Journal Entry

So I've been thinking a lot about something Catherine Murphy said the other day in class. She said that her favorite thing about painting is that it puts her in conversation with every other painter. It wasn't exactly that but it was along those lines. Although this was not the first time I've heard that phrase it got me thinking, specifically about my own work and some reoccurring themes in my head. Basically this is just a transcribing of my train of thought.

When looking at her work, you can really hear that conversation. I like to say it has volume. She's been one of my favorite painters since John yau showed us her work in Seminar in Contemporary Art for, among many reasons, that you can really feel and hear the time she put into that painting. That effort to capture the perfect light at just the right time really does speak to the painters before her.

Catherine Murphy Comforter

Her voice comes out in that conversation at the price of her painstaking work, although not all loud voices in the Fine Arts rely on such precise dedication. It varies from artist to artist as anything would. But what exactly is she saying? Did she mean to say it? And what exactly have artists said before her? Now, when I think of artists that have this type of "volume" I can't help but think of Manet. We all know the story of his paintings causing riots at the salon and what not but  what's important to think about in that story is the volume his work had. How absolutely loud and clear his message was, that YOU the viewer sent those flowers, and you knew exactly what he meant by it.

Manet Olympia

Now, as far as if he meant to say that or not, it seems a little too close to home to be an accident... And of course on one side you have an extreme like Manet but on the other hand, Catherine Murphy's work, although equally as loud is sometimes unclear and left more to the imagination of the viewer to interpret. How clear her message is, and what it is exactly is up to the viewer to decide for the most part. Her work talks to the history of painting but this is where I drifted off a bit.

Catherine Murphy View From the Backyard; Lexington

What I turned to at this point in my train of thought is how this conversation happens in Photography. Does photography have the same ability? Does the ease of capturing and reproducing an image in this technological age dampen that voice if it's there at all? Ultimately these questions answered themselves in that the impact of the work is based entirely on the creator's intent, and the context of the work.... So then I thought, where does that leave my work? Which leads me to my list of things to work on in the studio,

1. Work on that voice, i.e. how to make my work louder.
(although I've been printing smaller, I want to experiment with large color darkroom prints)
2. I've been wanting to start doing Illustrations, haven't done a serious drawing in a long time and I miss it. This one is sort of off topic, I've just been itching to draw.
3. I'm keeping the list short this week because part 1 will be hard enough. so this part is dedicated to revisiting part 1 until I get someplace with it.

I think ultimately, as I touched on in my previous journal entry, that voice is there in my work.. I think it's that weird obscure thing that during my crit everyone was saying connected my series. But after seeing Catherine Murphy's work and hearing her speak about it, I have a driving desire to get really fuckin' loud.
As far as work I've produced this past week while focusing on some ideas touched on in my previous journal post.....

Untitled (triplet)

Sarah