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:
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.