www.absolutearts.com art news service, June 04, 2004
Post Contemporary Painting: A Large-scale Group Exhibition
Challenges the Relevance, Importance and Function of the Process of Painting
within Contemporary Art Practice
Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane, Brisbane, AU
Post Contemporary Painting (PCP), a large-scale group exhibition of local, interstate and international artists, opens at the IMA on Thursday 3rd June at 6pm (continues until July 3). David M. Thomas, Shane Haseman, Tony Schwensen, Bibo, Robert Pulie, Paul Wrigley, Camilla Cassidy, Catherine Brown, Guy Benfield, Paul Bai, Robert Pulie, Jason Markou and Dienna Georgetti challenge the relevance, importance and function of the process of painting within contemporary art practice. This survey of artists whose work addresses the notion and practice of painting, transcends the conventional 'painted surface' adopting a conceptual and multi-disciplined approach. Whilst the exhibition includes several paintings, 'painting' is intended as a 'starting point' or historical reference. As participating artist Camilla Cassidy reminds us 'Since the role of documentation and representation has been overtaken by photography, we have yet to clearly define what exactly painting's role is now!
The obvious answer is to paint whatever the camera cannot "see." By making such, you're way of seeing and thinking is also expressed with your tactile sense with paints. So is not Painting the historical paradigm as the means of expression of self or concerns what the camera cannot find. But that in itself does not warrant The painting's role for there are now other materials as alternatives to manifest one's aesthetic explorations. For example, the computer (and its global instant audience base).
" Working in the media when it was still called "computer graphics," I made fine art, reassured in aesthetic authenticity by my Ph.D. in "art psychology." Only now, have I thought out "my role" (at least to this juncture of my art quest life) in the sphere of formalized "real art." I am not a "graphic artist" or "painter" anymore, I am a "painting designer." So my role is to harness the computer's digital powers to conjure up unique visionaries, the works of art, blended from the ingredients of space, time, form, surface, light, place, and self.
The cream of my images are then processed, by hand, under close supervision and critique, into oil on canvases. Copying from the original digital image, by hand, with a tiny pointed brush, is visually faithful. However characteristic material expression by a machine (the "digital" generic look of the medium) will undoubtedly be diluted by replication via a brush dipped in oil. So a certain added ingredient of a painter's touch and skill level of making the transition between media successful.
Now who made (take credit) this now existing original oil painting? Me? The
Box? The copyist?
Another philosophical notion that can get one to ponder is - "Which is the 'original,' the digital image or the final oil painting?
What if the digital file is destroyed?