Key Questions Assignment

The histories of Neo-expressionism have failed to fully explore the potential for painting to become an object, an artefact which has value not only though the painted surface, but the structure it is built upon. After re-reading 'Specific Objects' by Donald Judd, I have become aware that because my works can be seen equally as painting and object. They are not sculpture, and they do not speak to sculpture; But they do speak to a certain object-ness. That is, they force you to consider the platform they were painted on, they force you to see them in a 3D fashion, as opposed to the 2D format of traditional Neo-expressionism. Painting as object has not been fully explored, this leaves me with a large arena of opportunity and exploration. Through my use of salvaged pallets, which can be hung or displayed free standing, my paintings force themselves into the realm of the object. Despite this, they maintain their painterliness. The roughness of the pallet's design adds unique personality, and a certain un-cleanness to my work, which is I find refreshing.

I would like to my work to inspire the use of imagination and storytelling. Imagination is not usually highly valued in adult life. Run-of-the-mill jobs, home maintenance and social gatherings are usually quite similar to their last iteration. My thought is that groundhog day is the antithesis of creativity and imagination. By giving space for people to imagine, (through my painting-objects), to almost hallucinate meaning and narrative, the enjoyable sense of childlike imagination is allowed to roam. I am combining Surrealism's automatism and Neo Expressionism's vagueness. Automatism is defined as "an act committed during a state of unconsciousness or grossly impaired consciousness"[1]. By stopping myself, (as much as I can!), from judging and decoding my actions as I create, I prevent the thinking part of my mind from inhibiting the outcome of my work. This itself creates a certain vagueness which is a perfect catalyst for the imagination to insert itself. This can happen as a form of pareidolia, which is the mind's process of creating visual meaning where there is none.

Thinking about when to stop painting or when to interfere is one of the hardest things to define in my practice. There are certain aspects I look for before decide a work can be left as it is. One is that the work needs to be visually interesting enough to evoke the use of imagination. By this I mean there needs to be drama, or a noted lack of drama for interest and imagination to insert itself. This could be created by additional colour, shape or even a chemical reaction within the different paint substances. There also needs to be a sense of mystery or puzzle within the work, signifiers which point to a deeper reading, despite the automatism. My final requirement before I stop is that the work must have enough interest for myself to have my own pareidolia moment. This last requirement is more like an insurance policy. If I can insert my imagination, I have done my job.

1. Thompson, Lindsay D.G., and Louise Robinson. “The Relationship Between Crime and Psychology.” Automatism. ScienceDirect, 2010. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/automatism#:~:text=An%20automatism%20is%20an%20act,he%20is%20doing.%20.%20.%20.

.