Angela’s post yesterday inspired me to show a drawing and the painting I made using that drawing. I first composed on handmade paper using charcoal and natural red chalk. Then I painted in oils on a smooth white ground made of chalk and rabbit-skin-glue applied to an oak panel. The images above an below show composites where details from the drawing are laid over the painting.
With the drawing, I experimented with different variations of the landscape — traces of which are still visible in different parts of complete scene below. On the right side I pasted another sheet of paper to extend the composition. The work here is entirely based on imagination, which accounts for the naive quality of the figures. The drawing is approximately 22 cm wide and 16 cm tall.
I transferred the drawing to the chalked panel using tracing paper, then painted with oils in several layers. I show the oil painting here in gray scale to facilitate comparison with the drawing.
I made some life studies for the figures and incorporated these as I painted. A challenge was to add realism in the forms without losing the essential character of the drawing. I found that it was better to err on the side of distorted anatomy and keep the spirit of the original design, rather than to try to perfect the anatomical forms and lose the original aesthetic statement. Inevitably, though, the painting took on a life of its own and went in its own direction.
Earlier Chantal commented that a previous sex painting was not really a sex painting at all. Perhaps it could be argued that this painting is also not a sex painting, but only a painting of anticipation.
You have a new topic, anticipation of sex, for your paintings as you showed us last week and again today. I like the dreamy look of the participants.
I love the colors in the excerpts of the paintings. On the small BW painting, the right leg looks like that of a doll, kind of screwed on. In the drawing it looks more natural.
I am off to learn about the genetics of Parkinson’s disease. Till later
This is so interesting Karl Zipser… the whole process and technique, the way you have come to this! I bought a book recently about old masters paintings techniques and you seem to work in quite a similar way.
In regarding of first doing naïve studies, then after searching some guidance in real figures is something I do too personally so I understand exactly where you coming from.
I really enjoy the fact you find the balance between reality and imagination, keeping your inner world intact that is exactly what I am interested on. Great work!
The right leg of the lady which is her higher leg. I am referring to the crease between her thigh and her groin. The crease seems unnaturally pronounced in the BW picture. It reminds me of dolls in my childhood, where you could rip off the leg without destroying the torso.
Birgit,
Yes I see what you mean. That is useful feedback, an easy matter of adjusting the contrast would make a big difference.
Angela,
This balance between inner and real world representation is a difficult topic. On the one hand, it is easy to try to please the people who want the realism, but it is not so easy to do so without losing the magic that comes with the work from imagination. I often ponder why this should be so. Of course I have some ideas, but I have not figured it out to my satisfaction. I have no interest in distorted figures for their own sake, but I am not against them if they end up being my best messengers.
Each person wants a different thing from a painting, reads it in a different way. Some people can find a picture of mine funny, others find it disturbing. Some like it, some hate it. I is not my goal to shock with my work, but I find strong negative reactions to be as interesting as positive reactions.
I am intrigued by the strong chin of the lady.
I am thinking of possible symbolic meanings of this painting. A man who is making the feminine side of his character more receptive to the world?
I am not a psychologist but somewhere I picked up the opinion that, to various degrees, we all have ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits.
I agree there is something interesting going on with the sex roles here. The woman is exposing herself in a very “unlady-like” way which while identifying her as biologically female simultaneously breaks her from the “proper” cultural female image. Observations like these are part of what fascinates me about art. I think they indicate that art is about discovery as much as communication. To me, communication in art means propaganda, someone trying to control my thinking. Art that provides an opportunity for discovery is something different. It may be that the artist is not the first person to understand what the picture says. That to me is an intriguing notion. Next week I will show a pair of unfinished paintings that I love but do not understand (which is why I couldn’t finish them).
Karl,
I like the guy’s feet.
In the drawing, they are inappropriately splayed (like the Unlady-like-Lady-like-Doll) but in the painting they are STIFF.
D,
Excellent observation, thank you. I think this is an example of an attempt at realism altering the original idea. As we have been discussing above, this is a continual if delightful problem.
Does working from one’s imagination really put one in touch with their inner life?
Sure, I am a skeptic, but I try and I wonder: when you, Karl, say “keep the spirit of the original design” or Angela refers to the “magic”, I see… the limitations… and, yet unrealized… learned techniques.
And Karl, when you write: “it is easy to try to please the people who want the realism”, are you protecting yourself a bit by making a simple distiniction between trying and accomplishing? And given the subject, your accomplishment seems particularly important because when you write that the “woman is exposing herself”, I disagree. As I see her, she is not real. She is only full of air, the merest (and perverse?) representation of a Woman and it is you, the artist, that is exposing her. Is that the original idea?
Karl,
D. wrote:
“As I see her, she is not real. She is only full of air, the merest (and perverse?) representation of a Woman and it is you, the artist, that is exposing her. Is that the original idea? ”
I have a similar question and D. helped put a finger on what makes me uncomfortable about this image. My question would be is it your intention to make the woman look kind of like a doll and/or passive recipient of the man’s touch? She almost looks like she is squirming to get away from this man who is cluelessly lookng at her with complete fondness. There is a little bit of the idea that he is putting her on a pedestal while she is in this very uncomfortable (physically and psychologically) position. She is exposed, but it does not look like she is empowered or exposed in a way she is choosing to be. Her gaze also appears to be looking past him, with flat affect, as if she is trying to “check out” of the situation. I may be over interpreting, but D.’s comment made my discomfort click. If you want discomfort that is one thing, but I am guessing you don’t want that particular message about this woman. Combine this image with the one where the woman is holding the man’s penis, I see underlying power struggles that are intersting and off putting at the same time.
And D.’s question:
“Does working from one’s imagination really put one in touch with their inner life?” seems like a good topic for another post. I am skeptical as well, but as you know I have not tried to work strictly from my imagination as you put it, as opposed to from observation in some way. I do feel, however, that imagination plays a huge role in painting from observation. It is all an interpretation afterall. And all an abstraction…
Leslie and D,
These are great questions. I will have to wait to write an answer, but I will respond.
Leslie and D,
Now I have a moment to return to the computer…
I found your and D’s comments on the paintings fascinating, but reading them again, I think I will pass on trying to make a response of a type that disputes your views. As I wrote in my comments, some people love my pictures and some people find them disturbing. I don’t think I can hope for one kind of response without unintentionally evoking the other sometimes. The more interesting pictures always tend to cause the most mixed reactions.
The paintings are there to be interpreted, not to force you to think in a particular way. I do not mean to imply that they are empty of content or meaning, but rather that the meaning is something that the viewers must complete for themselves.
To argue with your interpretations in detail would in a sense undermine some of the purpose of the work. I see the pictures differently than you do, in some ways I find your views astonishing (part of why I enjoy the so much). This has happened to me before. Let me say that I don’t feel that my position as an observer is necessarily more privileged than yours. Perhaps it was at the moment the pictures were made, but that was some time ago now. Anyway, the act of painting is not a verbal one, and I have heard of no evidence that the verbal areas of the brain are intimately linked to the areas used for painting. That is to say, there is no particular reason to think that an artist can really ever say what they were trying to do; all they can do is try to interpret the results.
I think an artwork should “speak” for itself, because I think the artwork is the real source that we have available. That is what an artwork is. If there were some intentional symbol (e.g., clouds represent original sin) then it might help for me to tell you this. But there are no such intentional symbols that I can easily decode for you.
I don’t want to imply that I do not find discussion of the picture’s meaning important. I find the discussion fascinating. I simply feel that I don’t want to verbally contribute further than I have.
Leslie, one thing to keep in mind is that the doll comparison is something coming out of other people’s comments, not mine. I find it interesting, but it is an interpretation, and not one I put forward. To question me on another person’s interpretation as though it were my own is to ask a question I cannot meaningfully answer.
Taking a look at the painting again after reading your comments, I feel refreshed. For my part, the picture says something entirely different from what your textual representation of it depicts. I think a painting is indeed some representation of an inner life. Then again, so is are your interpretations. That’s the fun, isn’t it?
Karl,
I only have a minute and have not yet read your last comment, but I needed to say that the two pictures you’ve shown (in which sexuality is the subject) I find tender and tenderly humorous.
I was thinking about Egon Schiele’s drawings in which his women are also in “unladylike” positions (although not supine). Schiele’s women positively stare at the viewer, daring us to avert our eyes — or to look too closely.
(No time to find an image but later, maybe).
But although I don’t normally see such graphic images, I enjoyed both of your paintings. I thought they show, particularly as a grouping, a tender and playful attitude toward the activity of sex.
Gotta run. I’m hoping to have energy for more later.
Karl,
Thanks for your thoughts and it is perfectly fine to respond or not to any comments as you see fit. of course you won’t see things the same way as all of your viewers. Just for clarity though, I brought up the doll reference because she looks like a doll to me, not becasue others see it that way. Do with that what you will. the whole thing is somewhat other worldly and obviously not “real.” So having a doll like human in this context is not totally out of place.
I don’t think my discomfort is bad persay (my work certainly disturbs at times), just a good thing to be aware of as the artist. It sounds like you have gotten this feedback before and you can do with it what you want. I always tell my students that they can’t necessarily predict or control how the viewer will interpret their art, but that there are certain conventions that will illicit certain responses and have a set of “fixed” meanings (I am sure someone will argue with that but I put it out there anyway). So I ask them to take responsibility for the impact of their images, even if (or especially if) what they want is discomfort, shock, awe, or whatever it may be. An open door, as a crude example of soemthing with a fixed set of meanings, often means an opening, beginning, threshhold, opportunity, etc.
So I guess I would argue with your contention that you have not put out an “intentional” symbol. You get into tricky areas when you represent a stylized woman splayed out with her legs wide open. There are a set of meanings attached to that — some may find it disturbing, some may find it playful.
What do you do with that as the artist? Nothing but be aware I guess… I don’t mean to cajole you into “disputing” my views, as mine are not more important than June’s, who finds them tender and playful. I can see her point, but see more “under” the play. I just wanted to throw out more food for thought and clarify what I meant.
Back again after a harrowing evening of painting ….
First, Egon Schiele. I found through googling him that I was mistaken about his sexually provocative women — not only are they in many poses, but there’s one that’s Karl’s painting positively echoes:
http://www.artyst.net/S/Schiele20/SchieleFemcouchedos.jpg
The one I was thinking of was probably this one, although even it isn’t as hard-faced as I remember.
http://www.pixeltoy.org/candy_blog/Egon_Schiele_Seated_Woman_II_1917.jpg
BEyond my emendation about Schiele, though, I wanted to comment further on Karl’s painting. I’m usually far removed from graphic imagery — it’s just not part of my regular rounds. Yet I have a strong distaste for pornography, which I associate with violence, power-hunger, and exploitation.
With those connotations in mind, I have to say that there’s nothing pornographic about either Karl’s latest painting or the other for me.
What I liked about this one was the absolute trusting vulnerability that the woman shows. And she isn’t showing off for the male — she’s anticipating….
So I reiterate the other of what I said — that while these two characters may be in their own dreamscape, for me, it was a very pleasant, playful trusting one.
But more than that, I find the juxtaposition of the question about studies and about going back to the figure interesting in that those questions exist with this particular painting. Why this one, I wonder? Is it a very recent work? Is Karl trying to prevent us from sinking into dry abstractions? In other words, I’m reading between the lines while keeping my eye on the scene….
I also have to say that I have never drawn a full sized cartoon for anything I wanted to paint — when I make studies they are always much smaller than the final object. So I was startled to see that Karl could overlay the study with the painting in the way he did.
Lesley,
Our posts crossed in the ether, I think. You are right that the image, whether endearing or painful, is definitely shocking — or perhaps better — wide-eye-opening. I guess that’s what I was referring to when I said that to discuss studies in the context of those wide-open legs made me wonder what the subtext might be.
I think one of the reasons that sexuality is so difficult to use to communicate with is that the practice is so constant among animals — and so variable among individuals. I find the vulnerability endearing, but I can see where some people would see it as, well, vulnerable and thus off-putting.
Further, my mind wants to discuss why I find it endearing, but my modesty definitely forbids. The very fact that I’m reluctant to discuss such private matters is an indication that we (western Europeans, at any rate) have in general only the crudest kind of “norms” about sexual behavior, and that mostly we act in the privacy of our own home — and minds. Communication needs commonalities and sexual expression has perhaps too little common ground in any general sense.
I would argue with your contention that you have not put out an “intentional” symbol.
Leslie,
Let me retract the contention then. We have explored different interpretations of art here. One is “art as communication.” Another is, art as “Hey, look at this!” I am not satisfied with either definition. I see art as a presentation of discovery, or a presentation of a work that could be the basis for discovery. ‘Discovery’ is not quite the right word, but it is far closer to my meaning than ‘communication.’
Previously you have joked playfully about male sexuality (”size does matter”, “unconventional leash”). When the topic is female sexuality, you become alarmed rather than amused. This is nothing unique to you. In German and Dutch, the polite expression for female genitalia is “shame lips.” Female sexuality always has an element of shame attached to it. This shame element is in fact not what I am focused on, any more than I am focused on the humorous connotations of an erect penis. I acknowledge that these elements of meaning are out there, but I prefer not to let them hijack my work. I consider these culturally embedded meanings, at worst, as a sort of occupational hazard. If you want to look at the pictures the way I do, you would need to get past these stock cultural meanings… which is not to say you might not end up with the same interpretation you have now, of course.
Let me make a contrast which I do not mean to be critical of you. You use “Hello Kitty” for the shock value of the most superficial cultural interpretation of the stuffed animal. That is your purpose, that is central to your statement, and you succeed marvelously. However, I do not present a woman with her legs spread wide with the intention of using the most superficial cultural interpretation (”Hey, look at that ….”) as an element in the work. Obviously, that interpretation is there. People could also make such an interpretation of a ballerina spreading her legs. I would say at some level, the interpretation is just as valid; the only problem is, it may miss the point.
Your own work focuses on shame explicitly, a transformation of the “silent, shameful experience, to a visible and open dialogue,” to quote your Artist statement (a bit out of context). I sometimes wonder why you steer clear of the topic of sexuality, given that it is such a rich topic in the area of shame, to the extent that one wants to focus on this aspect.
June,
Schiele was a fascinating artist. He was imprisoned for making pornography, although he was later released. The images you link to are quite mild. His more graphic images of young women seem to say, “Yes, I am shameful, is there something wrong with that?”
Karl.
This is about Female Sexuality? Shame? I am curious, if this is your position, why the medieval setting?
As I am sure you know, Karl, the male view taken during the Medieval era was that women were always ready for more. They were possessed with LUST. From this perspective, I suppose one could say that women lived in a constant state of Anticipation. And this, somehow, combined with their other responsibilities of daily living. Women were powerful; how else can we explain that the most common defense against the accusation of rape was pregnancy: she willed it, she wanted it, he is innocent. The history is interesting and the perspective is obvious, right?
Your depiction, as I see it, is of course more romantic, a decision to place the couple in Nature, bathed in warmth near the sea under partially sunny skies and partially hidden by a Bush (which, by the way, achieves surprisingly remarkable depth compared to the shallowness of all other elements, including the figures) seems appropriate to a non-historical realm and instead, fantasy. Okay. But I wonder why?
Dolls? As I see them, the legs appear (as Brigit remarked) detachable (like those models one can buy at the Art Store), they are stiff, they lack depth, their gaze is… studied, their skin has no flush, her twist at the hips is mechanical, their is no sign of previous activity (wait, no, the blankets are nice that way, rumpled, suggestive of earlier romp). But doll or not, what really gets in the way of my ability to embrace their embrace is that her legs are spread for ME (and EVERYONE) and quite frankly, I am not interested, for all of the reasons above. I prefer the mystery.
Karl,
Hmmm…I seem to have offended you when my intention was to clarify what seemed like a misinterpretation of my previous comment. I should have let it go? I am never sure, but this topic is interesting to me and I figure you are putting out the images for feedback so what the heck.
My main point was that a lot of folks, not just me (as you recognized), will bring some of this same (what you call stock or superficial, I would call readily agreed upon) cultural “baggage” and association to this image. I am not implying that you mean it that way, but that it is something out there, undeniable. I won’t go into all the ways in which addressing female sexuality are different than male sexuality and how much trickier that is. You clearly have an awareness of that already. but you open these doors with your work, right? And you seem willing to jump into those deep waters which is fine- hats off to you. Nor did I stop looking or thinking about it when I brought this cultural baggage to the image. But the cultural baggage is there, it ain’t going anywhere, superficial or not.
I want my viewers to get beyond the superficial as well. How an artist does that is a whole different issue. For example when I was making work with images of psychiatric pills, some people just glancing at the work thought I was talking about addiction, illicit drugs, etc. Not what I was going for but how could I blame them for that association?
Sorry if I offended you and put you on the defense. I should have let you not talk about it as you indicated you didn’t want to anymore. I meant to provoke thought, not irritation.
PS - my work is not about sexuality at the moment, not do I feel like it is going in that direction, but in the past I have addressed that subject before in a different ways, now that you mention it. It is indeed tricky…
June,
Our posts did cross in the night! When you write “You are right that the image, whether endearing or painful, is definitely shocking — or perhaps better — wide-eye-opening” I don’t think you understand the way in which I get a bit disturbed by an image like this. I am AOK with sexual imagery and they mostly do not shock me, nor do I perceive that this image is meant to shock persay. Do you know the artist/performer Annie Sprinkle? I remember well learning about her in undergrad because back then, SHE was shocking. Back in the 80’s she sat on a stage with her legs splayed open with a sepculum inside her and let audience members come up and look into her vagina. The difference between what is happening there and in this painting is huge. The Schiele connection is interesting, but also different in spirit to me.
But maybe you are right that sexuality has too little common ground to clearly communicate about it. SOme work addressing it speaks to me and in a way so did Karl’s painting - maybe I just didn’t agree with what it said :)
Schiele can DRAW like Nabokov (who by the way once lived in the house where I now reside) can WRITE.
Balthus… perhaps some topics require a skill level that some of us can only aspire to.
D.
Does writing ability reside in the house — can you catch it somehow? I’m impressed….
Dee Period,
Nice to hear that you reside in Nabokov’s old place.
Relating his Lolita to Schiele’s drawings doesn’t do it for me. There is more to these works than the topic of young female sexuality.
This is about Female Sexuality? Shame? I am curious, if this is your position, why the medieval setting?
The question makes no sense to me. I didn’t say the topic was shame, I said that the topic is often associated with shame by others. I think female sexuality has something to do with the picture, yes obviously, but there is more to it than that.
The painting technique is inspired by 15th century Flemish art which is in the period after the middle ages. The setting is not necessarily medieval, but if you like that setting you can see it that way.
Leslie,
No, no offense taken at all. I should use more smiley faces I guess. Thanks for your feedback.
I Love art that rapes the perception of all Processes that were went through to make the piece. They inspired me .
Wow.
Karl, you really need to work on your vaginas.
Not too sure if he is going to reply to that monologue…
Haaa! Good one :-)