Phillip Guston in his interview for the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art defines some rules of his work. I can agree with some of them, but with some I am not familiar.
Philip Guston: Mysteries of the working process [online] At: https://www.sfmoma.org/watch/philip-guston-mysteries-of-the-working-process/ (Accessed 12.02.2024)
For example, he says that he could return to the work that he had already done once but destroyed. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with such experience. If I once created something and destroyed it, then as a rule, this is most likely a very thought-out decision. As a rule, to destroy the work, I find clear criteria and justification why this is a bad work.
Several times I destroyed work because of emotion. I was very upset because of physical qualities, for example, the canvas frame was bent and I could not straighten it, or the paint crumbled and the only thing that could be done to redo this work. I return to work if it is not finished, or I can modify the old work with new ideas.
Regarding the fact that Guston does not understand what exactly he is drawing - I can agree with this. This is exactly the magical sacrament in which the subconscious works with materials or with a chosen and already worked-out topic many times. At such a moment, when consciousness turns off, intuition begins to work and just at this moment, it seems to me, that the artist creates the language of art, which can communicate with the viewer.
And in conclusion, a completely fair statement that the final work should not look very, as if to say “licked” or “neat”.
The work must show that it had a relationship with the artist.
Comments