Source material

This is certainly a well worn topic of discussion among creatives. Definitely one of the main reasons my awareness of it is raised this week is the opening of the exhibit Open Source, an exhibit which I curated, at Wilma Daniels gallery in Wilmington, NC. Central to the show is the idea that not only the literal material of the work but also its content can have a multitude of sources. I would say my relationships with the artists are source material for me as well.

A number of you have asked about the object making part of my practice recently (we all do this- “watcha workin’ on?”) and my answer has been “material studies.” Which is to say there are new-ish sources at play (yeah I am using that noun on purpose). I feel a pull from the material itself to highlight their more physical qualities more (glass, wood, non-canvas surfaces, even paint is now more obviously dimensional and plastic) while composition becomes more optical (simplified compositions focused on color and in many cases leveraging light as a “material”). Which isn’t intellectual or even really an idea, it’s an impulse.

I noted this direction in an Instagram post this weekend where I pointed to a loose tie between a recent study, a book about Clyfford and a couple of photos.

An Instagram post by Nick Aguayo also really resonated for me. (I think) he notes the source of work can actually be a somewhat mysterious to (even) the artist, that its general direction can trusted- its “point” doesn’t have to be that all aspects are formed and understood:

“I am deeply interested in color and experimenting with it, but I think that the deeper concern of the work is a matter of structure and meditating on how the making of something in itself can carry a certain energy and attitude towards looking at the world.”

So for now I’ll continue to accept many inputs and trust my fascination with materials as one of the same.