Nathan Boyer’s videos were a popular post last month (go here to check them out). Here, now, are three of his paintings. The first two are from a body of work that made use of handmade clay figures, strong lighting and sharp perspectives for a cinematic effect. The last painting is the most recent; still based on models–though now they’re largely computer generated.
****************************************************************************
Also, while we’re on the subject of dramatic perspective and slightly tilting horizon lines: there’s a review of the latest Stanley Lewis exhibit at Artcritical.
****************************************************************************
Also, it looks like a couple of artists we’ve featured in the past have brand new websites. Jennifer Meanley’s would be found here and Emily Sall’s here. Go look!
*****************************************************************************
Now, back to the Boyer…
I haven’t seen any of these in person, but I think I like the clay model ones better.
My thought is this: last week I brought up Tom Gregg again. Whenever I show them to people (via the internet) they have that exact reaction: Pearlstein, cool, dry realism. In person, like I said, the colors are really intense and the things just glow. They’ve got presence.
I think the same is true between Nathan’s two bodies of work. The older ones have some effects of light that translate really well to the jpeg. I haven’t seen the clay figure paintings in person, but my best guess is that, as objects, the newer ones are as impressive based on some color/tonal relationships that just don’t translate as well to the blog’s format.
But, let’s pretend I didn’t say that, because it gives me a question. It’s definitely true that the clay figures paintings have more anecdote of a type that invites a little more empathy (with author and with character).
How important is anecdote to painting?
How important is empathy (and towards whom or what is it best directed)?
Are these things factors in the real experience of the paintings or just when experiencing them via the reproduction?
Hm…
I’d say this:
-People like seeing people.
-People like weird stuff. The clay figures have both a familiarity and strangeness about them.
These phenomena apply to in-person viewings and jpeg viewings.
Anecdote helps a lot for internet engagement, because it puts the viewer’s own think-wheels in motion–it becomes more like a game, instead of, say, a tv show.
I’m not sure I grasp the empathy part. Do you mean for viewers in general, or viewers who are also artists? Because I feel empathy for him with these later works, but mostly as a painter noticing he’s taking on a harder-sell motif.
Empathy is important in general, I think, because, generally, people’s self-orientation in relation to the work is the basis for their engagement. Which is why they like seeing people, and also why they like seeing weird stuff.
I just watched Eraserhead the other night. This line of thought is on my front burner.
“oh….you ARE sick?!”
only line I can remember
All I can remember is the little dancing Cornish game hen…
Sam, I would mean empathy, in general, from anyone, directed toward the paintings, not the artist.
Actually, I can remember discussing some paintings I was making a few years ago in terms of an exploration of empathy, and having people, educated people, think that I meant I was making the paintings with the idea that I was trying to get people to feel sympathetic or more empathetic toward me and my project.
Though empathy for the process would count…I know that I feel the making of the clay figures a little more than I do the computer generated ones. Thomas Demand is one of my favorite contemporary photographers, and definitely his work requires one empathize with the process to fully understand what’s going on with the images–which sort of involves an empathy replacement; away from the figures in the photojournalism he bases his work on, and toward the process of re-creating the place out of paper.