The images were all haunting. They told stories of roaches and leeches coming out of body orifices.
Behemoth rising from the cracks of the earth. Mythological beings in acrobatic convolutions. They struck me as schizophrenic.
My artist friend who is well versed in print making was appreciative of the techniques, the composition and color choices, and was intensely curious as to the meaning of these works. Inevitably our conversion evolved to whether our works need any explanation?
Painting for me is a form of self expression. I am using my brush and paper as my tools of communication. As I utter my words this way, I am shielded, in most cases, from face to face contact. I get to verbalize in my privacy, and the viewers do their viewing in theirs. This added insulation allows me the opportunity to disclose what I would otherwise be reluctant to. Therefore artists perhaps feel protected, or at least are more willing, to portray troubling, perhaps even socially unacceptable thoughts????
I can't help but be reminded of a movie that I saw, "NEVER LET ME GO". In this movie a lover couple thought that their love for each other could be substantiated by the guy's art work. If they can prove there existed true love between them, then they could find a way out of their predicament. So they went to the gallery curator and asked for affirmation, only to be told that they couldn't be extracted from their fate. However, what the curator said was even beyond what they were seeking. What was said was (paraphrasing) " we don't want to reveal your souls, we want to see if you have souls"
For my very limited exhibition experiences, I've always attached a description to each piece of work. Sometimes documenting my techniques, but more often, my thoughts. Some of the artists that I've encountered really frowned on this idea. To them, any explanation is a desecration of their work, or that such explanation limits the viewer's imagination and therefore sets unnecessary boundaries and preconceptions. So what happens when we assign a title to a piece? Aren't we guilty of suggesting? If one is true to this belief, then all works should be labelled as "Untitled".
For my piece "Lonely", people would recognize that as a dark painting. Perhaps the silhouetted images elicited an accord with viewers. Need I tell you what my thoughts were?
I had the following write up on my description. Hints of blue adds to bleakness of a cold, moon lit night. Birds have settled in for the night, silhouetted against the emptiness as a lone wolf howls to the moon, begging for company. Did that help to paint a more succinct picture? Did I barge in on your elucidation?
For my blog on "PAIN" I alluded to the circumstances of creating this painting. Certainly the title of "PAIN" helps to channel the viewer to that particular frequency. But now read the captions that I had placed on the label of this painting and feel the painting again.
PAIN
Is drinking by yourself
Is to be alone in a crowd
Is voices
Is faces
Is inexplicable
Is not able
To find me.
Was my explanation adding to or taking away from your impression ? From my perspective, as the person who created these pieces, I do relish the idea that my viewers and I are on the same page sharing the same emotions. I, for one, would not scoff at the idea of explaining my works.
Of course this becomes a moot point if we practice the 3 Perfections of Chinese Brush Painting, i.e. the painting, an accompanying poem and the calligraphy of the poem.
