2/2/17
It came to me, as I lay staring at the new drawings I’ve been working on (inspired by Motherwell and Kline). I realized the reason my drawings and paintings are so different is because on small scale, my strokes are broad and fill most of the space on the page. When I paint on large surfaces, the marks then become small gestures rather than grandiose forms. What if I used larger brushes? Constructed my own maybe? Not sure how to solve it yet, but it is a curious possibility for future works.
2/3/17
[The small paintings] need some smaller lines, smaller marks to occupy the surface – to play with the larger deeper marks. The layering is working well, as the surface plays with perceived atmosphere. There is a subtle growth, a hushed past of layers. The surface has tension; a fighting of black on white, white on black. The shapes are bold and yet they lie in an obscurity of white. They both pop and sink beneath the surface.
2/9/17
To what extent does line go? Can the mechanical and organic live in the same space? Can the intended and the blind contour exist in the same space? To what extent do they clash? To what extent do they harmonize? Do the bold and thin lines live together/compliment each other or do they undermine and compete? Is their competition visually stimulating? Does it gain or lose? Space is questioned when surface lines play with perspective. To what illusion do I sacrifice for confusion? How much should be shown and how much should be hidden? Should the thin lines be bolder still? Should they stay stagnant? In much the way stitched line creates stagnation of surface, does thin line break the illusion of space?
Kal L. Cloonan 