I know how you people think...
I know, from personal experience, that you all think I'm just screwing around. That I'm watching Fred and Ginger on u-tube and not doing much else. That I've embraced some sort of ill-conceived early retirement and this will be the last you will hear of me.
Well, you couldn't be more wrong.
I mean, yes, you're right. I am doing all of the above. But just to throw you a bone, I'm passing along the beginnings of "Waitress #5 (torso)". It's a two by two-and-a-half foot obscured box painting of a recent nude subject. In case you're not a close reader, the blue stuff is tape that is regularly removed, repositioned and eventually discarded. I am not, nor hopefully will ever be, in a Mondrian phase.
This would be it:
A couple of items:
a) As I occasionally do, the background has been painted as a first step--in this case a kind of variegated mustard color.
b) I'd be farther along, but I've been obsessed with reading the NYTimes in the beta-Mac facsimile version. Not as good as the paper version but way better than the website. Way.
And, I've got a Christmas-based secret project that, like Big Walter of last December, can't be illuminated (in the classical sense) until after the deed is done, if you catch my drift.
And, as an expression of my unholy Andy Warhol obsession, I am giving serious thought to painting a series of three Edie Sedgwick portaits shot directly from the TV screen. This would be one:
Wow, what a shot this is. The other two are, in fact, very similar--part of a set of shots taken in quick succession using the ability of my new camera to actually shoot a picture at the moment you click the button (what a fucking relief that is). The only thing that's different is the quality and position of the TV scan-bar, if that's even remotely what that thing obscuring the middle of the image is.
Here are two selections from another, similar set of shots. I love the green. The relationship to Warhol is happening on about five different levels (of which certainly the first three don't need to be spelled out here) but I'm also attracted to the Hitchcockian flavor of all this as well. Particularly this second group:
If anybody has a suggestion as to what shutter speed I should be shooting at to make the band go away (which I would sometimes like to do), please forward a comment.
So I'm pretty busy in my own disfunctional way.
Well, you couldn't be more wrong.
I mean, yes, you're right. I am doing all of the above. But just to throw you a bone, I'm passing along the beginnings of "Waitress #5 (torso)". It's a two by two-and-a-half foot obscured box painting of a recent nude subject. In case you're not a close reader, the blue stuff is tape that is regularly removed, repositioned and eventually discarded. I am not, nor hopefully will ever be, in a Mondrian phase.
This would be it:
A couple of items:
a) As I occasionally do, the background has been painted as a first step--in this case a kind of variegated mustard color.
b) I'd be farther along, but I've been obsessed with reading the NYTimes in the beta-Mac facsimile version. Not as good as the paper version but way better than the website. Way.
And, I've got a Christmas-based secret project that, like Big Walter of last December, can't be illuminated (in the classical sense) until after the deed is done, if you catch my drift.
And, as an expression of my unholy Andy Warhol obsession, I am giving serious thought to painting a series of three Edie Sedgwick portaits shot directly from the TV screen. This would be one:
Wow, what a shot this is. The other two are, in fact, very similar--part of a set of shots taken in quick succession using the ability of my new camera to actually shoot a picture at the moment you click the button (what a fucking relief that is). The only thing that's different is the quality and position of the TV scan-bar, if that's even remotely what that thing obscuring the middle of the image is.
Here are two selections from another, similar set of shots. I love the green. The relationship to Warhol is happening on about five different levels (of which certainly the first three don't need to be spelled out here) but I'm also attracted to the Hitchcockian flavor of all this as well. Particularly this second group:
If anybody has a suggestion as to what shutter speed I should be shooting at to make the band go away (which I would sometimes like to do), please forward a comment.
So I'm pretty busy in my own disfunctional way.
posted by Geoffrey at 9:31 AM
1 Comments:
Leave the band in on the Sedgwick photos. The first one looks fantastic and I don't even like portraits. I like that it is clearly a digital capture of an analog film and that your painting method produces a heavily analog aesthetic that would complete an interesting analog-digital-analog conversion of the image. I like your instincts on this one.
Post a Comment
<< Home