It’s interesting how people, artists, doing what is essentially the same job of creating something where, before, there was nothing, approach the task so differently.
I was listening to an interview with US sculptor and installation artist, Daniel Wurtzel. He creates amazing large-scale works for public spaces that are shown around the world. Although that particular style is a long way from my practice, it still maintains one of the defining aims of art: that is, to be seen and responded to. His method of working, however, is almost diametrically opposed (or, if not actually ‘opposed’, at least ‘placed’) to mine.
Daniel Wurtzel advocates taking emotion out of his art. Further, he prefers to take every evidence of the hand of the artist away. The work becomes a piece unrelated to its creator. He avoids introspection, focuses on ‘anything that is not’ him. He looks for the essence of the art, a stripping back of any obvious input.
Interesting. My work is very personally based, from which materials and colours I feel like using, which size takes my fancy, what stimulus or emotional starting point I’m going to choose. The beginnings of my paintings are often expressions of my own fleeting thoughts and impulses. The ongoing painting, a series of interpretive judgement calls on what the piece continues to need.
Interesting. Same job. Same purpose. Different philosophy. Both valid.
Until later,
Kirsten
Everyday Thoughts of an Artist 