Showing posts with label Paul Gauguin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Gauguin. Show all posts

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Entry - 2.7.16

Artists have been making prints for centuries.  Generally, printing is about replication.  For someone living in the twenty first century, the idea of creating multiple identical copies of an image might not seem that miraculous, but the development of printing techniques really resulted from revolutionary changes in how information was shared within world societies.  Books existed before there was a way to print them.  They were painstakingly copied by hand and therefore fairly rare and expensive.  Of course, where the word existed, it was naturally accompanied by the image to illustrate it.  These images were manually-executed, one-of-a-kind originals.  Sometimes the artwork, unfathomably detailed and intricate, transformed a book into a magical object to be venerated within a religious community.

Lindisfarne Gospel - c700
At other times, artwork elevated a utilitarian book, such as a Book of Hours, into something precious and exquisite, only to be afforded by the nobility.

Limbourg Brothers - February from The Book of Hours - 1412 to 16

Limbourg Brothers - December from The Book of Hours - 1412 to 16
Because books were owned by a literate elite, it was not requisite that the artwork contained within them directly illustrate the words on the page; it was more critical that the artwork enhance the value of the book as an object.  The uneducated masses could see sculpture and paintings which explicitly depicted biblical stories and other narratives in their churches and public institutions.

With Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1436, books were suddenly more available and less costly.  Publishers were able to mass produce books on a much larger scale, and it was only natural that they would desire to include imagery in their work, both to follow the tradition established with handmade books and, now that books could end up in the hands of less educated owners, to illustrate or provide concrete representations of the people, places and activities described on the page.

Unknown - Illustration for Morte d'Arthur - 1498

Michael Wolgemut - The Dance of Death - 1493

Elizabethan - Macbeth, Banquo and Three Witches - 17th Century
Though the development of the woodcut occurred in Europe at around 1400, it was the invention of the printing press that encouraged artists to develop the printing technique into a sophisticated art form.  Because moveable type could be fitted around a block easily, woodcuts were particularly suitable for mass printing and remained the primary technique for illustration until the late sixteenth century.  During this period, artists were also creating editions of fine art prints not to serve as illustrations but to be marketed as “stand alone” works of art.

Albrecht Durer - Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse -  1498

Albrecht Durer - Rhinoceros - 1515
It is interesting that in order to achieve a full range of tones in these prints, artists resorted to using the same techniques they used in drawing – crosshatching being most consistently employed.  Though the results were often magnificent, mimicking linear techniques on a woodblock was unnatural, extremely difficult and really did not maximize the full potential of the medium.

Woodblock printing techniques were first used in ancient Egypt and China, where woodcuts were employed in dyeing patterned fabrics.  Long before Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press and moveable type, the Chinese were printing books using woodcuts.  But it was the Japanese who really optimized the potential of this printing technique, evidenced by the large number of quality fine art prints created during their Edo period from the 17th to the 19th centuries.  The Japanese approached woodblock printing in a more organic fashion than the Europeans of the 15th century, avoiding the temptation to imitate linear techniques and suggest subtle modeling using the medium.  Japanese prints are essentially graphic works with expressive, flowing lines encompassing broad expanses of vibrant color and intricate patterning.  While the Europeans used oil-based inks for printing, the Japanese adopted water soluble pigments which permitted them to experiment with transparency and incorporate delicate gradations of tone and hue within solid areas of color.  Some artists dusted their prints with a metallic powder called mica to create a shimmering effect when appropriate – in a snow scene, for instance.

Kitagawa Utamaro - Ase o fuku onna - 1798

Katsushika Hokusai - Evening Moon at Ryogoku Bridge - 1831/32

Utagawa Kunisada - Tale of Genji - mid 1800s

Utagawa Hiroshige - Kanbara - 1832
When European artists first became aware of Japanese prints in the mid-19th century, they were both startled and enchanted.  The Impressionists quickly incorporated in their work elements from the prints like the use of unusual vantage points or the quirky, seemingly arbitrary, cropping of images.  But it was really the next generation or two of artists that turned to the woodcut as a vital means of expression, using not only Japanese prints as their models but also the art of many peripheralized cultures such as those of Africa or the South Sea islands.  These artists were seeking a more brutal and elemental means of expression – one devoid of sophistication and artistic convention.  Besides turning to the artwork of other cultures, they were inspired by the early woodcuts of Northern Europe and recent developments in the artistic vocabulary of contemporary artists.  Their prints had to reflect the medium from which they were created, expressing the difficulty of cutting into a hardwood block with knives and gauges, exposing the individual marks of the artist, revealing the knots and grain which defined their medium.  Their prints are scarred and irregularly shaped, determined by the cheap scraps of wood affordable to them.  Middle tones and modeling have been eliminated.  Virtuosity and nuance have been sacrificed to arrive at a more honest, basic means of communication.

Paul Gauguin - Change of Residence - 1899

Kathe Kollwitz - Self Portrait - 1923

Ernst Barlach - The Cathedrals - 1920

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - Head of Ludwig Schames - 1918

Erich Heckel - Portrait of a Man - 1918
It was exposure to the prints of these modern artists 35 years ago that first sparked my interest in woodcuts.  During that period, I’ve peripatetically explored this printing technique, at times devoting myself solely to printing and at other times not producing a single print for years.  I have struggled, maybe not too successfully, to avoid the slavish imitation of the masters who have come before me, keeping my approach to the block personal and organic.  My interest primarily in figurative compositions and portraiture is reflected in my prints.  Early on, exaggeration and distortion were devices I commonly employed in my prints, not surprising since at that time I was still resisting the inclination to work naturalistically in other mediums, slowly discarding expressionist conventions and developing my own personal language.  Today I find that, regardless of my intentions, the block imposes its own sensibility on my work; the more receptive I am to where the block is leading me, the more successful will be the resulting print.

Gerard Wickham - I Was Told to Wear a Tie - 1987

Gerard Wickham - Woodcutter and Model - c1990

Gerard Wickham - Tyler - 1998

Gerard Wickham - Dawn - 1998

Gerard Wickham - Terre Anne - 1999

Gerard Wickham - Organ Hill - 2001

Over the years, I’ve developed my own techniques for making woodcuts.  I’ve received no formal training in the technique, so everything I’ve learned has come from written materials and the process of trial and error.  A master printer may find fault with many of my procedures.  That’s fine.  My goal has never been to develop the quintessential printing technique; instead, I aim to arrive at procedures that fit my personality and attain the specific results that I desire.

Recently, I made a woodcut of my son and his girlfriend, recording in photographs significant stages in the process.  I thought it would be interesting to provide here a brief, step-by-step summary of my procedures.  I began by purchasing a hardwood plank, in this case poplar, at a local store which carries a variety of lumber.  After cutting from the plank a block of the dimensions I desired, I sanded the printing surface just enough to eradicate any irregularities that might interfere with the printing process.  I drew in pencil on the block a general sketch of my composition and traced my lines with indelible marker.  Keep in mind that your final print will be the mirror image of the drawing that you’re now seeing on the block.  Flipping an image can dramatically change its movement and mood, so it’s best to experiment a bit before committing to a composition.


I then shellacked the block to protect the wood and prevent the ink from absorbing into the surface.  Be sure to shellac both sides of the block or warpage will result.  Once dry, the block is ready to be cut.  I use a variety of handheld woodcutting tools that can be purchased at an art supply store or hobby shop.  It’s critical that the tools are sharp or your cuts will be ragged and your tools will slip across the surface of the wood.  I used hand pressure to make my cuts, only occasionally resorting to a rubber mallet when challenged by a stubborn stretch of wood.  The cutting of this block required about half a dozen sessions over a period of a few days.


Here I am in front of the All Nighter enjoying a blazing fire while cutting my block.


This block is ready for a test print.  One thing I like about woodcuts is that the printing process is very elemental and tactile.  No fancy apparatus are required, just a handheld brayer (ink roller) and a baren (tool for rubbing).  For a test print, I use a water soluble ink and a sheet of regular quality drawing paper.  I put a dollop of ink on a pane of glass and roll it with my brayer until the ink is spread evenly over a 4” X 4” square.  Then I begin rolling the ink onto the block, careful not to over ink any section of the woodcut – which could result in the loss of detail.  Depending on the size of the block, you may have to add ink to the pane several times during this process.


Above you can see my block, fully inked and ready for its first test printing.  Printing is quite easy.  Lay a sheet of paper on a flat surface and carefully place your block on it (inked side down).  Apply pressure to the block until the paper has made good contact with the ink and adheres to the surface of the block.  Now you can gently flip the block over and begin methodically rubbing the reverse side of the paper with your baren.  I prefer to use the back of an ordinary tablespoon for this purpose.  When you are satisfied that you’ve covered the entire woodcut, slowly peel the paper from the block and put it aside to dry.  For this print, I cut the block further and made additional test prints twice before becoming satisfied with the results.

Printing the final version is identical in process to executing a test print with two exceptions: you use oil-based ink and good quality 100% rag printing paper.  I like to use a fairly lightweight paper for woodblock printing since it allows me to see during the rubbing phase which areas of the print have made proper contact with the ink on the block.  Also, beforehand, I dampen the paper by briefly submersing it in water and setting it on a flat surface for about a half hour before printing.  It’s a good idea to dab off any puddling that occurs when you remove the paper from the water.  I usually only make a couple of prints from any block, but always have the option of producing more later if there is a demand.  You can see the final version of the print below.

Gerard Wickham - Hailey and Ernst - 2015

All Framed Up
As always, I encourage readers to comment here.  If you would prefer to comment privately, you can email me at: gerardwickham@gmail.com.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Entry - 10.13.13

In my last entry on Seminal Works, I ended my discussion with a look at First Light, a painting completed in 1990 after a period of indecision during which I determined in what manner I would address the figure in my art.  The entry was a long one and I felt compelled to wrap it up, so I summarily addressed the circumstances that lead to the creation of the work and wrote briefly as to why the work is considered “seminal” by me.  I recognized after publishing the entry that it is somewhat misleading.

Wickham - First Light - 1990
In my entry, I mention that I got the idea of painting a double portrait because I felt that my friend who posed for the work embodied a clear duality of conflicting personalities between which lay a chasm that could not be breached.  It was my belief at that time that these personae could not coexist in a single individual and that one persona would have to take precedence over the other.  All of which is true.  But the painting has very little to do with this germ of an idea.  I would be aghast if viewers came to the work thinking it an exploration of how a dominant persona must subdue one less viable in the individual, that this is a painting about a specific person that I knew twenty years ago.  The circumstances that initiate the development of an image are of interest as they expose process but commonly offer very little insight into how the finished work functions… may often lead to misconceptions instead.  That is why I seldom read those cards containing a few neatly printed paragraphs of verbiage that accompany artworks in museum shows.  If I read them, inevitably, the artwork is transformed into an illustration of the context purported by the card.



Picasso - La Vie - 1903

Does it help us to know that La Vie depicts Pablo Picasso’s friend, Casagemas, who committed suicide after being rejected by his lover, supposedly because he was impotent?  Or does this information prevent us from fully experiencing the image.  Picasso himself once opined: “A painting for me, speaks by itself.  What good does it do, after all, to impart explanations?  A painter has only one language.  As for the rest…”  He shrugged.


Gauguin - The Spirit of the Dead Watching - 1892

Does knowing that the nude figure in Spirit of the Dead Watching is Paul Gauguin’s 14 year old Tahitian wife help us to better understand the painting or does it place a context on the painting that most members of a contemporary audience would have trouble getting past to rationally explore the artwork?

 
By the time I completed First Light, that germ of an idea, visually representing the personality dichotomy of my model, was no longer of primary interest to me.  I didn’t even care if the viewer recognized that the same model was used for both figures.  (In fact, most people don’t notice this.)  Other aspects of the work began to dominate my thinking as the painting progressed.
 
Early on, as I began to map out my composition in my mind, I thought of the painting as an annunciation.  Although I don’t adhere to any religious beliefs, I have always been captivated by annunciation imagery and have, over the years, addressed the theme in several works.  Most importantly, annunciation imagery represents a charged instant in time when a significant transformation is taking place.  The natural and the supernatural are merged as Mary is impregnated with the seed of god.  On a cosmic level, this moment is charged with such significance on so many levels that it is impossible to go into them here.  But there is a personal story to the annunciation as well.  This is a moment of revelation.  An individual, Mary, is being informed by the angel Gabriel that she is to give birth to the son of god.  This, of course, is rather shocking news, and I am fascinated with how different artists depict Mary’s response.
 

Greek Orthodox - The Annunciation - 14th Century


Wickham - First Light (detail) - 1990

In researching this entry, I was surprised to find that Orthodox iconography consistently depicted the angel Gabriel with a trailing right foot, turned toward the viewer.  This gesture mirrors that of the standing figure in First Light.  I must have tapped into deep reservoirs of art history images stored in my subconscious because I had no idea that my reference was so explicit at the time I made the painting.  I’m not sure what the significance of this gesture in iconography is.  My guess is that it symbolized the descent of the angel from the cosmic to the mortal plane.  (If any reader can help me with this, I would be appreciative.)  In First Light, I use the gesture to show that the standing figure is caught in mid-action, that she is approaching the supine figure.  It reinforces the sense of the moment.  I also think that it lends the standing figure a slightly threatening aura.


Martini - The Annunciation - 1333


Another thing I like about annunciations is that they are usually compositionally awkward, depicting a huge void between Mary and the angel.  I appreciate unconventional and awkward compositions.  The eye doesn’t know where to go and bounces back and forth between the two figures.  Simone Martini resolves this problem by emphasizing the independence of each figure, placing them in ornate niches and flanking each with the figure of a saint.  The composition becomes frontal and static, relying on a pattern of vertical repetitions to hold it together.  The portrayal of Mary is wonderful in this work, her sinuous body contracts upon itself, her face expresses wariness and dissatisfaction.


Fra Angelico - The Annunciation - 1437 to 46

Like Martini, Fra Angelico also utilizes a composition that places his figures in niches, but he integrates these framing devices into the composition as three dimensional architectural elements.
 

Botticelli - Cestello Annunciation - 1490

Tintoretto - The Annunciation - 1587

 
Later artists resolved the compositional problems presented by traditional annunciation imagery by bringing the figures closer together and employing more sophisticated compositional devices to lead the eye through the painting, generally by stressing strong diagonals.  But I have a strong preference for the clumsy compositions of the Byzantine and proto-Renaissance periods. 


Wickham - First Light (detail) - 1990

Of course, in First Light, I had no desire to evoke religious themes but did wish to emphasize the impression that the painting captures a charged moment when something critical is taking place.  As the wisp of smoke caught rising from the just extinguished candle establishes a sense of the instant, my allusion to annunciation imagery is intended to do so as well.  The theme of revelation in annunciation imagery is of equal importance, reinforced in the image by suggestions of drawing back a curtain and shedding light on a subject.


Wickham - First Light (detail) - 1990


In depicting the supine figure in a state of internal musing, I wanted to accentuate her vulnerability.  Too distracted to be aware of the approaching figure, she revels in her personal thoughts, leaving herself open to assault.  It is clear by her exotic dress, make-up, extravagant jewelry and carefully coiffed hair that she has good reason to be engaged in inner musings.  She is sophisticated.  Her life is rich, complex and active.  Balthus also depicted musing figures in his art.


Balthus - Nude with Cat - 1949


But his figures appear to be plotting, to be forming a stratagem to achieve some amoral goal.  They seem dangerous.  My musing figure is weakened by permitting herself the luxury of surrendering to inner thoughts.  She is not conscious of what is happening around her and does not notice the approaching figure.

Though we are unsure of her intentions, I wished to portray the standing figure as dominant; she looms over the reclining figure, studying her dispassionately.  I even deliberately made the silhouette of the candleholder, pointed like a knife, jut into the void over the recumbent figure.  The viewer cannot be sure what is happening here.  It’s possible that nothing is occurring, that we are witnessing a quiet moment of observation when the daily lives of two beings temporarily intersect.  But I’ve also attempted to suggest that something more momentous is in the works, that these two very different figures should not exist in the same space and that a resolution could be impending.  Simultaneously, these beings are strangely linked.  There is a hint that there is a bond holding them together, that we are voyeurs of a strange game.  I do not allow the viewer to come to a firm conclusion concerning this image.  It would be my preference that he vacillate between interpretations, that he never settle on one hypothesis about what is occurring, that he invent an endless series of myths to place the image into a context.  As the creator of the image, I am only responsible for setting the parameters of how far that invention can go.
I will digress a moment to relate a personal story.  Back in the early 90’s, I used to get together with a friend at a bar in lower Manhattan about once a week to relax after work, have a few beers, shoot some pool and engage in freewheeling discussions about a host of subjects, one of which was art.  My friend had seen First Light on several occasions, so, one evening, I was explaining to him how I thought the painting should function, that it could represent a banal moment in the lives of two women but it could also depict something more momentous, that there were suggestions of conflict, violence and decadence in the image.  My friend could only see one facet of the work: two women calmly coexisting in an interior space as the first light of morning illuminates their surroundings.  I described the cyphers embedded in the image that I hoped would suggest alternative interpretations.  I touched upon my references to art history.  Though hesitant to do so, I even conjured up a possible scenario or two to explain what could be happening in the painting.  After all of this, he looked at me dead eyed and stated flatly, “I just don’t see it.”  I must admit that I was nonplussed by his reaction, wondering if my subtle suggestions within the work were too subtle.
A few weeks later, a friend from my wife’s workplace visited her at our apartment in Brooklyn.  At that time, First Light hung outside of our apartment on a landing that capped what seemed an endless series of stairways.  As you climbed the last flight to the top, First Light, lit by a filmy overhead skylight, filled your view.  It was unavoidable.  When I came home from work that evening, I asked my wife how the visit with her friend had gone, and she told me that she had been very disturbed upon seeing First Light.  Her friend thought the painting was sick.  I was surprised that her reaction was so strong but, at the same time, felt relieved that she had picked up on nuances in the work to which my friend had been blind.  In a nutshell, the painting functioned.
As I conclude this entry, I recognize that I am guilty of self-deception here, that I began by questioning whether being provided with biographical facts and explanations actually helps one better understand a work of art and then proceeded to provide a host of biographical facts and explanations about First Light.  I guess my excuse for this blatant contradiction is that, even though wary of the impact that the written word can have on one’s experience of an artwork, I must confess that I greatly enjoy reading about art and artists and take a prurient pleasure in rooting about in the intimate details available concerning the milieu within which an artwork was created.  It seems only natural that I would speculate on my own process, explain my intentions, attempt to unravel the workings of my art and even toss in the occasional private anecdote.  I suspect that most of us would like to remain intellectually “pure” but find ourselves surrendering to personal weaknesses.  I don’t find this a bad thing.  Much of my art takes a sympathetic, if not comic, view of human failings, and I honestly believe that it is our deficiencies which make us creative, innovative and interesting.  I can state one thing with certainty; future blog entries will continue to indulge in this kind of agreeable roving.
 
If you would prefer to comment privately, you can email me at gerardwickham@gmail.com.