Cat Village

It seems I am the first to post.

Image one is Charlie and I straight chillin'.

Image two is Charlie's Print. (low quality sorry)

This whole image threw me for a loop Charlie, I was not expecting this abstract thing considering you current interest in automotives, and the perception of the industry.

Directed towards Charlie’s work.

I feel as though this image is operating in the space that can only be describe as “art school”, or “art project”. The main element of the image is a grid based colored pencil drawing. The drawing is rendered in a way that is reminiscent of projects that would have been produced in a 2-D class. A collection of geometric and semi-organic forms that are unidentifiable and most certainly abstract. These forms are strange yet very familiar, they are reminiscent of the kinds of objects that would be included in a study or exercise. They seem to be a way to organize, activate, and delineate movement. Though the educational aspects are overt, the background is in opposition to the drawing. The tacks seem to be “real” and are concrete as a common object. Also the tacks are printed, and hold a graphic quality. It’s easy to name artists that this image reminds me of but none of the comparisons are direct or overly important. I think of the structured patterning of M.C. Esher, this most likely this stems from the grid based drawing. Also the play between nearly photographic and drawn imagery is reminiscent of Richard Hamilton. Though I can make these connections based on the visual aspects I am doubtful that there are any conceptual relation between these examples. Knowing Charlie and the concepts that he has been exploring lately I find this image confusing. I am able to recognize elements that are inherent of the shared education that Charlie and I have, but I am unable to draw a connection to any sort of context that has been present in any other work produced by him.
I feel as though this image is some sort of off-shoot, I cannot identify any themes or subject matter. Some of the abstract forms are reminiscent of common objects. Two of the forms could be labeled as “pencils”, and the shapes attached to them could be “marks”. Another of the forms could be a flower, but not any that I have ever seen. Then there are the tacks, which seem to inhabit a strange unidentifiable space. The drawing is on a separate surface, and the tacks are collaged on top. The tacks seem to fall to the background, but their actual location on top of the drawing places them into a sort of discordant space (purgatory?). If I had to compile a theory for this work I would call it a deviation. I am semi-familiar with Charlie’s interests, what he has been developing images about. With this in mind I cannot make any connections to this image as his body of work as a whole. I want to consider this image an exercise, possibly of execution. I’m sure it seems like I am discounting this image, but I promise that I am not. If this were a product of my creation I would identify it as many things. I could imagine this as a way to continue working but generating time to develop concepts. It seems easier for me to work on images/concepts while actually working on an image, even if the image being produced might turn into a “non-important” image. I find it easy to hold this image in the same regard, though I am most certainly placing my process on someone else's completed image. Could this image just have been a respite from Charlie’s chosen concepts of interest? I am unsure, but am almost comfortable thinking of it in this way.
Since I am looking at this as an exercise it becomes hard to criticize it. I feel discomforted by the abstract forms, they carry little information which makes me question their importance. I want to draw a narrative/message/point/agenda from this image but I am at a loss. I think that the disassociation that this print has with your recent images (or your past body or work) is what makes it interesting. That interest only comes from have a certain perception of the types of images that you make, now and in the past. I feel that these types of images (2-D assignment feel) are boring, and lack an ability to communicate information. If I were to see this image in a gallery along side other prints, or as we saw it in class on Wednesday, I would walk past it. I am very interested to hear why you created this image, and why it deviates from you previously charted path. In the end I feel as though this image fails at communicating to the viewer, and bound to be looked over with a careless eye. And you know I’m just telling the truth, I’m not trying to hurt feelings or put people down, this is just my perception.