Showing posts with label abstract art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abstract art. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2020
Monday, April 9, 2018
Marjorie Allen at Errant ArtSpace
Abstract
Artist Marjorie Allen showcases work from her series:
Apollo and Dionysus
April 6th to 15th 2018.
Curated by Bill Porteous.
Apollo and Dionysus
April 6th to 15th 2018.
Curated by Bill Porteous.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Monday, June 8, 2015
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Edmir Fernandes – October 2014 – Artist of the Month
Welcome into the art of Edmir Fernandes (EFernandes), a Brazilian born painter, who has been fascinated by the abstract form and movement of colours from his days: as a child, playing with his brightly painted toys or as a scientist, using the colorimetric to determine concentrations by colour intensity; or as a mature artist meticulously painting and arranging pistachio shells in patterns that reveal unspeakable beauty. Wherever he goes and whatever Edmir experiences, he extracts into sensations and patterns of light. In Shiny Happy People Edmir assembled 1,800 individually coloured pistachio shells in a 4'x8' diptych, representing the diversity of people and the colours of skin in search of their ‘planets’. (*)
Painting connects Edmir to the world of colours allowing him to express his loose painting style freely. He works on oils and acrylics, both canvases and wood panels. The work is rich in colours, textures, with hues emanating from multiple layers of paint. He concentrates on getting into a state of “readiness”, creating and conceptualizing the colours and brushstrokes needed to execute his work by setting up the desired variety of materials, which occurs within a state of mind, during which time the artist is oblivious of what is being created. Edmir’s passion is to create paintings for the enjoyment of others and himself.
He says: "I play with contrasts and colours and invite the viewer to feel the painting as a whole, and enter my World of Colours."
Why EFernandes uses Pistachio Shells?
It is because he likes working with their hollow and rounded shapes and their interesting differences. Every little shell is different, but among the diversity, there is one which is similar; like the original principle of twin shells. Other shells can be diversity or unity, discrepancy or harmony, depending on the colours, lines, movements. Every shell piece purposely arranged has its own meaning; which is led by the viewer’s eyes. The delicateness of the shells may be enhanced when they are painted in a diverse range of colours, contrasting light and dark, soothing your soul, enhancing your senses and your imagination. When Edmir chooses bright colours, this is the expression of his cheerful, lively, and radiant personality and the way he prefers to connect to people and to thank Mother Nature for its unspeakable beauty.
| Edmir has a home-based studio under the name EFERNANDES, which is also the signature of his paintings. His paintings are in many private and public collections, to mention Singapore, France, Philippines, Canada, Chile, USA and Brazil. You are welcome to visit his comprehensive website full of interesting information at www.efernandes.ca as well as at www.gagegallery.ca By Craig Spence, Writer (*) |
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Monday, September 15, 2014
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Elizabeth Litton – May 2014 – Artist of the Month
Most artist will know this. Writing an artist statement is really difficult- nigh on impossible. My ideas and mission are constantly evolving ( changing anyway) Dear Efren ( what would art in Victoria do without him?) has graciously offered to let me be the artist of the month. Thanks so much! This has come at exactly the most wonderful moment because I have had my head down for months in preparation for summer. I have been making thousands of Love Bugs to unleash on the world in a guerrilla art wave. For this I need help. Please go to my Face Book page for instructions .
https://m.facebook.com/ElizabethLittonArtist?_rdr
www.elizabethlitton.com
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Blu Smith at The Avenue Gallery
 |
| Fragmented - 42x42 - Mixed Media |
Dynamic Abstracts
Jan. 3 to 15, 2014
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Difference and Repetition Art Exhibit reviewed by Jessica Ziakin
The curatorial concept of Difference and Repetition, in which a broad array of artists were invited to create a new work in response to a unifying source image (Gerhard Richter’s Abstract painting (1985) 587-5), is an effective and exciting way to generate a sampling of works and personalities. It throws into relief the usual process of curating, which involves studio visits and cherry picking of works that support some curatorial premise. I have never thought this process disingenuous, but Quiroz’s approach raises the question: is there a categorical disconnect between the implicit expectations of the viewing public and a curator’s agenda? That is, might it be true that while the public expects a documentary or taxonomic sampling of work, curators are preoccupied with constructing a narrative or supporting a thesis? Put more provocatively, one might ask, “is a carefully curated show not a misrepresentation of some sort?“ Granted, ‘the public’ is an impossibly broad term, and does not distinguish between the Sunday tourists that visit museums and galleries as curiosities of conspicuous consumption and supposed personal edification, and those that attend small local openings to which they are connected though their participation and specific interest in the arts. Suffice it to say that in my opening, rather abstract questions I am imagining the former, while I believe Difference and Repetition, along with most if not all of the shows at VISA’s Slide Room Gallery are attended by the latter.
In the show, over thirty paintings circle the room and are ordered by a loose logic of degrees of visual resemblance to the Richter. The main wall of the gallery features works that visually resemble the source image. The opposing walls are hung with those works that exhibit the most divergence. While some artists take a fairly direct route using Richter’s colour and composition as a starting point for their own processes, others appear to have disregarded the instructions entirely, eschewing even the 30”x30” format. Some take an oblique approach: there are two portraits of Richter, rendered in their artist’s signature styles, and three photo-collages, alluding to Richter’s decades-long practice of collecting and painting from photos.
Those that follow the source fit together like experimental results in which only one variable is manipulated. Together, they offer a satisfying sampling of local artists’ styles and approaches. Their similar palettes and compositions, rather than being monotonous, highlight distinguishing features of paint handling and materials. For those of us who love systems and order, the works that flout the conventions established by the source are irritants. They break the controls of the exercise, are easily dismissed as outliers, and fall into the cliché of the rebel artist. One wonders if these artists did not trust their presence would be robust enough to withstand a modicum of conformity. This may be an unfair assessment, however, as many of the works that stick close to the source took an equally safe albeit opposite route in their literal approach to Quiroz’s challenge, and may represent practices that are more amenable to the project in the first place. Between the two extremes, the question emerges: What is the more interesting response? Or, even, which response is less interesting?
An anonymous comment in the gallery’s guest book rankles at the show’s “naïvely curated…uninteresting results,” stating that “In most cases the ‘difference’ is merely that of the different artists, who repeat their own work without having engaged in a transformative way with the Richter piece.” While I disagree with the whole-hearted negative review, the commenter articulates the key to those works that are the most successful: they engage with the source. They treat the source as more than just scaffolding for their usual tricks, and refrain from dodging the assignment though clever but transparent stubbornness.
Victoria Edgarr’s work Repeat after Me illustrates the situation well. A grey grid divided into four quadrants is filled with a childish, scratchy scrawl, each box reading, “John Paul likes me,” “Susan G likes me,” “Lynn B likes me” and so on. Each quadrant also contains a small print relating to the Richter: colour studies in red and blue, a black and white sketch, and a repeating motif of it’s underlying structure.
An empty grid distinguishes the first quadrant, in which we find a small reproduction of the source image. The repeated affirmations that provide the dominant motif of the work are absent. The psychological impact of the blank space resembles fear. The project carries with it an unutterable risk, and the mantra catches in the throat. The artist’s security and sense of self is threatened. The artist, like our eye, retreats to the more familiar areas of work. In the other quadrants, we see Edgarr experimenting with how to access Richter’s work. It is dealt with in manageable and presumably familiar ways, reinforced by an incessant affirming mantra.
In the second quadrant, the one containing the color studies, the writing is small and constricted. The artist’s self-esteem is contracted as she wades into the fray via the most obvious route: color. The writing expands and becomes more exuberant as the project proceeds through the other quadrants and the artist finds her voice again and is able to engage the Richter on subtler terms, moving from appropriation to integration. In this way the empty spaces of the first quadrant might be understood as the mind blinking blankly as she accepts a project that invites her to start work in an entirely new way, or stunned silent by the oddity of the commission, and prestige of the source material. Edgarr’s work is an example of what I feel are the most successful responses to Quiroz’s call: works that are somewhere between the visually similar and irritatingly rebellious. These works display an earnest struggle to create room for the source material and the artists’ own voice and process.
To return to the matter of the curatorial concept behind the show: Does a curator have a responsibility to represent a given art scene or trend in a non-biased way? I believe it is at least interesting to attempt to do so, and in Quiroz’s case, is consistent with his faithful and undiscriminating relationship to Victoria’s visual arts scene. His efforts to document, and in doing so, advocate for the visual arts in Victoria betray an implicit hope, shared, I think, by VISA, that more might be drawn from the curious public into the engaged art community. The reason I like this approach to curating is that it presents to the public (first definition) a straightforward, unpretentious and not-too-polysyllabic sampling of what’s going on the visual arts. I also think it challenges the participating community to hone their opinions regarding what is interesting and what is not, and provides ample material for comparison and, if one is inclined, competition. Indeed, the show in its execution and results resembles an art-school assignment, at the end of which students display their work for comparison and evaluation. What is often obvious but rarely discussed in the classroom is who was listening, who didn’t take the assignment seriously, and who’s work demonstrates the robust courage and capacity to benefit from the exercise.
In the show, over thirty paintings circle the room and are ordered by a loose logic of degrees of visual resemblance to the Richter. The main wall of the gallery features works that visually resemble the source image. The opposing walls are hung with those works that exhibit the most divergence. While some artists take a fairly direct route using Richter’s colour and composition as a starting point for their own processes, others appear to have disregarded the instructions entirely, eschewing even the 30”x30” format. Some take an oblique approach: there are two portraits of Richter, rendered in their artist’s signature styles, and three photo-collages, alluding to Richter’s decades-long practice of collecting and painting from photos.
Those that follow the source fit together like experimental results in which only one variable is manipulated. Together, they offer a satisfying sampling of local artists’ styles and approaches. Their similar palettes and compositions, rather than being monotonous, highlight distinguishing features of paint handling and materials. For those of us who love systems and order, the works that flout the conventions established by the source are irritants. They break the controls of the exercise, are easily dismissed as outliers, and fall into the cliché of the rebel artist. One wonders if these artists did not trust their presence would be robust enough to withstand a modicum of conformity. This may be an unfair assessment, however, as many of the works that stick close to the source took an equally safe albeit opposite route in their literal approach to Quiroz’s challenge, and may represent practices that are more amenable to the project in the first place. Between the two extremes, the question emerges: What is the more interesting response? Or, even, which response is less interesting?
An anonymous comment in the gallery’s guest book rankles at the show’s “naïvely curated…uninteresting results,” stating that “In most cases the ‘difference’ is merely that of the different artists, who repeat their own work without having engaged in a transformative way with the Richter piece.” While I disagree with the whole-hearted negative review, the commenter articulates the key to those works that are the most successful: they engage with the source. They treat the source as more than just scaffolding for their usual tricks, and refrain from dodging the assignment though clever but transparent stubbornness.
Victoria Edgarr’s work Repeat after Me illustrates the situation well. A grey grid divided into four quadrants is filled with a childish, scratchy scrawl, each box reading, “John Paul likes me,” “Susan G likes me,” “Lynn B likes me” and so on. Each quadrant also contains a small print relating to the Richter: colour studies in red and blue, a black and white sketch, and a repeating motif of it’s underlying structure.
An empty grid distinguishes the first quadrant, in which we find a small reproduction of the source image. The repeated affirmations that provide the dominant motif of the work are absent. The psychological impact of the blank space resembles fear. The project carries with it an unutterable risk, and the mantra catches in the throat. The artist’s security and sense of self is threatened. The artist, like our eye, retreats to the more familiar areas of work. In the other quadrants, we see Edgarr experimenting with how to access Richter’s work. It is dealt with in manageable and presumably familiar ways, reinforced by an incessant affirming mantra.
In the second quadrant, the one containing the color studies, the writing is small and constricted. The artist’s self-esteem is contracted as she wades into the fray via the most obvious route: color. The writing expands and becomes more exuberant as the project proceeds through the other quadrants and the artist finds her voice again and is able to engage the Richter on subtler terms, moving from appropriation to integration. In this way the empty spaces of the first quadrant might be understood as the mind blinking blankly as she accepts a project that invites her to start work in an entirely new way, or stunned silent by the oddity of the commission, and prestige of the source material. Edgarr’s work is an example of what I feel are the most successful responses to Quiroz’s call: works that are somewhere between the visually similar and irritatingly rebellious. These works display an earnest struggle to create room for the source material and the artists’ own voice and process.
To return to the matter of the curatorial concept behind the show: Does a curator have a responsibility to represent a given art scene or trend in a non-biased way? I believe it is at least interesting to attempt to do so, and in Quiroz’s case, is consistent with his faithful and undiscriminating relationship to Victoria’s visual arts scene. His efforts to document, and in doing so, advocate for the visual arts in Victoria betray an implicit hope, shared, I think, by VISA, that more might be drawn from the curious public into the engaged art community. The reason I like this approach to curating is that it presents to the public (first definition) a straightforward, unpretentious and not-too-polysyllabic sampling of what’s going on the visual arts. I also think it challenges the participating community to hone their opinions regarding what is interesting and what is not, and provides ample material for comparison and, if one is inclined, competition. Indeed, the show in its execution and results resembles an art-school assignment, at the end of which students display their work for comparison and evaluation. What is often obvious but rarely discussed in the classroom is who was listening, who didn’t take the assignment seriously, and who’s work demonstrates the robust courage and capacity to benefit from the exercise.
 |
| Victoria Edgarr |
Difference and Repetition Art Exhibit
Nov. 1 to Dec. 2, 2013
The Slice Room Gallery
2456 Quadra St.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, October 28, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)