Appendix 2: Examples of Writing for Research
The extracts below provide brief examples of the writing that has supported my research activity.
‹ Research
‹ Research
Journal Extract, Wk.14 (13-17/01/20): 'Sargy Mann'
This show was certainly worth travelling a distance to see, though not quite the rounded representation of Mann's career that I had fondly hoped for. In particular, the landscapes on display were definitely not his best examples. Though the depictions of place, indoors and outdoors, were on a good scale and each one ambitious in the angle of vision they hoped to represent (two marks of his best mature paintings), they were mostly muddied and copiously scribbled over in graphite, making them poor examples of Mann's characteristic use of a 'bright colour scheme' and his 'focus on light'. Still, the underlying structure of the image was of interest and it was this that I attempted to sketch.
The best single image of an outdoor space was 'Breakfast at Borgo Pace' (2005, below), which certainly didn't disappoint. Here, the colours were vibrant and heightened. Incorporating family members (as usual), this painting was probably the highlight of the show for me, though the late paintings of figures are difficult to beat if it's colour and bright light that you're after.
This large painting was completed when Mann still had some sight left, so preparatory sketches exist, and some were displayed. I'd encountered the photo montages, with added strong, black lines, in his excellent book, 'Sargy Mann: Probably the Best Blind Painter in Peckham'... but I hadn't seen the gouaches. (These)... show him working out a structure in patches of strong unnatural colour. This approach may be worth copying - as an alternative, or complement, to sketching in graphite - when I simplify the landscapes I view. Perhaps to define blocks, or sweeps, of colour to lay behind a lithographic sketch?
More...
‹ Research
This show was certainly worth travelling a distance to see, though not quite the rounded representation of Mann's career that I had fondly hoped for. In particular, the landscapes on display were definitely not his best examples. Though the depictions of place, indoors and outdoors, were on a good scale and each one ambitious in the angle of vision they hoped to represent (two marks of his best mature paintings), they were mostly muddied and copiously scribbled over in graphite, making them poor examples of Mann's characteristic use of a 'bright colour scheme' and his 'focus on light'. Still, the underlying structure of the image was of interest and it was this that I attempted to sketch.
The best single image of an outdoor space was 'Breakfast at Borgo Pace' (2005, below), which certainly didn't disappoint. Here, the colours were vibrant and heightened. Incorporating family members (as usual), this painting was probably the highlight of the show for me, though the late paintings of figures are difficult to beat if it's colour and bright light that you're after.
This large painting was completed when Mann still had some sight left, so preparatory sketches exist, and some were displayed. I'd encountered the photo montages, with added strong, black lines, in his excellent book, 'Sargy Mann: Probably the Best Blind Painter in Peckham'... but I hadn't seen the gouaches. (These)... show him working out a structure in patches of strong unnatural colour. This approach may be worth copying - as an alternative, or complement, to sketching in graphite - when I simplify the landscapes I view. Perhaps to define blocks, or sweeps, of colour to lay behind a lithographic sketch?
More...
‹ Research
Journal Extract, Wk.24 (23-27/03/20): 'Gerhard Richter and me'
I'm not interested to learn all about Richter, just his use of landscape imagery. For me to be painting pictures of places and not acknowledge what he has done would be short-sighted... ... I'll dive in with the detail of what sort of landscape is depicted. To help in this, I quote... Dietmar's essay, where he explains what's in Richter's paintings: '...Richter is painting so-called 'cultural landscapes'. His paintings... portray neither untouched territory nor fictive or even idealised 'world landscapes' (p.11). Of the choice of each specific view: '...only those photos... can be selected and painted which go beyond the specific moment and which avoid anecdote... free of figures and objects which would bind the motif too obviously to a particular place, time or event' (p.20). And further, Richter 'manipulates that reality [of our world] by his choice of motif and by all those things that are not shown by the choice of viewing point [etc.]...' (p.21).
Dietmar's characterisation of Richter's subject matter is both spot on and entirely in tune with what I'm up to. Like Richter, I do mean to show real places but I do not want to make portraits of recognisable scenes. If I show a notable place or episode ('anecdote') then the viewer is likely to go no further than the point of recognition: having reached it, it's tempting to suppose that the picture has been understood and stop. Confounding this possibility by depicting anonymous places invites further thought. It doesn't say what the landscapes are, but it does say what they're not. They're emphatically not souvenirs of landmarks, or simple decoration...
More...
‹ Research
I'm not interested to learn all about Richter, just his use of landscape imagery. For me to be painting pictures of places and not acknowledge what he has done would be short-sighted... ... I'll dive in with the detail of what sort of landscape is depicted. To help in this, I quote... Dietmar's essay, where he explains what's in Richter's paintings: '...Richter is painting so-called 'cultural landscapes'. His paintings... portray neither untouched territory nor fictive or even idealised 'world landscapes' (p.11). Of the choice of each specific view: '...only those photos... can be selected and painted which go beyond the specific moment and which avoid anecdote... free of figures and objects which would bind the motif too obviously to a particular place, time or event' (p.20). And further, Richter 'manipulates that reality [of our world] by his choice of motif and by all those things that are not shown by the choice of viewing point [etc.]...' (p.21).
Dietmar's characterisation of Richter's subject matter is both spot on and entirely in tune with what I'm up to. Like Richter, I do mean to show real places but I do not want to make portraits of recognisable scenes. If I show a notable place or episode ('anecdote') then the viewer is likely to go no further than the point of recognition: having reached it, it's tempting to suppose that the picture has been understood and stop. Confounding this possibility by depicting anonymous places invites further thought. It doesn't say what the landscapes are, but it does say what they're not. They're emphatically not souvenirs of landmarks, or simple decoration...
More...
‹ Research
Journal Extract, Wk.25+ (30/03-19/04/20): 'Geographical and other thoughts'
A distinction between 'landscape' and 'place' is important for some artists/writers (e.g. Tacita Dean, 2005). 'Place', for some, is the richer concept: '(it) is best applied to those fragments of human environments where meanings, activities, and a specific landscape are all implicated and enfolded in each other' (Wattchow, 2013: 90). Trying to honour this understanding goes some way towards explaining why installations and performances might be thought to capture the experiences of being in a place better than a picture of a view could: 'We engage with places through the medium of our bodies. We become a part of a place by giving up the outsider's high vantage point so that we can participate with the 'more-than-human-world.' Now, together, people and landscape become the phenomena that is a place' (ibid. 90). Which sounds great. But if it means I'm presented with the unedifying spectacle of Vickery gagging on soil and stream water I'm less convinced. As I say, it's a pity she stopped painting.
More...
‹ Research
A distinction between 'landscape' and 'place' is important for some artists/writers (e.g. Tacita Dean, 2005). 'Place', for some, is the richer concept: '(it) is best applied to those fragments of human environments where meanings, activities, and a specific landscape are all implicated and enfolded in each other' (Wattchow, 2013: 90). Trying to honour this understanding goes some way towards explaining why installations and performances might be thought to capture the experiences of being in a place better than a picture of a view could: 'We engage with places through the medium of our bodies. We become a part of a place by giving up the outsider's high vantage point so that we can participate with the 'more-than-human-world.' Now, together, people and landscape become the phenomena that is a place' (ibid. 90). Which sounds great. But if it means I'm presented with the unedifying spectacle of Vickery gagging on soil and stream water I'm less convinced. As I say, it's a pity she stopped painting.
More...
‹ Research