layering and
stenciling techniques. I am and have experimented with the building up
of surfaces, application of paint, the optical, transparency, depth, perspective,
movement and colour and
it's effects on the spectator. >From researching spontaneity and rationality
in relation to the act of painting itself; I have come to realise that
the outcome of a painting is unpredictable, regardless of how much control
you try to exert over your work. You may have a final image in mind and
think that you can predict what
the work will look like when it is 'finished'. I think it is unwise to
try and fully control the work; firstly because it is impossible to do
that and secondly because too much control will only lead to sterility
and deadness. In the same way, you can not be fully spontaneous in creating
a piece, it is impossible, because even in
thinking about what colour you may use, you are being analytical, intellectual
and rational. The painting has a
life of it's own, the artist in creating a work has to mix the rational
and spontaneous, they have to let the work
talk back to them and realise that art has it's own hidden order.
I myself have had concerns about when to stop being rational and analytical
and when to give into spontaneity
and where to leave the work. How do you decide that a piece is finished?
You could argue that it never is because you could keep working on it.
I think the answer to this is up to the individual.
My conclusions to rationality and spontaneity is to realise they both
exist and can not exist without each other, (a
bit like everything in life) to be open to this realisation and to let
the painting/work create itself. In my work I
decide and make certain rules for each painting or print, but never have
a picture of the final result. I try to keep
that as unpredictable as I can. In this way I see the painting deveop
as I add each layer and it remains a
mystery as to how it will look next. Of course I draw on my knowledge
of colour, drawing and perspective, but I enjoy the way I get either a
pleasant or not so pleasant result after each stage in the work. Each
step is a suprise and an excitement.
In some of my pieces I combine texture - the spontaneous gestural mark
with an ordered grid system over the top. This is to experiment with opposites
and to see if order and chaos or intellect and rationality can work together
in
the same piece. If one can not exist with out the other then is it not
important to include both into your work?
Should there not be a balance of both?, especially if too much of one
thing is never good for us anyway in life. I
have found that mixing these opposites creates depth and can confuse the
eye. I would hope that my work will evoke some emotional or physical response
in you the viewer.
Ruth
Hawkins
University
College Northampton : BA
Hons Fine Art
For
sales, commissions and to send comments to the artist.
|
| |
|
