ZAPstract - art that zaps!

Category Archives for: Art Concepts

Making Paper out of Paint

05 September 2021 by Rey Armenteros

The “paper” is that middle strip with the figures

 

I wanted to get into a paper show. I hadn’t worked on paper in a few years. I called the exhibition space and asked how flexible their definition of paper was. They said, well, what kind of work do you do? I told them I draw and paint on paper I make at home, and then stick that onto a plastic panel. They said that satisfies the definition for works on paper.

I was actually stretching the truth. The “paper” I work on is actually acrylic skin. I make this paper with acrylic grounds and mediums, like modeling paste, gesso, and fluid medium. I apply layers of these substances on silicone sheets. When I’m done with a paint skin, I easily peel it off and adhere it to my painted panel. The work I was going to submit to this show titled, Works on Paper, had no real paper in it. And yet, I wasn’t worried. It wasn’t like they were going to inspect it and then disqualify me.

Ever since this show, I have been looking at my process as a paper-making process. It makes sense. The concept alone propels me into making the many layers of paint to properly make my paper.

It takes over a week to make a small batch of this synthetic paper. I don’t just make these things on silicone sheets; I make them on polyethylene kitchen cutting boards with various textures, and this makes my painting surfaces have the textures of woven papers and laid papers, giving my make-believe paper a world of variability.

The only problem with it is that it is too demanding. It is the same old work, with little variation, year after year. The process of placing spread after spread of paste or gesso is the type of work I don’t find pleasant. It requires no thought but it does require concentration. And this is a bad combination for you if you need some manner of mental interaction in which to sink your teeth into.

When I am painting, I am completely engaged, working with a concept and executing the steps to get me satisfactory results, making on the spot decisions and changing plans, making the whole drawing and painting process into an elaborate game. The comparison with making plastic paper is accurate. This is the one aspect of my art process that reminds me of the hopelessness brought to life in Albert Camus’ work.

In his novel, The Plague, Camus delivered the same inexorable doom chapter after chapter— you knew exactly where you were going three hundred pages later, and in making skins, you know where you are heading a week and a half later, after hours of work and concentration. Camus’s novel is striking, but I still wonder to this day to what degree I like this one work. It is thoroughly depressing, it puts your life into perspective, it puts on display the most extreme bodily function: that of survival against the inevitable. The characters have nothing to engage with because they are stuck in this city wherein the plague is getting worse, and they can do nothing about the quarantine or their condition. All they can do is wait.

In Japan, I met an old man — he wasn’t exactly an old man; he looked older than he was because of the infirmities that he had to suffer. He had complete white hair. His voice was feeble, and his demeanor whispered the burdens of a convalescing gentleman. But his face was still smooth. We were teaching at this worn out middle school, where the students were in control and the teachers were the last vestige of order and reason against the coming apocalypse.

I was a sort of teacher’s assistant whose only real use in the program was that I was the only one who could speak English in a native accent for the students to try to emulate. The convalescing gentleman was no longer a regular teacher, teaching only some of the time, only when his condition allowed it. He was very surprised by the state of the school.

He would turn suddenly to watch two eighth-graders fighting in the main office, knocking over chairs and slamming into faculty desks, and he’d comment about how bad these students were getting. None of the regular teachers were breaking up the fight — no, a few were actually getting out of the way. That was what it was like in that school, where the teachers were afraid of the students. It took two tall, male teachers a full minute to decide to break up the fight because it was getting serious. They got up and did just that, and my colleague was appalled, and I would have been too if I hadn’t already known the school for what it was. It was that kind of school, the kind I was intimately familiar with growing up in the States, but not the type you would ever associate with Japan.

Student behavior and the teacher reactions to the students were predictable. There was nothing shocking about it once you understood the rules. After a while, we both accepted it.

We would talk about things. We both had ideas we absorbed from books. This recovering teacher was a reader like I was. He confessed that no other book had ever affected him as did The Stranger by Camus. He told me it made him think about things as a young man, and he was never able to reconcile the ideas Camus was presenting with the course of his life. Camus laid out a reality that he did not want to accept but that he could not ignore.

When I read that book a few years later, I thought of my Japanese colleague. It was a story with a simple premise. The notion that someone would gun a stranger down for no other reason than a fickle momentary response was too surreal to take seriously. The inevitability at every stage thereafter was as dependable as water eventually boiling under heat. No surprise ending.

It left me wanting more. I never read it again, but I would recall moments at the beach before the shooting and moments in the jail, and the plain tone that depicted these unlikely and yet unavoidable circumstances digging into a finality and a simplicity that was total.

The rolling of a stone. This is the making of fake paper in an art career. Two plus two equals four. If you say that enough times, you will find just how fascinating this equation actually is. But once your kids understand that there is a connection between this and two times two, and then two to the second power, their minds will begin to find patterns. Patterns can be interesting. They can lead to concepts. Patterns and concepts and many other observations and ideas creep up when I work on images, but they never do when I am making my plastic paper.

In Camus’s version of Sisyphus, Sisyphus rolls the stone up the side of the mountain only to have it roll back down to the bottom. He does this over and over, for eternity. The rolling of the stone exudes the meaninglessness of our actions. It makes me think about what it is I do, and I don’t like to think about that stone.

And this is where my hell is going to be located, with making paper for no good reason. I am going back to an episode of a TV program titled Night Gallery. It was Rod Serling’s short-lived resurgence of Twilight Zone ideas. A hippie ends up in hell, and he’s in a waiting room asking when he was going to be taken in already. The other people waiting alongside him are all manner of annoying people talking to him about every nonsense. Finally, he can’t take it anymore, and he goes to the receptionist window once more and demands to be taken into hell already, and they inform him that the waiting room is his own personal hell, since this was the sort of situation he had always hated when he was alive. Of course, he screams as the other waiting room people harass him, and I can feel his pain because my hell was the one of over and over rolling a meaningless stone, making a dozen sheets of blank, plastic paper, concentrating on this in order to get to the real endeavor, waiting for the day when…

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, Essay, ReyA' | Tags: , ,

A Little Respect for a Thirty Thousand-Year Old Tradition

22 November 2020 by Rey Armenteros

As an artist who uses paint to make his objects, I take a measure of color and mix it with another measure of color. I try to get it just right, but I often overcompensate so that I have enough. I then choose the right brush for the job. It depends on the size of the area I am covering and the shape of it and the effect I am trying to get.

When I apply paint, there is a three-dimensional aspect that might not be taken into account unless you’ve done this before. The paint goes on a surface that has some form of surface characteristic. It could be a texture, or it could be something more subtle than that. As you apply more paint, you are adding onto this surface. Even with a medium like acrylic paint, which is supposed to dry flat, you get a buildup of layers that add to the surface tension. The next application of paint will be affected by what lies underneath.

The changes of surface can grant different possibilities. If I work a wash of color on a granulated surface, it would spread through the crevices and create a soft cloud of veiny transparency. If I applied pasty opaque colors on the same surface, the colors would skip over the tops of the granulation giving me broken colors. If I scrub the same paint on that surface, it would give a hazy, dirty effect. If I dabbed three different colors from my palette and let them work wet-into-wet onto that surface, it would be and yet another effect that I cannot quite predict right now because it would depend on the proportions of color and the amounts of paint and how diluted they are, among other factors. And that underlying surface would affect my efforts in one of many, many ways that I’m not sure can even be categorized.

Once the painting is done, we have something else that the surface of the painting does. These are the possibilities of the painting for the viewer and not necessarily the artist. The painting catches the light a certain way because of the surface. The viewer detects that surface with every shift of their feet or slightest turn of the head. Light shimmers and plays off the surface making it alive. This painting has a tactility on display that is in every way a part of the painting and that can not be recreated in any reproduction of it, whether in high-quality photographs or video recordings of it. In fact, it is an object that may be mostly flat, but it has a third dimension of depth that is there, even if small and subtle, and this depth creates the agency of life in this otherwise inanimate thing.

Furthermore, the direction of the paint strokes might move along the form of the figures in the painting. They might help to intimate corporeality in the depiction of humans, flowers, buildings, or mountains. In a nonrepresentational painting, globs of paint concoct their own delight. Swirls of glossy paint can look exquisitely delicious for no other reason than to celebrate the combination of colors that may only hint at something else like an old reminiscence, not just through the color palette chosen, but through its transparency and thickness.

Layers of transparent colors create optical effects that can be seen in no other way, as the old masters have shown in countless paintings. A cloth painted in purples and whites and yellows all mixed together would not be the same as the same cloth made with strokes of the same colors in translucent layers. The former is alla prima painting, and the latter is working in glazes. You have the option of one or the other, as well as many other methods. Your alla prima painting can be an impasto work that juts out of the surface in puffs of color like on a birthday cake, or it could be textureless.

I think these are valuable properties in a work of art. It has weight. It takes up space. It possesses the physical properties of an actual object. I can make things happen with these properties. I can appreciate them as a viewer when face-to-face with a painting on the wall. I can hold it and turn it around if I wanted to.

When I think about the limitless physical qualities of a painting, I wonder what about it can be said to be an analog? What does that even mean? Analog? What is the painting analogous to? Since making art is the oldest thing we humans have evidence of doing (as shown in works of art that are far older than anything else that survived antediluvian civilizations), I come to the conclusion that making a painting like this cannot be an analog to anything humankind has any memory to. So why do some people call it analog painting? Yes, there are people out there that call actual painting, analog painting. Where did this inappropriate term come from?

If you are familiar with the term, then you might have a guess about its origins. I have a theory. The software industry responsible for the imaging systems on computers had to come up with new terminology, based on clarifying the products they were releasing. They were touting the line of digital imaging, and under that broad umbrella, there was something they were developing they called “digital painting.” It was basically forming computer “tools” that attempted to emulate the experience of making a painting but solely on a device’s screen. How do you distinguish this from the other kind of painting? You couldn’t call the medium of pushing paint around on a canvas as “real” painting because it made your product sound flimsy by comparison. You couldn’t even call it “physical” painting, because even though it sounded a little more neutral, it still implied the same thing.

As an industry, you want this new term to fulfill two things at once. You want to distinguish that other product from your own product, and you want to put down the older technology because you feel your product is superior to the old-fashioned materials. You reach back in the recent eras of technology to fish around for some word that could sideways label the old stuff and at the same time deliver it a backhanded slap. Other digital industries were already using the old word “analog” to rest its case about what was so inferior about anything that was not digital. What better word?

So, why am I insulted? It is ironic, because if you are not in the business of making art, you probably never heard of analog painting. It is the working professionals themselves — the ones who should know better — that have adopted the term. I doubt most of the public is even aware of digital painting or of that ugly term for real painting.

I have nothing against digital imaging in general. It can produce some innovative images, and on occasion, I get inspired by someone coloring a comic book with a strange palette I had never seen before or by a graphic designer who juxtaposed elements from various images on a poster or website page. There are fine artists that do marvelous things with computer imaging, and my defense is not leveled against any of these areas.

Digital painting, on the other hand, is a branch of digital imaging that doesn’t always bring about the most interesting results. This is when a digital imagist strives to push around pixels in a manner that seems similar to the way that paint is moved. Through an indirect device, “digital painters” try to rehash painting techniques established by physical materials that have always had direct access to these techniques.

This new type of pixel manipulation has a plethora of brush possibilities that can create all manner of effects with whatever color you choose, and you can manipulate them afterward. You can even invent your own brushes and tools in the program. Digital watercolor has wet-into-wet. The strokes of digital pastels admit textural patterns analogous to actual pastels. And so on. But is it the same?

I have always found it a little strange that this growing new technology aspires to emulate a technology that is at least thirty thousand years old — and not doing it too well as I write this. It may one day actually fool everybody, but even if that ever happens, it cannot emulate the physical properties of a painting on a glaring screen. You can’t get those properties when you print it out either. In essence, you are making a painting that does not really exist except as a bunch of colors that come on a device when you summon it with a few clicks. As technologies make their shifts over the coming decades and inevitably supplant older ways of viewing image files, I would be a little concerned if my career were mostly based on work that takes up no space in this world.

If you are a commercial artist that wants to make a painting-like illustration for a client, then I can see the great advantages of “digital painting” over anything that came before it. It is convenient and fast. If something needs alteration, it can be done without tearing down anything from before. Everything is saved, and if you ever have to go to a previous step that might have been buried under some color, then you can. This flexibility is invaluable to someone who is working on the clock, where time is money.

I guess these thoughts are really for those that are aware of digital painting and the other term and have not really thought about why they even use the other term. You can call the work of illustrators digital painting if you want. In my view, you don’t have a painting if you are not in fact using paint, but I can understand the convenience of this term and will not roll my eyes the next time I hear it. But please, please do not call what I do analog painting. There is nothing analogous about it, the term does not mean what it describes, and you are going to risk insulting me and every painter that is practicing today, along with every painter that came before all of us.

Leave a comment | Categories: Argument, Art Concepts, Art Process, Essay, ReyA' | Tags: , , ,

A Trial of Random Sequences

21 August 2020 by Rey Armenteros

I was thinking about this because I was reading Alan Moore’s Voice of the Fire. Neil Gaiman wrote in the introduction that Moore quoted someone else when he said that you can start anywhere in a circle. His novel was supposed to be seen as a circular path, I suppose where you could take the end and connect it to the beginning and make a ring out of the line of the story. Gaiman even suggested starting the book wherever you like and then wrapping back to the beginning to finish whatever you had left out.

I was momentarily fascinated by this idea, and it brought to mind sequences of numbers. When I cast for a sequence of numbers, I think about what is random. I have used the 312 pattern before, believing it to be random, and reading Moore’s novel as prescribed by Gaiman would be similar with 231 — starting the novel in the middle and then going back to the beginning. The difference with my 312 is that you’re staring the novel toward the end rather than the middle.

I have to distinguish the meaning of random. It does not mean for me the casting of dice or something similar to get any number that was not provided by voluntary choice. It means the implication that a set of numbers is random because they lack a pattern. In essence, it is an artifice.

So, I realized that you really can’t get a random distribution with just a sequence of three numbers, because they can still imply associations.

A sequence needs at least two numbers. Two numbers can only give you 12 or 21, which implies forward or backward, and there’s nothing random about that. Three numbers gives you 123 and 321, which have the same problem as 12 and 21. As I mentioned, 312 and 231 also create a logic, with you starting somewhere in the middle and then finishing off the earlier parts. That leaves 213 and 132, and the problem I have with them is that one of the numbers remains in its own spot; 3 is in its proper spot in 213, and 1 is in its spot in 132.

Maybe four numbers are needed then. 1234 and 4321 are out for the reasons already established. 2341, 3412, and 4123 are also out because they give us a sequence that begin from somewhere in the middle and move toward the end and then wrap around to finish the rest. Of what’s left over, anything that starts with 1 (such as, 1342, 1423, 1432, 1324, 1243, 1342), have the problem of having at least one number falling in its proper place, and we can also preclude the ones that do it for 2, 3, and 4 (4231, 4132, 2431, 2134, 2314, 3124, 3214, 3241). That leaves a few possibilities that do not have these patterns. But when I look at 4213 and 2413, the implication shows that even numbers are grouped at the start, and with 3142, the odd numbers are at the start. 4312 has the odd numbers in the middle, framed by even numbers, and 3421 has the opposite results. That leaves 2143, and I have to say, if I can see one flaw in this combination of these numbers, it is that the evens are in the odd places, and the odds are in the evens. So, I feel it is impossible to display a random line of numbers without any implied meaning unless I make the sequence larger.

I think five numbers might do it. We already know some of the problems against a random implication, so I won’t bother listing dozens of numbers. I will fish for a number and see if there is anything wrong with it. 34251 might be the answer, and there might be more than one answer to this when using five numbers. It has none of the issues that we have described, but I have a feeling that if we stare at it long enough, a problem will arise, because patterns present themselves when new facets occur to us. After looking for a minute, I actually recognize something that does not bother me as much as the above qualities, and yet it makes me wonder if there isn’t something better. The pattern I found is that you start in the middle and continue a line going backward and forward to the next available number until you run out of numbers. From 3 (the middle), you go back to 4 and then forward to 2, and then back to 5 and then forward to 1. There has to be a better possibility.

25413 feels like it can cover the problem. It looks random, and I cannot demystify it into a pattern with my normal modes of interest. I haven’t looked deeply into the possibilities with a five-number sequence and feel there might be a couple of others.

This makes me think that what interest an artist has with numbers has nothing to do with all possibilities, as it might in math. It has to do with the right number for the right job. It has to be an exact number fulfillment or the work falls apart.

It also makes me think about how the appearance of a random number is anything but random. If it were truly, random, any number would do. You would just blindly pick one from a lineup of available numbers. To an artist, random is the absence of pattern that would intimate some form of meaning. When an artist is talking random, they are talking about the implication of random and not the actual phenomenon.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, Essay, ReyA', Writing Process | Tags: , , ,

Through Concentrated Breath (the essay)

10 July 2020 by Rey Armenteros

Meditation-type drawings like those I did in Korea can be used like training in order to later work with images in the mind. I would sit in front of a blank sheet of paper. When I loaded my brush with ink, I would pull in a deep breath and close my eyes. Keeping my eyes closed, I would exhale slowly and completely. I was taking away all thought from my mind as the air exited my mouth. Once it was all gone, I was ready for the cycle.

The cycle encompassed three identical breaths. With my eyes still closed, I would inhale for about twelve seconds, hold my breath for twelve again, and let it out for another count of twelve. This was done two more times. On the third time, I would make the drawing. Each time I inhaled, I tried to summon an image in my head. When I held my breath, I would outline for those twelve counts just how I was going to go about doing the image with that particular brush that was loaded with just so much ink, and what would go first and second and so on. On the third breath, as I released, I would either blank my mind and start all over again, or if it were the third exhalation, I would make my marks on the paper. During the duration of that last exhalation, the whole thing would be finished, nothing more than a handful of strokes that to others would signify nothing.

I invented this type of drawing exercise based on what I knew about sumi painters, how they would spend long moments “becoming” what they were about to draw before putting brush to paper and executing the drawing within seconds.

Without this mode of drawing I did in Korea, I don’t think that I would have been able to deal with my current artistic work. The Cycle can serve as the base form of working with shadows behind eyelids that can strengthen your vision of mental pictures and how to deal with them in drawing or painting. Maybe this is what we mean when we say we are drawing from our imagination. With my eyes closed, the eyelids provided their own shadows not inherent to images in the mind. But they came together in the end.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, Essay, ReyA' | Tags: , ,

The Display Dilemma of Flat Toys

15 March 2020 by Rey Armenteros

When I show my art in person, I run into an obstacle I didn’t even know was there. The other day, I got together with some friends for dinner. This group had not seen my work in a long time, and since they were curious, I brought a few small paintings. They were intrigued by the double-sided nature of the work and immediately went into the problem posed by such a venture. “How would you display it?” As one of them was asking this, I appreciated that he felt both sides deserved the merit of being seen, but I never gave consideration to displaying both sides.

My friend was offering a couple of ways off the top of his head. He thought of the type of frame that could be screwed into the wall perpendicularly jutting out instead of flat against it. You could turn to one side and see one side of the painting and then go around it to look at the other. I knew such a thing was more effort and expense than I was willing to give this, and there was also the problem of someone accidentally running into this tiny open door and tearing it off the wall.

He thought about mirrors. He said I could have the panel several inches off the wall and install a mirror behind it. Personally, I hated mirrors in art. All it said to me is that the viewer is also a part of the work. It made the viewer self-conscious, and I wanted my viewer to somehow get lost in the fragments of color and forms I had to offer. And we both agreed that with mirrors, there was always the danger of having the glare come off one of the spotlights, unless it were angled just right. Again, it sounded like an enormous amount of effort for one display opportunity. In life and in my work, I was a lot simpler than that.

Yet, I was caught up in the momentum of coming up with ideas, and I told them how I recalled this one show at the Getty Center that showed some of the pages from Leonardo’s sketchbook. Since many of these drawings shared a sheet with something on the other side of it, they put these things in frames that were screwed upright onto pedestals, like they do for sculptural objects. The viewer was able to walk around them. I was all excited coming up with this as if I had any intention of doing it, all of us concluding that that might be the best answer. Again, expensive and work-intensive.

I was at a stage where I felt like my work was double-sided by the way fate had brought me here. I had little control. It was necessary that my paintings were double-sided, and so they were. But I was under no obligation to show that other side of it, if it didn’t feel missing from the equation.

The most reasonable way to look at this complication was that I only intended to show the frontside of the painting — unless the backside were better, of course.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, ReyA' | Tags:

Flat Toys – How to Make Them

29 February 2020 by Rey Armenteros

When thinking about two-sided painting, questions might come to mind. I have a specific way of making two-sided paintings that may seem pretty involved. As I described before, I don’t paint on both sides. Essentially, I paint on one side of a see-through substrate called acrylic glass (also known as “plexiglass”). Whatever I paint first on this plexiglass will show through on the other side, forming its backside. Whatever goes on top of that is the frontside.

My painting steps are more complicated than that, however. I first paint on acrylic skins. These are paint skins I create by painting layers of various acrylic mediums on silicone bakeware or some other material that acrylic paints will not adhere to. When the skin is finished, I paint an image on it. When that is done, I peel it off the bakeware surface to use on a painting. I then take the plexiglass and set it on top of the skin. Like someone using tracing paper to emulate an image under it, I begin the same image on the plexiglass, but I like to look at this part as continuing the painting instead of tracing. In a way, it is no different than directly painting on the acrylic skin except now you have this transparent plastic in between it and the brush. Many of the elements from the original image on the skin never make it to the plexiglass. So, even if the two versions of the image appear similar, there will always be differences. And this difference should be enough to argue that this is not merely copying — decisions are being made at every step of the way.

The step where I am painting on the plexiglass is known as reverse painting. The aspect of this to remember is that a reverse painting is nothing like a regular painting. For one, the first marks you make will be the ones on the top of the image and not vice versa where in a regular painting the first marks are often lost under the layers of paint. As you add layers of colors, you are soon sealing off anymore contributions to the image. So, reverse painting has a finite number of marks that will be seen through before everything gets covered up. It is unlikely that you can correct mistakes or follow changes of heart, unless you catch them quickly before the drying phase is over.

A reverse painting also feels nothing like a conventional one. The surface has that flat, smooth plexiglass finish which gives the painting the slick look of a manufactured product. It can never even hint at the textures of a traditional painting. I enjoy the opposite qualities of the two sides. It also makes the painting more of an object because more than one side matters. You can hold it in your hand and turn it around.

When I am done with the backside, I come up with an underpainting for the frontside. Basically, these are colors and shapes that I feel will work well with the original paint skins I had started the work with. After I arrive at something satisfactory, I adhere the paint skins onto the plexiglass panel using an acrylic medium, which will bond the paint skin to the surface of the painting; this is using acrylic to stick acrylic onto acrylic, which is a fusion that is physically strong.

After a few finishing touches to the front, the painting is done.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, ReyA' | Tags:

Flat Toys – The Origin

17 February 2020 by Rey Armenteros

It started with the idea of plastic, some years ago. My paintings were now acrylic, and I was becoming interested in the notion that they were essentially plastic. Basing everything on some obscure nostalgia for my old toys, I soon concluded I wanted my paintings to become entirely plastic, and this included the substrate on which they sat. After some time exploring to find what surfaces would work with acrylic paint, I settled on acrylic glass. With this final component, they would be one hundred percent plastic, and I would call them my flat toys, which was an oblique reference to the poetry book, Sad Toys by Takuboku Ishikawa.

But transparent substrates posed the see-through problem. If the backside were transparent, wouldn’t it behoove me to use this feature somehow? I recalled how some painters used it to do reverse paintings. This technique is when you paint on a transparent surface in order to see through the backside. If I followed through with it, both sides of the painting would be active. A double-sided painting felt more like a toy because it was an object you can turn in your hand. Also, on a philosophical level, duality was the language I used when reasoning about life and the world, so it suited any ideology I might push forward in an artwork.

This is a simplistic overview of how I arrived at this feature in my art, but it might show how I have been making double-sided paintings for the past several years. It has gone through a few phases. When my paintings were under the influence of Tarot cards, I argued that the backside shared a convenient metaphor with the backside of a card. Those paintings had backsides that had an abstract motif with my monogram on it. When I stopped making my version of the Tarot, my paintings simply had backsides because I felt they should all have backsides.

Then, I had the idea that the backsides should mirror the fronts. This gave some interesting results but it was tedious to make, slowing down my process to a crawl. I then felt that if it had only elements from the frontside and made these parts look amenable to viewing if someone just so happened to turn the painting around to look at the back, then that was enough. These elements could be images or objects that I felt needed clarification or that I wanted to see in a different version, such as a reconfigured color scheme or added or subtracted features. I could play with this type of reverse painting for variable backside results. If I wanted to include the entire thing in reverse as a see-through underpainting, then I could go all the way and see what happens.

These newer backside ideas were relinquishing all manner of results, and I was happy with some and not with others. I felt that the backside was there and the painting had the potential to be flipped if I felt like viewing its other half. Oftentimes, the frontside was the stronger side, but there were times the backside shined brighter. And in those uncommon cases when the reverse painting is more effective, wouldn’t it be better to display that side outward when it came time to show them?

1 comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, ReyA' | Tags:

A Miniature Manifesto

09 July 2018 by Rey Armenteros

A drawing should be a thing that you can make no other way. I don’t enjoy drawings and paintings that obviously have photographs in their construction; I have always felt that if you want something with photographic qualities, a photograph is better-suited than something that tries to look like one. I think that drawing and painting have gone beyond the discipline of depicting something from observation (in that you don’t need to look at something in order to draw it), and drawing is no longer beholden to the idea of “correct” representation. I am saying that the potential of handmade images like drawings and paintings is epitomized when they are directly connected to the thoughts that make them, and by this I am saying that this happens most compellingly when the drawings are worked from memory.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts

REMINISCING: THE OTHER SIDE

07 June 2017 by Rey Armenteros

Looking at old paintings and old drawings is a bitter-sweet pastime. On the one side, you’re reminiscing. In reliving the past, you enter the warm world of nostalgia. But on the other, those old works that once appeared so successful are successful no longer – or at least, not for the same reasons. This is actually the good news. Far worse is when the painting has something that was better than you remember it, making you feel good for a second (the sweet component to this subjective reality) but simultaneously making you question why you no longer paint in such a dynamic and charming way (the bitter).

There are “mistakes” I would gladly make today, if they could only look as good as the ones you are now beholding from some years back, old mishaps that seem to hit just the one right note today.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, Memory

REMINISCING: THE ONE SIDE

26 May 2017 by Rey Armenteros

It is only natural to look back at old art and find it subpar, but what happens when you conclude that it was better than you remember it? What happens when you look back at old artwork and find it in your honest assessments that you had deviated from something that was actually better?

When it happens to me, I wonder if I still have it in me on some one or two levels, if I can no longer draw that hand the way I thought I could, if my eye for color is softening. I wonder if I took the wrong turn back seven years ago, and it is now coming to haunt me. I hate feeling regret, but moments like these, it is unavoidable.

This sound like a warning, but I do feel old art should always be revisited, because it contains reminders of paths you had intended but left behind. When I look at these old images from Shinchon, Korea, I find a freshness and boldness that I have put up on the shelf as my art developed with the years. Reminders of freshness are beneficial later, when that is a trait you don’t even recognize you’re missing.

Leave a comment | Categories: Art Concepts, Art Process, Memory

← Older posts