Dave and Moses

New piece, yet to be realized (but I'm really excited about it!!!). To be installed in a space, an apartment space is preferred, but a gallery space will work also. Perhaps with a group of pieces that are mysteriously hidden around and in the space. This has to be done with 2 cats; they don't necessarily have to be Dave and Moses, but they are my friends!

Friends
two cats (Dave and Moses)
variable installation
2010

Moses

Dave

Lighthouse

Thomas Kinkade - The Light of Peace (canvas reproduction) 1996

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches"
-Benjamin Franklin

The light of a lighthouse, a tall structure on a treacherous beach, illuminates and lets navigators and captains see the shore ahead of them, even if it is obscured by fog or darkness. The light here gives people actual physical vision. The light of a church is only metaphoric.

"You, O Lord, keep my lamp burning; my God turns my darkness into light."
-Psalms: 18:28

Both lighthouses and churches are beacons. One for boats to navigate the coastline, the other for people navigate life. An easy analogy can be made that a church functions much like a lighthouse in this way (by guiding people). [as example you may read this excerpt from the Concord Pastor blog from Oct. 17, 2007] I think this is a slippery and challenging comparison. I believe I can shed light on this subject because light and spirit have been of high interest for me for quite some time.

Adam Farcus - Of the Light series (wood, glass, metal, plastic, and lights) 2001?

Light is the symbol for guiding, in religious beliefs, creeds, and morals; unless you count the light bulbs and candles in the church - which are at least for illumination and at most live as the same metaphor as a 'guiding light.' As I said the conflation of Franklin's quote for the dogmas of the church is a complicated issue. Franklin clearly was not intending his quote to be used to promote the ideals of any religion as he was also quoted as saying, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." (Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758) and " The bell calls others to Church, but itself never minds the sermon." (Poor Richard's Almanack, 1754).

But this "lighthouse" quote is also slippery because it references a clear and historic symbol of the Christian faith - light as divine presence. I'm left stuck between these two ideals. It is often hard for me to side with extremes in arguments, and that is evident here. I think that there is almost always a middle-ground/gray area between two conflicting ideas. In this instance there are parts of each side of this dichotomy that I identify with. I am not a full rationalist (as Benjamin Franklin has defined himself) and I am not a devout (or even slight) believer in any religion. I think that my faith in this matter lays somewhere between - in a space mixed between the natural phenomena and science of light on one hand and the symbolic power that such light can connote.

when meaning doesn't matter...

I've received my most recent issue of Poetry. I have noticed in the past 10 or so issues that I only really care for about 20% of the poetry in each issue (sometimes less). My main complaint is that it seems fairly conservative and traditional, a.k.a. old. The brief introduction to the most recent issue confirms my suspicions. Here is the beginning of the introduction:

"Here at Poetry we generally agree with T.S. Eliot’s notion that 'poetry can communicate before it is understood.' In fact, we might go even further and say that to enjoy a poem in this sense—to respond bodily to its formal movement and sounds, the shape it cuts in the mind’s ear—is to understand it in some primary way. There are even poems that exist wholly on this plane, poems that seem not so much hostile to meaning as beautifully immune to it. ..."

It's clear that I am into concept, but I do enjoy some of the ineffable characteristics of some poetry and art. It just erks me when I hear someone only toting those qualities, especially while leaning on notions of 'beauty' - because who can deny that, right? It's like High Modernism or Abstract Expressionism, and the Avant Guard in here. I think this will not renew my subscription this year. Thank you Poetry magazine, you've given me a few things to think about, but I think I need to move on.

Link to may favorite issue - the Conceptual/Flarf issue.

COLOR (and light)

These images are all from an art instructional book (for painters) on color. The descriptions (and the whole book) are fairly rudimentary and simple - as are most instructional books that try to take place of a class or actual practice. I do not know how "mixing together any two secondary colors" equals a tertiary color. I was taught (and it is common color knowledge) that tertiaries are made by mixing a secondary with one of it's two primaries next to it on the color wheel. Such as Yellow-Green and Blue-Violet. Maybe color was taught differently in 1967? That might explain why the Coal City Public Library was giving it away in a free pile. The illustrations of light acting are really beautiful and odd though - visual and solid renditions of what light looks like. Also, the little "doll" in the "Ominous Shadows" illustration looks like the little prince. All images and text are from: Color, A Complete Guide for Artists. Fabri, Ralph. Watson-Gill, 1967.

This find causes me to question myself as an art teacher. How can I really get abstract ideas (such as painting light) across to my students? It is clear that this book has specific and determined ways of representing light that narrow and determine the reader/maker's way of rendering light. I hope that my pedagogical tactics and strategies are not restrictive in this way. I want my students to solve problems for themselves, in their own way. Ideally, I am the facilitator of this problem and subsequent solving.