goBrooklynArt – EC
On Saturday Jake and I visited some artist exhibits as part of goBrooklynart. We first headed to Boylan Hall, where there were two studios on display.
Cecilia Whitaker Doe
Cecilia uses a process called Monotyping (?) to create her paintings. Not entirely sure what that means, I could see that several paintings have exactly the same shapes, painted in different colors to create a unique work. My favorites include the following two:
Notice the similarity between the next one and the first one above:
The second artist in Boylan was Mitch Patrick. He focuses on ASCII art and perpetual flash videos. One of his works (shown below) was composed from an entire alphabet of abstract shapes and symbols. Unfortunately, my camera was incapable of producing the definition necessary to distinguish them.
The pieces in the link below are also completely made of letters and symbols.
The most striking image in Mitch Patrick’s catalogue was that of a smartphone taking a picture of a painting on the wall (the phone being held by two anonymous hands). Mitch explained that too many of us are documenting our experiences without actually experiencing them. The person taking the photo is not appreciating the actual work, but is looking through a viewfinder to take a quick snapshot and move on. This was particularly moving, because I’ve had a similar ‘experience’. Videotaping my high school’s choral concerts, I spent the entire time making sure that my friends were in the shot that I wasn’t able to really experience and enjoy the concert. In other words, I spent two+ hours watching a video screen when the performers were right there before my eyes.
Leaving Boylan and heading west, we spent some time admiring Nina Talbot’s collection. In stark contrast to the first two, who were most probably students at Brooklyn College, Nina had layers upon layers of paintings hidden behind the ones on display. It was clear that painting was her life and her passion. The amount of paintings in her house alone could probably fill up half a floor at the Brooklyn Museum.
Nina’s collection is unique in that it is both artistic and biographical. The people that she paints are from her neighborhood and throughout Brooklyn; when she meets an interesting person, she tries to find out more about their life, their history, and eventually makes a portrait of them. Instead of trying to explain, instead I’ll share my favorite painting of hers, from her newest collection of war veterans:
In addition to these three, I also saw two exhibits for whom I failed to get the artist code, as well as two Russian painters from Coney Island. It’s interesting how the Russian painters spent a lot of time painting landscapes (pronounced ‘peizazh’ in Russian), which may be considered more traditional works of art, whereas the other artists (Mitch, Cecilia, and Robert Franka), were a little more creative, and produced abstract pieces.
As I visited these artists, I thought about what the words ‘Art’ and ‘Beauty’ meant to me. There was nothing beautiful in Mitch Patrick’s work, yet there seemed to be an element of art hidden within the endless lines of characters that viewed from afar were somehow meaningful. On the other hand, the ‘peizazhe’ were very beautiful, but they were mere imitations of something that already existed. A sunset on the Dead Sea as viewed from a cliffside may look very nice on canvas, but being physically present, experiencing the sights and sounds and tastes first-hand, is infinitely more satisfying. Is it perhaps that ‘Art’ and ‘Beauty’ are two extremes on a spectrum? That something very beautiful cannot be not very artistic, while the epitome of Art lacks the grace of beauty? I think that is up to debate.
3 comments
Hey Patrick!
You have some great stuff here. I really enjoyed reading your observations and experiences while you visited the art studios. I also visited Cecelia Whittaker Doe and I thought that painting was most definitely her passion–she, like Nina, had layers upon layers of paintings, drawings, and silk screens in one work. I also really liked your brief reflection on Mitch Patrick’s work; when I talked to him, he mentioned something very similar to what you said. He also talked about how beautiful it is for an artist to draw inspiration from literally everything he sees/experiences. Thanks for sharing!
I love your blog entry! Out of all the artists you saw, I think Nina’s is the most beautiful. I like the way she captures portraits in a very simple style. It almost gives off a childlike naivety. I wish I could see the peizahs. Were they oil paintings or watercolors or something else? And what is monotyping, exactly?
@sashanud: Thanks for the reply; I also liked to listen to the artists’ ideas about art and what they wanted their viewers to take away from it. (In some cases I liked the idea better than the art itself!) Mitch Patrick’s flash videos somehow reminded me of the newspaper and books from the Harry Potter movies where the images are always in motion, living forever in the same moment.
@Kisa Schell: Thanks for reading! Nina’s style is something unique that I hadn’t seen before, but was easily the most interesting because it told a story: a life story. As for Cecilia’s work, I asked her about how she created some intricate textures that resembled the patterns on a leaf. What she said didn’t make sense to me, but I heard her use the term, mono typing. Maybe her artist statement can clarify:
“My work will usually start with a monotype and memories of childhood places. I grew up in a rural area of the Hudson Valley region. The art I make is all about memory. I tend to work from a stream of consciousness rather than drawing an overall composition first.
I don’t know how my work would have evolved if I were still living in the environments I paint. I think that remembering the qualities of a particular place leaves room for me to invent and focus on the execution of line, value and form in a less conventional way than if I were to work on sight or from photographs.
My process of pulling a monotype involves allowing the paint to move across the paper while passing through the press, changing the initial image painted onto the glass. This brings forth other forms as well as allowing for the passage of time to become evident in the work. There is a movement of materials on the paper and, in a successful print, a sense of time and movement perceived by the viewer.
I have recently explored the silkscreen process- finding a place to combine ideas present in the monotypes with the color and flow of my drawings.
I see the drawings as finished works on their own. They begin with spontaneity; I start with water, washing it onto the paper, I draw into that and move on from there.”
Those textures, by the way, looked very much like this: http://www.dennishollingsworth.us/archives/images/Cirrus120606a.gif
As for the peizazhe, they are pretty standard (you might even say boring!) paintings, both oil and watercolor, that depict a nature scene. My favorite from Liubov Brizhatiuk’s collection depicted what appeared to be the Manhattan skyline as seen from Far Rockaway. To my surprise, that is not what she had in mind; in fact, she doesn’t know exactly what those buildings were in the background, just that they were what she saw. And anyway, is the skyline even visible from there? Who knows.
Leave a Comment