I usually try to take notes on my SideKick 3, then mail those notes to myself and edit them, clean them up, and post on Webmetricsguru.com (when it’s a Web Analytics or Search Conference - activities that I’m actively engaged in and make my living at) and ArtNewYorkCity.com - here - when it’s an Art Event.

TMobile SideKick 3 - how I take notes and photographed this Artist panel Discussion

My view at the Panel Discussion at Pratt Institute last night - March 9th, 2007.  Without further ado … here’s my notes:
Op art notes

“When painting and fashion get together, art never wins.”

Staying inside the frame…the frame is essential in relation to the use of the tactical.

Optical painting is not in the past, it’s also now.

Each artist has 7 minutes to present. Soonja Han lives in Paris since 1983 and has been traveling a lot since the 1990’s.  Since 2000 she did her planning on computers..

Another of the artists, Jon Groom, I think said this: First and second generation op art - I find it exciting to do painting and I would not do it if I did not feel about it.  Painting is about faith and trust and not about knowledge.  Art relies not in knowledge but in trust and faith (also that people believe in what they’re looking at).

Sanford Wurmfeld… ideas are expressed in the language of the art form   and we have many languages to express ideas.  The subject is inherent in the language…”you can only ask certain questions in certain languages”.

What we’re doing is the symbolic form of our time, our constructs. Wurmfeld said he grew up a little before the television age and his children are into computers and all this new media does stuff for us and to us.

Wurmfeld said that he believes paining is the most passive of all the media ..most media talks to us but with paint you need to extract the meaning out of the painting. You have to stay with it. Wurmfeld also goes into the eloquent speech he did 30 years ago when I was in his classes. 

The idea the we construct meaning…that the eye takes in light with rod and  cones and the brain of the viewer constructs the meaning of everything we experience.  In that light - Wurmfled’s statement that the language of brushstrokes (IE: Van Gogh’s “hatched like” strokes, vs. Seurat’s “pointillist” vs. Wurmfeld’s hard edged slider bars - define and constrain the questions, meaning and message of the Art).

Also, a theme of last night was that Artworks need to adhere to the edges of the painting - a familiar teaching precept of the 1970’s - I know it well since many of my instructors at the time kept muttering it as they gave me critiques of my own work.  Bear in mind that precept is no longer as  important to the artists emerging now - who are in an entirely different place, many with choices that were almost unimaginable to the artists in the 1960’s and 1970’s - the art world and  art media being so much more diverse today.   The artists in this panel emerged onto the Art Scene during the 1970’s so their belief that Op Art needs the Edges of the painting - is expected, and works with the overall paradigm of the show ….. and while I believe this too… I still see it as a belief that can and often is challenged.

Also, what Wurmfeld said reminded me of the conversation I had with a coworker about my running for a board seat on the WAA…

As I talked about it..how much it cost to join….in order to vote to me.  she asked me how much it costs to join the WAA and vote: I said, 130 bucks…and then she replied… Sorry - I can’t help you. 

That hurt me…because I never asked her to join..but once she asked the question..the answer was automatically determined. 

So I can totally relate to what Wurmfeld said.  I’ve experienced in many ways over the last year - depending on the context - the question you pose presupposes the answer you’ll get in many cases - I can say this with perfect knowledge of all the places were I have experienced this “truth”. 

I think, what’s needed is asking different Questions - if you want different answers - ask a question that has, as a possibility, the answer you want to hear.
The next guys, Jon Groom or Ryszard Wasko,  I had a hard time following with their accents but it sounded both do interesting work.

One said: “Make paint do stuff that you haven’t seen before“. 

Painting makes you more and more aware.  It is impossible to separate the spiritual feeling I have and my feeling about color, about light.

If one is attracted to light, light leads to light.

Jon Groom said he moved to Munich for the support system, of being still.  In New York he felt to much pressure to Advance with his career that got in the way of his Art.

Sanford Wurmfeld chimed in - the Panel Moderator, Robert C. Morgan, noted that wen he visits Wurmfeld’s studio he’s got painting all over the place - in his hair, in his food, in contrast to Wurmfeld’s painting  which is very ordered.

Wurmfeld: My process, messier than De Kooning? For me, the completion on everything is in the viewer…so if there is spirituality seen in my canvas it’s in the viewer.

Master Eckhart…considered a Buddhist in Medieval Europe.  Ryszard Wasko talked a lot about his earlier life in Poland.  In Poland there a few good gallery and you have to talk to people and bring them together.

My wife, Ilona, was born and Poland and says that Polish see Art Galleries - particularly the ancient stuff - as boring …. growing up in Poland in the 60’s and 70’s many just avoided official “Art”. 

Perhaps that’s the perception that Wasko was fighting against - along with the Communists that had no use for Artists that did their own thing.

Groom mentioned about mixing paint and putting it in plastic bags which kept the acrylics wet for over 3 years!

When you start any painting it takes a real commitment to make art and if you think it is going to take a certain time..you need to have commitment.

Jon Groom said that Painting is about slowing down so you can see the painting. 

( I wonder how that figures with going to Cezanne’s studio and painting in Aix in a couple of months).

When someone asked Wurmfeld if he’d enjoy looking at a Monet….he said he would… And that’s it - my notes of the panel discussion last night.  I spoke to Sanford Wurmfeld for 2 minutes in the Pratt Gallery, near his work, and while he did not remember me (he’s had several students) he remembered the course he was teaching at the time on Optical Theory.

I also want to add, that yesterday was an important day for me - I sent my application in for the Paris trip to Marsha Wooley and took care of a couple of other related matters.  Maybe that’s why, when I tried to write this all up last night - I was just too exhausted - could not do it.

 A lot of food for thought here - especially the idea that “meaning” is created in the viewer - it does not exist in the Artwork itself (I’m not sure if I agree with that or not - I need to think that over …. and yet I’ve said much the same thing in this blog and Webmetricsguru.    In fact, I’ve said and believe that….

“… a mountain  is just a mountain, but it took Paul Cezanne to make it into Mont St. Victoire”.  It’s the mind of an Artist that makes sense of mountains Web Analytics data”

How different is that from what Wurmfeld believes - that Spirituality is in the viewer - not his work.    But…..in my mind - I still see Spirit in the work - it’s nature itself that’s neutral - Cezanne’s paintings are imbued with Spirituality to me…. but Wurmfeld would probably tell me the Spirituality is in me…. that Cezanne’s paintings of the mountain are just paint on canvas arranged to create meaning in me.

And truth is …he’d be right - but still, I’m not sure if it’s really true that there is no meaning in the work of art itself - the meaning is in the viewer.  Look at the spiritual artifacts that come down to us from history (Jesus splinters of the Cross he was crucified on - or the Dali Lama’s objects - imbued with Spiritual Energy …. Suppose we said that a sliver of wood off the Cross of Jesus was just a sliver of wood - and it’s only our giving it meaning that makes it meaningful…..somehow that statement, belief, does not feel right.

So as far as I’m concerned …. I think much of what the Panel Discussion focused on last night was the beliefs to these set of Artists - valid and true in Their Frame of Reference …and maybe in mine too…but not universally true.  

In closing this long post…I disagree with Sanford Wurmfeld.  I think there is some meaning in his work outside of the colors and form on the the canvas and the edges of it …. not all of it is what happens inside of the viewer …. The Artist is  more than an arranger of color and form - but if it makes you feel better - this is the belief of your time, and it’s relatively true -but it’s not an absolute.