Cornelia Baltes and Sean Penlington spoke at PaintUnion at the Griffin Gallery on April 29th 2014. This is a piece by Sam Mould discussing the event
The
context of the expanded field of painting brings immediate awareness to the use
of other media, which may or may not include the classic associations of
traditional painting mediums to operate in the debate about contemporary
painting.
Yes,
both Sean Penlington and Cornelia Baltes work in the expanded field of
painting, but what was striking about both of these artists was their
relationship to humour, notably irony. Why should humour, mockery and irony be
important in the nature of the way in which we communicate, not just through
painting: during the course of daily life.
André Breton, the surrealist in 1935 wrote a
book ‘Anthologie de l’Humour Noir’ and coined the term black humour for the wit
of the skeptic and cynic, often portrayed through satire, there are numerous
examples of this in the fine arts ranging from Hogarth to Shrigley. And
although neither of the aforementioned artists could be associated with
surrealism, the notion of humour dates back to Roman times and is a common
element of our sphere of communication today.
Penlington using various languages, makes
marks, creates angles and lines, holds onto drips, splats and gestures in trying
to find a different space for painting to operate in. Recognising that all this
mark making, maps out various psychological states, causing a to-ing and fro-ing,
a flow, a loop of difference, if you will, not only within the paintings
gestalt but, between the works installed and thrice again in the viewers glace.
Humans are creatures of ever changing sensations, an impermanent flux of
synaptic occurrences that only ever exist in one particular moment, in one
particular time, never to be repeated. Looking at these paintings therefore
brings awareness to these constantly changing states, making one aware of ones
own being.
The
surface of the painting seems to be an honest history of the evidence of
happenings, which is reflected paradoxically through abstract painting: a history of itself. This
surface of evidenced is conjoined with other materials ranging from beads,
paper, charcoal, rope, wood to be subsumed into surfaces that extend the
boundary of the painting, creating a vocabulary of anticipation. Such
humour juxtaposes the enormous weight of existence with comical elements that
underscore the futility of life. In Penlington’s work we can literally see the
weight of life leaning on the objects that constitute the painting.
We can reference David Ryan here in the
introduction to Talking Painting, 2002,where he describes the ‘present
condition of abstract painting; fragmented, multiple, heterogeneous.’Penlington
recognizes that abstract painting has an inevitable complex condition. It needs
to be within a system, yet outside of those boundaries too. It is trapped in
its own historicity that has a defined framework, albeit dynamic and in fact at
times craves to be viewed without this baggage.
Baltes
on the other hand is working in a multitude of media from paint, photography,
site-specific installations, print and objects, her creative talent lies
initially in observation of the world around her. Working with sharp shapes,
humourous configurations alluding to creatures and beings with a light but
purposeful touch that has an inkling of Charles M. Schulz’s; Charlie Brown,
Woodstock and Snoopy in the Peanuts comic strips. Every mark is coolly
calculated, not to mention her true affinity for colour that sets a playful
scene. Baltes’ beauty of observation in juxtaposing occurrences together speaks
of many metaphors, but she is not prescriptive in the meaning, leaving the
viewer hopefully with a wry smile.
Simple
anthropomorphic marks have weight to them; acting in an installation not only
as individual pieces but have meaning in relation other objects and marks.
The touch of the artists hand is evident, the
physicality of the marks, be they painted or drawn, positioned fabrics, paper,
chains, objects; they all have clear evidence of a willingness to handle
materials and a keen ability in the balance and composition of space within the
installation of the objects themselves and in relation to one another.
What we mean by the expanded field of
painting here is the nature of objects, from a painterly background that are
installed in a site specific environment, where, objects, light, distance and
spaces – all inhabitants of the environment are defined in relation to all the
other things. Nothing therefore in an environment in the expanded field of
painting therefore means anything really, except in relationship.For
both artists work it seems that the connections themselves are real.
Using the spatial qualities of painting, both
Baltes and Penlington transcend the confines of the picture frame with
affability and humour. The intellectual use of space, using void as disruption;
where space is interrupted with objects, touching on
notions of difference, of connectivity, relation and interruption – constructs
a singularity, yet the potentiality for further derivatives. Things
being next to one another are related through proximity, not narrative. It’s
the viewer who potentially brings the narrative. The metaphoric links therefore
that do occur perhaps are not necessarily planned but a happy coincidence of
observation by the artists. This flow of metaphors and juxtapositions occurs
all around us, all of the time, yet the artist brings attention, a link or
series of links, which for any viewer maybe carried over into their powers of
observation in the future, making links, that they couldn’t have made before;
recognizing small nuances in life due to a new neural path way being developed,
or not. Both artists work with an openness that allows for speculation.
A paintings meaning therefore is whatever the
viewer attributes to it- this is one dynamic aspect of the expanded field.
So as you can see, when we refer to the
artists joke here, we are not referring to the slapstick, one liners of Richard
Prince for example, but a sensitive, darker humour, rooted in a culture of
stoicism, because humour in fact, might just be considered a mere coping
mechanism. A way to look at the wider world with an affection that it sometimes
lacks, so when considering the profundity of the everyday we find comfort in
the fact at least someone else, including Baltes and Penlington, are in the
ironic boat with us. It’s a very serious joke!This is the
stuff that makes the world go round and it’s happening in the field of expanded
painting.
Sam Mould
http://sammouldpainting.com/
