27 January 2014

explanations and the plotting of trajectories

This week in between other work I've been playing with some abstract ideas.  It all began with an image of tree branches reflected in a bank of windows at dusk.  At the moment this work is more clumsy than elegant, and I've no clear idea where it's going, only just a glimmer of possibility:

steel sky woman abstract

verna vogel abstract

I've had some interesting conversations lately about things like whether an artist ought to explain their own work, or whether it is up to other people - exhibition curators for example - to put artists' work into context.  On the one hand I think an artist ought to be able to explain their own work... but then on the other hand I also think that explanations often obscure true meaning, that visual imagery IS the language, and when used well has no need for wordy augmentation.

Also I have been asked "Where do you see your work going?" which in my mind borders on the nonsensical.  Too much focus on destination, perhaps.  Certainly there are ideas I want to explore in my work, but where those ideas may lead...?  It seems presumptuous to attempt such predictions.

As it happens, lately I am surrounded my people for whom explanations and the plotting of trajectories seems to be a focus.  And I cannot really explain anything; the best I can do is to say that the images I create are the result of my taking in the world around me, holding and stirring, and spitting it back out, Verna-style.  That is my part, and the rest will take care of itself.

And I think that will do.


Edit - and then I thought of this article with David Quinn.

No comments: