Sometimes I am frustrated here because I do not have the artistic expertise to pinpoint and properly phrase what I want to say about certain artwork. This is a prime example. I will try anyway but of course what I am going to say will sound trite and simplistic.
First, every single one of these paintings is interesting. By that, I don’t just mean attracting and holding one’s interest. What I mean is, each one makes you stop and think about what is being shown, not shown, partially shown, or merely hinted at. Why is the artist combining these images? Ok, that one is obvious – the combinations are meant to be thought-provoking and may contain actual messages – but it’s more than that.
For example, why did he choose to blend (and I mean blend, not just juxtaposition) certain images in certain ways? Why are some objects tilted, angled, or curved (like the tree growing out of the rock with leaves and limbs blending into matching clouds)? Why does he position certain things (like the cityscape seen through an opening in rock that resembles an ant hole)?
Why is Pittsburgh floating in air? Why are tiny houses dominated by vague, looming skyscrapers in the background, sized out of proportion? The monumental animal skull that dwarfs village ruins indicates something the painter had in mind, but what about the very large leaf? Speaking of leaf, look at the way it wraps around those homes – protecting or menacing? And is that a shell or an eye?
And the way these are done, the technique and the subject matter displayed, are intriguing.
Every one of these paintings is a keeper for me. I just wish I could explain better as to why.
I agree with Briam, about the many questions that elicit these paintings, which, to me, that he could respond only to the author, if he were still alive. When the observer is confronted with surreal works, with scenarios lend themselves to various interpretations, usually asks: “What do you mean the artist?”. According to me you should know a little about psychology, because so many things come into play related all’incoscio artist. Often these are ideas taken from his dreams, but it could also be a state of trance, very common in certain artists. In this regard, I am reminded of an anecdote about Dali, when at the beginning of the thirties of last century, he made an exhibition of his paintings in a gallery in London. Among the guests there was also Freud, who was asked for an opinion as a psychoanalyst, and he replied: “This man definitely has problems.”
Vincenzo said:
In my opinion, Abe Weiner’s painting is a lovely genre of surrealism.
LikeLike
Bruce said:
Sometimes I am frustrated here because I do not have the artistic expertise to pinpoint and properly phrase what I want to say about certain artwork. This is a prime example. I will try anyway but of course what I am going to say will sound trite and simplistic.
First, every single one of these paintings is interesting. By that, I don’t just mean attracting and holding one’s interest. What I mean is, each one makes you stop and think about what is being shown, not shown, partially shown, or merely hinted at. Why is the artist combining these images? Ok, that one is obvious – the combinations are meant to be thought-provoking and may contain actual messages – but it’s more than that.
For example, why did he choose to blend (and I mean blend, not just juxtaposition) certain images in certain ways? Why are some objects tilted, angled, or curved (like the tree growing out of the rock with leaves and limbs blending into matching clouds)? Why does he position certain things (like the cityscape seen through an opening in rock that resembles an ant hole)?
Why is Pittsburgh floating in air? Why are tiny houses dominated by vague, looming skyscrapers in the background, sized out of proportion? The monumental animal skull that dwarfs village ruins indicates something the painter had in mind, but what about the very large leaf? Speaking of leaf, look at the way it wraps around those homes – protecting or menacing? And is that a shell or an eye?
And the way these are done, the technique and the subject matter displayed, are intriguing.
Every one of these paintings is a keeper for me. I just wish I could explain better as to why.
LikeLike
Vincenzo said:
I agree with Briam, about the many questions that elicit these paintings, which, to me, that he could respond only to the author, if he were still alive. When the observer is confronted with surreal works, with scenarios lend themselves to various interpretations, usually asks: “What do you mean the artist?”. According to me you should know a little about psychology, because so many things come into play related all’incoscio artist. Often these are ideas taken from his dreams, but it could also be a state of trance, very common in certain artists. In this regard, I am reminded of an anecdote about Dali, when at the beginning of the thirties of last century, he made an exhibition of his paintings in a gallery in London. Among the guests there was also Freud, who was asked for an opinion as a psychoanalyst, and he replied: “This man definitely has problems.”
LikeLike
Bruce said:
Heh, very good, Vincenzo. 🙂
LikeLike
Kim Weiner said:
Hi Suzay,
I was just checking back about Abe Weiner?. I realize you are busy, but how soon do you think you might get to him?
LikeLike
Suzay Lamb said:
12 days ago 🙂
LikeLike