Eileen’s comments on Friday reinforced and echoed the group critique two days earlier. (The group crit didn’t include her, so this counts as independent attestation).
ideas for combining the art history games with text:
I could do altered books, or I could also scan the text and transfer it to a paintable surface.
What is the scale of the Limbourg book of Hours? (5.5 x 9 inches) If I intend to make a forgery of it (and deface the result in order to create an e-reader case), then I’ll probably want to do it that size. (Or, if it’s another size, then be sure it’s an intentional rescaling.)
paint on transparent surfaces? (cf. vellum of these illuminated manuscripts)
floating paintings (i.e. from ceiling)
I have a sense of what I want to paint, but how? Right now she sees more answers than questions (makes sense considering I consider the process the questioning part). Also…the connection to contemporary concerns didn’t seem particularly strong to her. I show what I think about old art, but what about stuff that happened in the last five hundred years?
Much of our conversation focused on the incorporation of text into fine art. Here are the artists she suggested I look up (or refresh my memory on):
Look at the last suite of drawings (which are pen and ink with a range of people from art history in the same space). Note how black and white neutralizes some of the differences and thus helps the figures relate to one another.
One response to “Crit with Eileen Neff”
[…] methods. I’ve posted about using books as raw material for art or art that directly addresses language and books, but it’s time for the art of […]