Not exact matches
It
seems to me that a Fourierist interpretation, in conjunction with Papety's drawing, while it in no sense completely «explains» Courbet's allegory, at least helps to elucidate some of its otherwise inexplicable aspects: for example, just why Courbet chose to include the
figures he did in his vast
composition.
The
figures in your paintings often
seem hidden in some way, whether they are cropped out of the
composition, appear as a silhouette, are covered by branches, or only their hands or feet are visible.
Earlier works, exhibited in Chelsea, reflect prior fascination with bright colors and dark tones but contain the same elements of lush layered color and
figures that
seem to provide easy ways into the
compositions.
His
figures appear more like objects arranged in an environment rather than living organisms, and the
compositions seem like frozen moments or film stills.
However, the
composition is fractured into further sections, as both the
figure and ground
seem to shift up and down across the length of the canvas.
Nor will seeing the works of their students, even those who became as renowned as Robert Rauschenberg or Kenneth Noland, or «artist's artists» like Ray Johnson and Pat Passlof, or even simply
figures who
seem to have made a profound impression on the life of the school but less so on the wider world (for instance, Dan Rice, who arrived at Black Mountain intending to study musical
composition but ended up becoming an Abstract Expressionist painter).
That's how he embarked on a strain of pure painting that
seemed quite radical at the time: working with a prestretched canvas and unmixed oil paints, and
figuring out his
composition as his brush moved across the canvas.
Whereas at a glance his easily identifiable, vibrant paintings with their dynamic
compositions may
seem simply aesthetically pleasing, their deliberate beauty is a critique on society's preoccupation with materialism and superficiality, as beneath this façade lies the true meaning of his work: each
figure is depicted as indifferent, faceless satires defined entirely by the folds of their gowns and the glitter of their jewelry.
What stands out most about this
figure, and the
composition, is the ghost - like quality of his eyes — a shadow of an iris and pupil make the right eye
seem visible and almost knowable.
The two -
figure formula removed the need for more complex
compositions, which Millais
seems to have found difficult.
If we observe Elizabeth Murray «taking cues» in her Sentimental Education, 1982, «from the clunky
figures and objects in late Guston,» and if we note Whitney's «deceptively casual paint handling, largely adapted from Guston,» we might also consider Joan Snyder's Beanfield with Music, 1984, as a work that explores and draws on both the»50s Guston, who
seems already (again) to be flirting with
figure, and the later Guston, with his bizarre and darkly humorous landscape
compositions.