These powerhouses of early abstract and non-objective art reflect what is now a long history in art; the decision to allow the immediate visual reaction, with all its emotional and psychological triggers to be both the primary revelation and the sustained influence in their art.
This is not new. Even with the predominant Humanist influence in Renaissance art, with its presiding obsession to imitate, as precisely as possible, the likeness of man, we find Michelangelo whose Sistine Chapel jolting us with its incredible colour, revealed after recent restoration. Some didn't want to believe that the brilliant sensory experience was even his intention.
But we have to remember that for the artist, life is visual;
always has been always will be. Even those concerned with other issues,
be they social, political, personal, reflect their realities visually.
Which brings us to Scott Plear's uncertain journey. Like the Post Moderns, Plear has a long history of references and memory to call upon. But unlike them, he does not allow words and likenesses in to do his work. When one wants a horse, for whatever literal or psychological reason, he can always focus on the horse. "There he is", the artists might say, "I have him, he looks good, I'm on the right track". Seeing the technical success of his horse might blind him to other problems in the work. The horse might be great, but in an artwork, it isn't everything.
With the primacy of visual experience comes the loss of visual landmarks like the horse. The artist rides into uncharted territory, never sure of where he is going, or if he will like it when he gets there. He returns to the most basic human instinct, act and react. But what differentiates this kind of artists from the primal is his recognition of the sublime, and his integrity in seeking it.
This is truly an uncertain journey; building a realm bit by bit, seeking always the ultimate, but never sure which road to take, and knowing, above all, that you can't fake it with likeness or finesse; it either is or it isn't.
The job of the viewer is above all one of trust.
Open your eyes, feel the experience; wrap yourself in it. Colour, shape
and texture trigger visually all that we know about the world. If
we allow, without prejudice, the experience to happen through unconscious
understanding, some of which we have had since infancy, then we will see
and feel far beyond out expectations.
Plear is at his best when something coarse enters the picture; perhaps a reflection of the never knowing, perhaps an aesthetic contract to the lushness which comes from an intimate dialogue with colour. Plear's painting entitled "Sun Dog" provided a fine example; an immediate gut reaction to nice and nasty, soft and hard, and all the contrasts that clarify the world and our feelings. Like most intense life experiences, words come later.
Part of the uncertain journey is that, when the work is done, it is no longer part of you. you see it, as do the audience, as a signpost, you feel it, leave it and continue on. You may remember it, refer to it, but it is never again in you in the same way. And on we go.
Further unsteadying this exploration is the fact that
Plear bucks the popular trends, which often relies on familiarity with
high tech, fast paced imagery. Who needs the heat of a wood stove
when we have the power? But as we all know, when the lights go out,
the steady insinuation of real fire warms us, and not only that, it inspires
us, calls us to the roots of experience, makes us feel.
Stephanie Kaduck
Artist and Art Educator
How would you personally define the term 'aesthetic,' and how does it apply to your work and your way of working?
There is nothing very aesthetic about the way I work. The way I paint is pretty messy. My approach to painting is not aimed at making 'pretty' looking pictures. A visual aesthetic is however what my pictures are about. I aim at creating a visual 'look' through the play of form with the painting materials.
What is a 'formalist'? Are you a 'formalist'? Why?
The term formal can be used to describe a work of art which appears stiff or rigid, like a pianist who while playing , gets all the notes right but fails to play with any expression. The term formalist can also be misused as a pejorative device to poorly describe an artist or viewer who feels that the ultimate value and quality of a work of art, looked at during any time in history, relies on its use of form for success, on how well it uses the visual elements of art; that is line, value, colour, texture, form. The issue of the painting's highest quality is not whether it is representational, abstract or non-objective, but how the elements of the painting are put together in the creative process. The artist who uses the visual art's elements successfully, captures out intellect and emotion. It is this infinite variety of combinations of the basic art elements which interests me. The use of form to create expression. In this way I use form as a formalist or perhaps better stated as a pro-former.
How does your work fit into the big picture or art-making in the 90's?
Since the seventies, large interest in non-objective painting has declined from the focus of the mainstream art world. The spotlight of the mainstream art world appears to be focused in a direction more suited to the conceptual, non-art or anti-art directions rather than the direction which focuses on form. One can only trust and wait for the climate to change. While the ideas of aesthetic may be out of fashion in the larger art world I do believe aesthetics has a vital role in any lasting art. It is the successful use of form which survives through time as a universal sensate human experience.
How do you see spirituality in your approach?
Ultimately I think that art must be able to make the
tangible speak of the intangible.
Robert Christie
Jonathon Forrest
Dave Humpheries
Kim Houghtaling
Stephanie Kaduck
Laurie Wagner