Contents versus Expression

While trying to improve my art, I constantly try to concentrate on the message of my work - what does it need to say, what it is all about? In the eagerness to clarify my message, sometimes, I allow the the other aspect of painting - form to take back seat.

Last night, I heard a book review on NPR title The Gods, At Play In The House Of Mortals by Maureen Corrigan of the book The Infinities by Man Booker's Prize winner John Banville. What she said that struck me most is: "I used to put a lot of stock in an adage about writing. It went roughly like this: 'If a student says he wants to be a writer because he has something to say, discourage him. But if a student says she wants to be a writer because she likes to play around with words, well, that student may have what it takes to be a writer.'"

She continued: "I don't believe in absolutes about writing anymore: People write out of all sorts of longings and take many roundabout paths to producing good books. But I thought of that axiom as I was reading John Banville's new book, The Infinities. I often had only the dimmest idea about what Banville was trying to say in this novel, or indeed, what even happens in it. But it's clear that Banville — as a stylist whose first literary mentor, not surprisingly, was James Joyce — loves playing around with language. And his zest carries a reader over most opaque thickets here, where sound totally triumphs over sense."

Immediately, I thought about my desire of writing and desire of telling the story via painting or drawing. Am I falling the same trap Corrigan described here? Having something to say is important but then equally important is to tell it in a way which is engaging, interesting, and better still virtuosic. Without the well executed form, a message would be no better than a slogan.

I had a discussion about this radio book review with a writer friend and he, though didn't totally contradict Corrigan, warned me that I should not abandon my desire to tell a story or send a message - without them, virtuosity itself is nothing but just meaningless virtuoso display. Definitely I will pay more attention to play with paints, charcoals, pastels, crayons, etc.

The best contemporary artists, such as Anselm Kiefer, William Kentridge, and Andy Goldsworthy triumphed in both aspects, therefore they are great.

William Kentridge Profiled by New Yorker

"New Yorker" profiled South African artist William Kentridge in January. It demonstrated the origin, development and the depth of the great Kentridge. I was most affected by a quote of his:

I have never tried to make illustrations of apartheid, but the drawings and films are certainly spawned by and feed off the brutalized society left in its wake. I am interested in a political art, that is to say an art of ambiguity, contradiction, uncompleted gestures, and certain endings; an art (and a politics) in which optimism is kept in check and nihilism at bay. - William Kentridge

A New Work - "Heralds"

I was intrigued and inspired by William Kentridge's exhibit at SF MOMA by the interplay of spaces and planes. I started a work with vertical and horizontal plans intersecting each other, with the vertical one rather wavering like curtain. Yet, the simple approach seemed to simplistic to me in the end. I tried to incorporate another intriguing element of Kentridges, by bringing in a outlined shadowing bird (as in his stage design for Die Zauberflöte). But it didn't quite work. Finally, one day, I had a vision of a large shadowy horse galloping in front of my vertical plane. Quickly, I was able to introduce a horse and a raven into the work and it was finished at one last thrust.

The horse and raven also vaguely reflect the messengers in the Norse mythology. Therefore, I named the painting "Heralds".