Soussloff analyzes Foucault and his theories surrounding painting as a means of communication. If we contextualize Foucault we can understand the environment he was theorizing is outdated to some degree in terms of modes of painting. Painting as a form of representation has slowly become an obsolete practice to some degree, in terms of the reasons an artist might paint today. Painting, within the realm of fine art, has become commodified, no longer in terms of portraiture or display of wealth but rather aesthetic.
I am interested in Foucault’s ideas around discursive regularity. He states; “it is discursive practice that is embodied in techniques and effects.” Here the word discursive may refer to the embellishment of the real. In this way painting is never purely representational. In painting there is a creation of the nonexistent. In some senses, the smallest discrepancy becomes something outside of nature, rather the production of something internal, whether it be subconscious or not.
I had a few questions following the reading in terms of painting as a language that must be learned in order to communicate its intention. Intention might mean anything, but if the intention is purely to represent and existing thing, where does one learn this language? Is it a purely mechanical practice? Must it be hyper-realistic? Foucault speaks on this as well; “if you call a painting mechanical because it is primarily manual, in that the hands depict what is found in the imagination, you writers draft with your hand what is found in your mind…painting embraces not only the works of nature but also the infinite number that nature never created.” Here Foucault highlights the whimsy of painting, the translation from subject to artwork that gives painting an empathetic and fresh aspect. By empathetic I mean that within abstraction there is room for projection and interpretation, the viewer may no longer look at a piece solely based on the feeling of being impressed but maybe a more personal meaning is constructed. I think about folk art and outsider art within these terms. Often representational but without the foreground of classic training. Do these artists know the ‘language’ of painting or are they inventing a language of their own?
Painting Analysis:
At Battle of Drosabellamaximillan…
Henry Darger (1892–1973)
Chicago
Mid-20th century
Watercolor, pencil, carbon tracing, and collage on pieced paper
19 x 47 3/4 in.
Dargers paintings are heavily based in narrative. In this painting we see a war, similar to earlier classical works that depicted wars, but what Darger does here is not representational of an actual event but rather a fantastical chronicle. His use of color and simple line adds to the storybook quality of most of his works, but there is always a darker undertone. I admire the way he straddles reality and fantasy, as well as innocence and darkness while using a limited pallet. He does not fill the page with color, he is specific in where he puts each color (ex. Red as blood) in order to create a detailed and specific image.
Baby Elvis
Howard Finster (1988)
Finster is an interesting artist in terms of intention. He believed that god sent him a message to create religious paintings, so again he is not a solely representational painter but rather creating narrative internally based on the external narrative he experiences. I love the way Finster uses color and dialogue in his work. There is very little shading, he works with solid color and dark lines to communicate an image. In this painting I notice his use of bright and pure colors. Here he paints with discernable shapes that stray far from hyper-realism while still creating a recognizable and digestible image.
Aloïse Corbaz
Mythe Atalante lance des pommes d’or, 1946
colored pencil and lead pencil on paper
22.83 x 17.7 in. (58 x 45 cm.)
Corbaz has an especially limited color palette, often painting with one color of various shades for the majority of the piece. In this painting she uses a wider range of color, while still relying on red for most of the linework. Though this is not technically a painting, I think she accomplished something important within the piece that can be applied to a painting practice. She fills the entire page with various shape and color while still avoiding and busy and complex final piece. Her use of created texture and background is what draws me to her work.
