Upon entering abstract expressionism exhibit, the first piece that caught my eye was a relatively small sketch on the back left wall of a creature identified as a firebird. This figure was grotesque, I couldn’t differentiate from what could be a limb or a wing, but I got the message of the sketch. It was an authentic and raw representation of someone’s vision, a creature someone else conjured up within their daydreams. And this vision was now staring at me, blankly, not unlike the immaculate white walls that bordered this interesting little sketch.
Upon walking a little further into the exhibit, I found a three-dimensional representation of this firebird, strained and stuck in the same position, seemingly grappling with some immense energy force. The same surge that can be observed watching a predator attack permeated every contour of the creature. The implied motion was sharp, exact, completed with Pollock like precision. It was not until I saw this second “live” version of the sketch I had encountered in the earlier room that any of this resonated with me. Being able to see the same idea, the very same firebird, expressed in two entirely different mediums with such dexterity got me thinking. How do I think about my thought? How do I represent it mentally, and is there any consistency to my thought processes? Is it all random and dependant upon that particular moment? I’ve never been able to reproduce on the page what I see in my head, and the fact that this artist did so once, let alone twice, made me truly appreciate what it means to be an artist.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment