Surface Part 2: Porosity

Right, right, ok... I realize it has been a bit of time since the last post, I'll work on being more on it, but in the past few my course of action has been focused on being a little more direct with getting the work out. From participating in BOS (Bushwick Open Studios) to trying to sell work on the street, I have been struck by the types of varied information that comes across from the presented work to the viewer/ reader. Even the nature of a blog in self addresses the topic I wish to explore today, Porosity. The opposite of density, porosity explains the nature of an object to absorb or let pass through, perforation even.

When I came to New York and started to work on Canvas, as opposed to the paper pieces above and below, I was immediately struck by susceptibility of the surface, the reason in fact that I started painting figures was solely because of material connection I made between the pores of the skin and the pores of the canvas, trying to painting everything but the figure itself to make that tactile connection. It seems to me that if the raw canvas is indeed embodying the figure as a whole only to be articulated, one could assume the mark to the canvas is in turn the action being done to the body. The rest became a realm exiting between the extremes of romanticization and violence.

So if I'm going to sit here and talk about figure paintings, why show these two eh, right right I got lost myself. Ok, the point is, that one can't expect to approach a blank surface, even priming a surface which negates it's inherent properties is an action not to be disregarded, in fact I think an action more violent than cutting and stitching the canvas which engenders what the canvas is made for. Therefore, these two pieces (above and below) begin to approach how a seemingly homogenous surface, that of paper absorbs and allows materials to permeate its surface under certain condition. Ink bleeds through, gesso sinks into transparency, the graphite pencil embosses, and acrylic just sits, all of which are specific in aesthetic to only this paper. Every sketchbook I have is comprised of different paper that expresses itself uniquely. The fun is finding it.

So in conclusion, the last couple of weeks I have been observing, what properties of the the work is permeable (or interesting) to other people... what is dense/opaque, and what is legible/transparent. When presented in these forms (via street or studio visits), the casualness of these encounters reveals where the eye goes, and what the hand wants to hesitantly touch when your not looking. Anyway, look forward to hearing any thoughts on these topics, hence the nature of the blog...

all the best,
Myles