🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <37583C8C.9A189803@tomatoweb.com>...
:
:
:"L.Tunkkanen" wrote:
:
:> To Erik,
:> my two cents. More questions than answers.
:>
:> The first thing that got my attention in Erik's works
:> was the picture on picture convention. It was spelled out
:> in 'Tripoli' but present in a couple of others.
:
:I think of it as a semiotic buffer zone.  The edge of the painting is a
:boundary.  Sometime a picturae frame intervenes, but sometime it's a
:stark transition (between the 'reality' of painting and that other
:reality.)  Think of it as a context within a context.  In narratology,
:for example, a 'parametric element' is an element which informs the
:whole narrative. (James Bond's being a spy is a parametric element in
:Flemmings novels).  By placing a picture within a picture the inside
:picture exists in the context of the outside picture, while both exist
:in a context of an art gallery, CRT etc.
:
:> Why  a modern piece must look like a collage?
:> Especially in graphics we have a rich tradition
:> of combining elements. Is it not worth of cultivation.
:
:Do you remember Braque's painting, a cubist still life, and at the top
:center he rendered a nail, as if it were driven into the surface of the
:painting?  I always wondered why he did this.  In April in Tripoli I
:noticed that I shadowed the insde picture to appear as if it was loosely
:pasted on.  These kinds of things draw attention that whatever picture
:space there is is illusionary.  One thing about making an art work about
:a TV experience is that its a copy of a copy of a copy etc.  Totally
:counterfeit, thrice removed from any sort of reality, an nth level
:abstraction of life.
:
:It's hard to say what's worth cultivation or not, in my view.  One thing
:that I almost never think about is 'originality,' the paper tiger of the
:arts.
:
:> Why the naivistic presentation of trace bullets.
:> Is it to take distance to Coppola in Apocalyse Now
:> "I was astonished of the beauty of the war".
:
:What I saw on TV, Lauri, was pure spectacle.  Since 1986 this has become
:more commonplace.  But let's take this to the limit.  The cartoon
:character of the tracers is one thing, but the architecture I used in
:the picture was inspired by a pack of Camel cigarettes.  (I was tempted
:to put the camel in there too, but I didn't want to be sued.)  The rag
:dolls in the background are also inspired by the old classic "Raggedy
:Ann and Andy."  The point is that I was not portraying the historical
:episode as such, but rather a mass media portrayal of an event.  A
:picture of a picture (so why not design it as a picture within a
:picture, eh?)
:
:But this is an overtly political picture, intended to evoke the irony of
:fighting terrorism with terrorism.  Now this is a kind of picture that
:will require research to understand a hundred years from now.  Even
:today, most people don't remember this historical event of April, 1986.
:
:> Experiments with abstraction #1 invites questions about
:> conscious and preconscious thinking. I hope to deal that separately.
:> What fascinates me here is the richness and balance of texture.
:> What I expect of an artwork, is that I can't say "I have seen it
:> already".
:
:It's surprisingly easy to build up those textures, which could be called
:'sentient surfaces.' with good graphic software.  The first three of
:these were done with Photoshop, the last three with Fractal Painter.  I
:think I'll try the next experiments in a 3D software, probably Strata
:Studio.  I'm curious about doing non-objective works in this mode.  The
:huge problem with 3D software is the 'cleanliness' of the images
:produced, which you can see in the movie epics - Toy Story and the
:recent insect epics.  I remember some Chzek stop-frame animation from
:the 50s and 60s -- wonderfully avant garde and quite 'dirty.'  Much
:nicer.
:
:> #5 I would like to keep as a screen wallpaper. Is it made
:> for the intense background light of a dia or CRT?
:
:I'm glad you mentioned that, Lauri.  Computer graphics are like 35mm
:slides or film in that respect, while a painting or sculpture are
:reflective surfaces.  Big difference.  For one thing, a work of art that
:is reflective will integrate with ambient light.  You won't see that
:happening with cyber art.  So you can say that the old art is more a
:part of the world.
:
:Speaking of which, has anybody out there used the irridescent and
:interference pigments that are out on the market?  I love these,
:especially the interference acrylics (Golden).  They are quite
:mysterious, and it is possible to make a painting that would be next to
:impossible to reproduce.  For those who are adamant about singularity.
:
:Erik Mattila
:
: