Week one.
Write, don’t draw. This is killing me already
My goal : “a thesis discussing my approach to solving the visual problem of interpreting history with paint.”
…Problem of interpreting history of paint. Interpreting history. How do I interpret history in paint.. brain hating words….
OK. So I think the medium of paint immediately takes on the topic of History. Painting is clearly anachronistic. Image development has quicker, cleaner, and more effective techniques. Painting is also fairly off topic with the majority of topics in the contemporary art making vernacular. In that way painting in this day and age immediately interprets History and is enslaved to that interpretation. Nothing said in paint needs to be said in paint unless needing to stay “all in the family” of historical art. So the problem is why paint? I am on the point of history. If discussing history, what do I want to dig up? What do I want my historical dig to uncover or gravitate towards?
The history of painting is a documentation of upper societies’ views on beauty and desire.
The only record of the poor’s painting is graffiti.
I grew up middle class, not exactly sure on which side of the spectrum, but certainly first world. Why is so much cooler to impersonate the poor?
Jake said painting can still do something that photographs and computers can’t, they can be shocking in their break from reality, while the newer mediums are more expected to.
^ in a bout of personal weakness. To make that work. I need large paintings. I need oil paint. I have shaky hands that the other mediums won’t forgive. I could try with watercolor. But watercolor comes out very family oriented in atmosphere and appearance sometimes. Maybe a large watercolor… LARGE WATERCOLORS.