Fascinating it is, that the struggle of my life is not a struggle for understanding and skill, but for simple and clear. It ain't easy for me to accept simplicity. Simplicity, it seems, is far more difficult to render well than complex and overwhelming. Paring down to essentials is hard work; much harder than letting loose with a spill of ideas. Ideas come easy; sorting out the relevant comes hard.
Paring down to the essential and the absolutely necessary is not an easy task. I am gonna do this. It is important because I have relied too long on complexity to overwhelm myself; distraction by tons of information comes easy to me. Within the overwhelmingness there is truth, but there is a lot of falderal as well. My job is to make truth. Truth is simple; truth is difficult to comprehend; truth is tough to depict visually. Truth is available despite the duplicity in every human effort. Self-deceit is easy; clear-eyed truth is difficult. Truth requires hard decisions. Deceit comes easily by slipping and sliding into the undemanding, the available, the comfortable, the entertaining, the sweetness that is momentary self-satisfaction. Yesterday's drawing is not the best drawing I have ever done, but it is a move in the direction toward simple truth.
I am obviously moving toward more simple images, albeit complex in actuality. I question the ability of a fully complex image to fully engage the viewer. Today I show one answer to this question. However, the caveat is this, as with Mark Rothko, and Ellsworth Kelly, I believe initial simplicity has the ability to be extremely complex. Yesterday I showed you an excellent Mark Rothko painting; it contains just two floating rectangles; Simple? Not at all! Today I show you a painting by Ellsworth Kelly, black with a floating, flat white form; Simple? Not at all! I could live with either the Rothko or the Kelly painting for a very long time; both would endlessly speak volumes to me. When does simplification become too much? Am I simplifying? Clarity is an act of decisiveness; Simplification is an act of divorce. That which appears simpler is often more complex. Complexity is a measure of profundity. Simplification is a measure of ease. This painting, "Your Decisions Matter", is complex; it is profound, albeit simpler in color scheme and its number and kinds of forms. Mark Rothko understood profundity; he made, to the unobservant eye, seemingly simple paintings. I leave you with a great painting by Mark Rothko. "Inertia to Movement" (2019 No.6, state 1), oil on canvas, 64.5x64.75 inches {"Emotion is the moment when steel meets flint and a spark is struck forth, for emotion is the chief source of consciousness. There is no change from darkness to light, or from inertia to movement, without emotion." -Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious", 1955, translation R.F.C Hull} Yesterday was an important day. I began a new painting, "Inertia to Movement". I have been seeking a more direct approach to exuding emotion in my work. Mostly my search has been through drawing, but yesterday I took a big step in finding emotion in painting as well. This first state of "Inertia to Movement" exhibits simplicity in search of clarity. I will walk carefully in the making of this painting, step by invented step. My intention is to be fully mindful, fully present, during its pathway to full blossom.
I failed yesterday if simplicity be my goal. It is not! I want the intellectual and emotional satisfaction of complex images and the direct and immediate engagement of simplicity. Ellsworth Kelly achieved great visual impact using simple images. Kelly's work satisfies emotionally and intellectually. His is a great achievement. As much as I envy Kelly's direct route to completely fulfilling art, I am not Ellsworth Kelly; I am myself. My path continues to be discovered, step by currently unknown next step. Yesterday's drawing was such a step. It taught me; I reflect upon it. I want the negative space in my art to be as effective as Ellsworth Kelly was able to achieve in his art. I have been making a strong effort to think simple. I am well aware an obvious relationship between negative and positive space must be the capturing effect that is the ultimate driving force of the first glance. The first glance should capture viewers, rein them in. As complex as yesterday's drawing became, it is simple in its composition. I hope you see that. There is dark on the left, bright on the right, strong vertical movements play against strong forms on the left and the right. This is a masterful drawing. I felt mastery in my process.
"The Doctrine of Liberty" (2019 No.1, state 15), oil on canvas, 67x59.5 inches {"I believe there is a golden thread which alone gives meaning to the political history of the West, from Marathon to Alamein, from Solon to Winston Churchill and after. This I chose to call the doctrine of liberty under the law." -Anthony Sampson, "The Changing Anatomy of Britain", 1982} "How's It Gonna End" (2019 No.2, state 7), oil on canvas, 59.5x32 inches {"Life is sweet at the edge of a razor; And down in the front row of an old picture show the old man is asleep as the credits start to roll. And I want to know, the same thing everyone wants to know, how's it going to end?" -Tom Waits} I am nearing my exhibition dates for 2019. I am getting ready. Curiously, I am also looking hard at the means I use to speak. I am cleaning up my work, paring it down to essentials. Thus comes the completion of "The Doctrine of Liberty" (2019) and the simplification of "How's It Gonna End" (2019 No.2). "How's It Gonna End" may simplify even further; I may remove that orange form in the lower right. I believe I am learning the most important lesson of all — to speak well one must speak to the point, remove the falderal, be as simple as possible with one's message.
Sometimes an image comes along that is alien to me, its creator. Such is the one I show you today. Yesterday's drawing is an exploratory composition; it is "call and response." It is shallow, low in its 3D-ness; basic in its play of forms. My upcoming paintings are in my subconscious. This must be preparation. I am uncomfortable with the sophisticated image of my recently completed painting, Along for the Ride. Recently I viewed original works by Pierre Bonnard, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Sean Scully, Mark Rothko, Vincent Van Gogh, Edmond Cross, and Paul Cézanne. All but the Cézanne's amazed me with the simplicity of their initial impact. Cézanne's work is different. Paintings by Paul Cézanne often immediately hit the viewer with sophisticated complexity. Myself, I go back and forth between initial impact as complex or simple. I am asking a big question. In all my work I continually look for satisfactory answers; answers that make me feel ease, comfort, and direct communication. Look at my last two paintings, Along for the Ride and The Intervening Tick: one complex, one simple. This bouncing, back and forth, will continue till I find my true home. The road to simplicity does not come easily to any painter. Paul Cézanne never found it. Mark Rothko certainly found it. Who is the better artist? I place my chip on Paul Cézanne. This drawing is a good one. It questions complexity; How far I can go and still have your detailed attention? I question my own reflection. Process is finding truth by doing, making, questioning over and over again. It seems to me answers are found between the questions. Answers are not found while the questions are being asked. It is during the mulling that one finds what is true and what continues to be questionable.
|
To read my profile go to MEHRBACH.com.
At MEHRBACH.com you may view many of my paintings and drawings, past and present, and see details about my life and work. Archives
April 2024
|