I feel whiny today, apologies if everything is written in the tone of a petulant child... I have pictures of a few paintings that I've been working on slash am (concerned by? involved with? interested in?) that I convinced myself to skip school today to work on. The convincing wasn't really that hard though, I'm knee deep in a case of senioritus. Slothy slothy. Anyhow, I have something else to talk about since Plan A didn't work, thanks Blogger, and that is Dan Estabrook's lecture at MOCA that I attended last Thursday.
Estabrook Lecture
I found him to be very wellspoken and easy to listen to. He studied under Christopher James (who paints and does alternative photographic processes.. his writings are interesting/comical, too, I read a bit of what he has up online, hah, and sections of his book he has on alt processes at Dave's once or twice, he's the go to guy and has a nice mustache to boot) and had a strong base in printmaking, painting and drawing. I think Estabrook's background is apparent in his work and I would even venture to say necessary.. everything is interwoven despite the broader category of photography that he falls under... that is one of the critiques I have of UNF's art departments, the separation between media, especially photo students and the tendency to disregard 'needing' basic drawing/painting/ceramics/print/what have you classes, a BFA is a beef-uh, no? I've never taken a sculpture class, which I think is kind of ridiculous and painty-elitist of me, and I feel a lot of the things I do, especially collage with found objects and images could work well as 3D, but I digress.. Estabrook showed some of his early work, baptism/death portraits that inspire him, different processes and recent work. His underlying theme of duality was present throughout the whole lecture and I appreciated his discussion of it, as I felt it when first viewing his work even in his manner of presentation - duality in the itsy bitsy little baby portraits, their white flowing dress equating life or death; the past and his referencing of history juxtaposed with the present, a creating of dialogue in the now; the relation of decay and change (in self, of an object, how these are viewed?). He said a few things that are still ringing in my ears that I'm going to plop down here to make sure they don't disappear in my notebook forever: "I had started to build a language, but I didn't know what I was saying... [the] imagery built over time.. worked intuitively"; circular logic, "what I do is fundamentally absurd"; art (photography) as "a fiction we're both agreeing to believe in.. the artist as a magician.. the fakery... mutual suspension of disbelief"; "a destructive act helps you understand". He also said he can't be "a purist about any of it", which makes me feel nice and less obligated to stay 'true' to one medium. So, that was pretty encouraging. Anyhow, he was great, it was a varied audience which was kind of surprising, actually. Anyhow, I feel that I learned a lot from what he had to say and that his work is, as I mentioned earlier when I saw his work with B. Grimm at Artwalk a bit ago, is quietly intriguing.
