The reason I bring this up
is that there were two shows that totally knocked me out this season
- one by Roland Flexner at Caren Golden Fine Art and the other by Shirley
Kaneda at Feigen Contemporary - and how the works were made becomes
significant in attempting to ascertain what the artists might have been
thinking. As you can see from the illustrations, both works bear obvious
similarities, almost to the point that a cursory examination might lead
one to assume that they are by the same artist, the only difference
between them being the addition of hot colors to one and not the other.
They are by different artists,
but even after one becomes aware of that it is easy to compile a long
list of their commonalities: a work on paper whose size promotes an
intimate relationship with the viewer; a sensuous liquid quality; a
playful ambiguity between micro and macro scale; a nearly Greenbergian
adherence to the dictates of the two-dimensional surface; a strong use
of negative space and, with that, crystal clear composition. Superficially,
at least, the affinities are numerous.
Closer inspection, while
reinforcing many of the shared characteristics, begins to reveal important
differences as well. While both drawings appear fluid, the black and
white Flexner is, or at least appears to be, more natural. One suspects
that Flexner's process in some way harnesses the physical act of creation
in a fairly direct manner. The same does not hold true for Kaneda's
work. Although its abstract image is naturalistic, its slightly photographic
shimmer - on a certain level it approximates the look of reflective
Mylar - and the fact that it is a watercolor, would seem to belie a
straight forward approach in its creation. So, if the Flexner appears
to be a record of an action, the Kaneda appears, while abstract, to
be in some way depictive or representational.
At this point it seems likely
that each artist used a different process to create their work. But
in light of their obvious similarities, one might still give pause upon
learning that, in nearly every way, their working methods stand at polar
opposites. Kaneda's watercolor involves a multi-layered system in its
creation; Flexner's ink on paper is the result of a single action. Kaneda's
piece, as did all of the works from this series, took between 9 and
16 hours to make; Flexner's between 4 and 5 seconds. Kaneda's involves
drawing, brushes, watercolors, a scanner, a computer, Photoshop software,
and a high quality printer (and then more brushes and watercolor); Flexner's
involve soap, ink, and a brush attached to a hollow tube.
Kaneda, who considers this
work both a possible study for a larger painting and a complete piece
in itself, starts by making a preparatory watercolor. This first stage
watercolor is then placed on a scanner and a digital image is created
for manipulation in Photoshop. After much play, where both the lines
and colors are massaged and cajoled, watercolor paper is placed in the
printer, and a black and white only print is produced. The image on
the computer screen now becomes the color study, while the print out
becomes the preparatory drawing for the finished watercolor. Hour built
upon hour, yet the resulting artwork shows little sign of its labor
intense birth - instead cloaking its generation in a faux naturalism
that feels light, unmannered and, despite its acidic palate, almost
harmonious.
Totally circumscribed as
it is by its process, Flexner's work is nearly impossible to think of
as anything other than a finished work in itself (although, having said
that, anyone who knows what Flexner is technically capable of would
not be completely shocked to walk into a gallery and see an eight foot
version some day). Mixing ink or another black pigment with a medium
comprised mostly of soap and water, Flexner places a small amount of
the resulting solution on the end of a hollow brush. Standing over the
piece of paper, Flexner then expands the black fluid to the desired
size, waits for the ebb and flow of the mixture to achieve just the
right parameters, and lays it down in a single gesture. In other words,
and in the space of 5 seconds, he blows a bubble and pops it on the
paper.
Now looking at their actions,
Kaneda and Flexner appear to have little in common. The art work seems
to point to shared concerns, while their processes seem to counter that
assumption. So, what gives? Do the artworks bear false witness of intent,
or is it that the productive action of the artists is, while interesting,
in actuality irrelevant?
If one trusts the visual
as being indicative of the larger meaning, as I usually do, then one
also has to trust that Flexner and Kaneda do pursue shared concerns.
If this would seem to dismiss the process as unimportant, perhaps the
next step is to see if statements of commonality can be made about the
process.
The first thing to note,
obviously, is that each has pushed method to an extreme. Kaneda by adding
layer upon layer of synthetic process until, one would expect, any chance
for meaning, warmth, or naturalness would be totally, wrung from the
drawing. Flexner by removing so much of the process usually associated
with drawing, including- incredibly-even physically coming into contact
with the paper, that anything resembling composition, gesture, or even
touch could reasonably be assumed to be out of the question.
Then there's the element
of time which, as with the processes, has been pushed to the outer ends
of the spectrum. While spending, as Kaneda can, up to 16 hours on a
drawing is certainly not unheard of, the medium of watercolor is usually
practiced with the pursuit of immediacy in mind. Stretching the time
out this way, in practical terms making the drawing a hyper-extended,
multi-session affair, attenuates the thinking process associated with
the drawing, layering in information even as the artist is constantly
challenged to hold on to her thread of thought.
Conversely, having any thoughts
at all, let alone contemplating line, density, and composition in the
space of four seconds seems, on the face of it, highly unlikely if not
impossible. Yet, somehow, Flexner does it. As with all of his drawings,
the one above displays the artist's uncanny ability to control all of
the qualities expected of a precision line drawing: a clean line, subtle
manipulation of tone, and an articulate description of space. (For those
who might doubt the artist's control, Flexner is happy to pull out nearly
identical drawings he has created during a single session). Where Kaneda
manages to hold on to the immediate in the face of hours of toil, Flexner
manages to snatch a controlled result in the space of a breath.
Here, finally, we come to
that which underlies both artists' work. That is, the true subject for
each can be summed up (somewhat crudely in words, with such elegance
in their drawings) as this: manipulating time - whether though hyper-extension
or hyper-compression - can create a lens through which we can view the
process of welding ideas and actions into a single armature, a single
argument, a singular work of art.
Kaneda and Flexner may seek answers through processes at opposite poles,
but the larger truth is that they both seek answers by exploring the
polar extremes of process. In the end, it should come as no surprise
that their works share so many visual affinities; given their shared
visions of art's potential, it would be stranger if they did not.
