I talked with Rita's sister-in-law at last Saturday's artist reception about Rita's early work. According to Whitney, who owns an early pastel drawing, Rita's current work is more creative and there's more depth. This made me a bit curious about Rita's journey as an artist. So I met with Rita today at Benetics to get to the bottom of this mystery.
Whitney said that your early pieces were more abstract, less defined in their subject matter.
It's not that they were abstract. They were simplified in a way; they were realistic. The pieces she referred to were done from photographs I took when I walked out the door one morning and was faced with a wall of fog. All I could see were black tree trunks. I became enamored with them and painted them. The fog reduced the image to basic elements, black tree trunks against the fog. So in that sense, I suppose there's an abstract quality to them.
What makes these paintings now different?
In some ways the elements are the same as what I was attracted to before: light, shape, rhythm. But in my new paintings, the colors are more vibrant. I started experimenting with brush strokes and shapes. I tried to create more energy on the canvas. For example, "Vibrant Afternoon" (see above) or "Sticks and Stones" (see below) are more about playing with color and line.
How so?
In "Vibrant Afternoon", it's mosaic-like shapes. It comes down to two basic contrasting shapes with the tree trunks on top. Within these shapes, they are broken up into little chips of color, so there is a lot of movement.
"Sticks and Stones" is my most recent piece. This piece reminds me of music: The long shape at the bottom of the painting is like a slow undulating bass line, like a cello. The trunks move across the canvas reaching top to bottom, creating a melody. As you look further back, the smaller trees create their own music, so the whole piece is layers like a musical composition.
Like the song that just happens to be on the radio right now as we're talking: Kid, by The Pretenders. The background music is lovely, and in a serendipitous, sort of way, made the point you were speaking of. The background rhythms really made the piece worth listening to, giving it more of a complexity than what I was first conscious of.
Does music often influence your paintings?
Not particularly. I am a musical person, but music doesn't usually play a strong role in my art. But in that particular painting (Sticks and Stones), I read it like a piece of music. Of course, inherently, there's a lot that music and art have in common. Like composition, rhythm, texture, and tone.
So do you consciously try to put those qualities into your work?
I'm just attracted to them, so they end up in my art. I enjoy music, but I don't consciously try to create it on the page. But someone a long time ago pointed out the things that music and art have in common. From then on, I've been aware of it.
Are you formally trained as an artist?
Yes. I studied painting at The Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA), and graduated in 1983.
Did you study a particular style of painting, or a particular medium, or did you learn it all?
I studied painting.
What does that mean, exactly?
For two years, it means you focus on painting and take the classes that lead you in the direction you want to go. I studied painting and collage. And even though there is no actual collaging in my current work, my affinity for collage shows up in the marks.
In the marks?
Yes, the mosaic factor, the pieced feeling in the little chips of color.
No comments:
Post a Comment