Posts Tagged ‘minimalism’

Space loops: Inspired by space art

Saturday, March 15th, 2008

I have my mind set on a new series of paintings, a series of “space loops.” The original concept for this series entered my mind in December 2006. I produced one study, but shelved the idea. The painting FF0000uturo took its place.

Now the loops are back. Below are just a few sketches. The color combinations are seemingly infinite. But that’s what makes this a series.

space art space art
space art space art
space art space art

As I think about it, the loops kind of remind me of the space colony illustrations that NASA produced in the 1970s, as shown at right. Those space art images captivated me as a kid! People living inside giant cellophane tires filled with synthetic rivers and forests … and weirdo architecture! But the space loop composition arose independently of those; I mean, I didn’t have them in mind as I was geeking out the sketches. Guess I’ve been carrying those glorious illustrations around in my unconscious for years.

On that note, speaking of loops, I bumped into a great-looking book last night titled I Am A Strange Loop, by Douglas Hofstadter. It’s exactly about what I’ve been studying lately: the notion of self. When we refer to ourselves as “I,” what do we mean?

Lastly, yesterday on Science Friday there was a panel discussion about utility-scale solar power projects in Nevada and Arizona, which have the potential to meet all of United States’ electricity needs. The idea is this: Utility companies would shoulder the burden of investing in, and producing, large-scale solar farms out in the desert — instead of homeowners having solar panels on their rooftops. The discussion of utility-scale solar was introduced as if it were such a novel, new idea. But this morning I bumped into a speech that Isaac Asimov wrote 30 years ago, titled “Our Future in the Cosmos: Space,” in which he wrote: “If we could get millions of photovoltaic cells (a kind of silicon cell that sets up a small electric current when exposed to light) and stretch them over half of Arizona (I only mention Arizona because there is usually a lot of sunshine there), we could perhaps supply enough energy for America’s needs.”

Amazing!

Wishing you happiness and the causes of happiness
Grant Wiggins

Four new hard-edge paintings

Monday, December 17th, 2007

Below are four new hard-edge paintings, representing the beginning of a series I started a couple of Fridays ago. Four pieces thus far, each 10 inches square by 1.5 inches deep, titled Motus 001 through 004. Motus is Latin for “motion.”

The design reminds me of some of the semi-truck designs I can’t get enough of, which I see as I drive around. I don’t really like driving, but seeing well-designed 18-wheelers can make any trip worthwhile.

Over the near-term, I’d like to produce perhaps 20 to 30 of these, just switching up the colors.

hard-edge painting
hard-edge painting
hard-edge painting
hard-edge painting

In other news:

Things have been quiet on the blog lately because I’ve been working hard at redesigning my site, which will go live on January 1.

Cool art show alert: Birth of the Cool: California Art, Design, and Culture at Midcentury at the Orange County Museum of Art through January 6. The show features Frederick Hammersley, Karl Benjamin, and Lorser Feitelson — three of my favorite artists.

Cool book alert: Untitled by Stéphane Dafflon, another of my favorite artists.

Until next time, I wish you happiness and the causes of happiness.

— Grant Wiggins

A change of course, of course

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

Over the summer, I returned to minimalist painting yet again. My interest in pared-down compositions was rekindled unexpectedly, out of the blue. Starting in mid-June, I was focused solely on making pared-down compositions, letting line and color work on their own terms. I was transfixed by the idea of doing more with less.

Somehow, however, the novelty of minimalism started to wear off about three weeks ago. Inexplicably, I found myself getting bored with the pared down and spare — the simple stuff. No matter what adjustments I made, I wasn’t happy with the results. A few stripes here and there weren’t doing anything for me. I felt like I was trying to divine something that wasn’t there. I got bored.

So I started making patterns again. And it only took about two months to reach that point.

And so, a few days ago, I decided that minimalism isn’t where I want to go with my art, after all, at least for now. I therefore feel compelled to recant what I wrote back in June, when I swore off maximal art. The funky, fresh, and fun stuff — swatches of my homespun 70s wallpaper patterns, fragments of logos and garbled nonsense, the work I produced this spring — is where all the fun is at.

I’ve veered from minimalism and maximalism several times over the past four years. I wonder if changing my mind like this is healthy — a sign of growth — or a sign that I’ve lost my voice. Hopefully it’s the former.

Years ago, I banged out weird ideas for paintings with seeming ease. They just popped into my head and I made them happen. My ideas don’t happen that way anymore. My process is different; I sketch out elements in pieces and jam them together. To me, that way of working offers many more possibilities for surprise and strangeness.

My plan for now, and for the future, is just to make things that I enjoy and lose myself in the creative process — the act of making. I just want to sit down at the desk (or easel), put on the headphones, and mess around, not really caring about the outcome or thinking so much. Just focusing on process, not product. I hope to post the results of this newly chartered course soon.

Grant Wiggins

In the studio: Labor Day ’07

Monday, September 3rd, 2007

Just finished a larger version of Asymmetrikelly (below, center), which is 100% pure eye-piercing fluorescent orange-red on white. (Lights dimmed for enhanced effect.)

In part, Asymmetrikelly is a nod to the early “figure/ground” compositions of Ellsworth Kelly, which he painted in red, green, and blue. In April I produced the original study of this painting, just 9 x 12 inches. This piece is 30 x 40 inches. I think I might make an even larger square one, too … 60 inches square.

To the left is Rust & Sky, another recent work.

Inspired by Ellsworth Kelly

Grant Wiggins

In the studio: July 23, 2007

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

Over the weekend I finished the first two studies for a new line of paintings. These are just 10 inches square, a good size for demonstrating a proof of concept and getting colors straight.

 
 
 

I plan on exploring this design quite a bit more over the next few days … I’m fascinated with its undulating shapes, and I’m trying to see what will come about by varying the shapes and colors. Just testing out ideas on a small scale before I start producing larger work again.

This design and others are the disembodied byproduct of mining corporate logos from the 1960s and 1970s, looking for hidden angles, spinning their shapes, flipping and combining them.

It’s all a bit like dragging a needle backward down the grooves of a vintage record. Like Black Sabbath’s Master of Reality? Or maybe the original score for A Clockwork Orange.

There’s nothing nostalgic about this … there just was a design sensibility at work back then … the shapes were bolder … fewer gradients. A strangeness about the flatness and geometric rigidity, in my opinion.

Otherwise, I’ve been listening to The Coral’s most recent album … the at-times-haunting, mysterious Invisible Invasion … and I can’t wait to hear the new album that’s coming out August 6, Roots & Echoes.

Anyway, I hope to upload a new batch of sketches soon, probably by the end of the week, as some time frees up.

Until then, I wish you, fair reader, happiness and the causes of happiness!

Grant Wiggins

More minimal art sketches

Thursday, July 19th, 2007

Adding to last week’s post offering sketches of new minimal paintings, I thought I’d share a few more examples of my newest minimal art sketches.

Minimal art sketch 1
Minimal art sketch 2
Minimal art sketch 3
Minimal art sketch 4

Seems like I’ve had a fairly favorable response from my art friends on this new set of minimal art sketches.

Full-fledged paintings of the minimal art sketches are well under way. We’ll see how things turn out.

In case you’re interested other paintings made in the same spirit as these sketches can be found in my site’s minimal art gallery.

As always, thanks for visiting.

Grant Wiggins

New sketches for minimal paintings

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Here’s just a taste of new designs for a set of minimal paintings I’m working on … a new direction.

I developed these digital sketches for minimal paintings over the past two weeks.

Minimal paintings sketch 1
Minimal paintings sketch 2
Minimal paintings sketch 3
Minimal paintings sketch 4
Minimal paintings sketch 5
Minimal paintings sketch 6

I dare say, let me know what you think. I’m psyched about this return to making minimal paintings. Hope you are, too.

There’s more like this in my site’s minimal paintings gallery.

Grant Wiggins

Minimalism vs. maximalism

Saturday, June 23rd, 2007

Had kind of an epiphany yesterday. More like a realization. Whatever it was, I see myself, and my work, in the middle of a change. What I learned: my minimalist art works (reductive compositions) and acid pop paintings (busier pieces) do not mix well. Of course, I’ve intuited this many times before. This time, however, the realization really hit home.

My friend Tatyana Koziupa spinning some records Wednesday night at Plaid, in Tempe. A few paintings in the background. Showing these pieces together, I felt like something was off. Perhaps this foretold a swing back to minimalism.

This new insight came to me yesterday when I was putting together some marketing kits, for galleries — just trying to get my work out there. With some prints within the kit, I placed minimalist and abstract acid pieces on the same pages. The result? They battled each other. But the shocker was that the minimalist work had more gravity or pull. It seemed much more interesting to me.

Over the past four years, my thinking has gone back and forth between minimalism and maximalism (the acid stuff) — two poles on the compositional spectrum.

Theoretically speaking, minimalism makes much more sense to me. And there’s the simple fact that there isn’t enough minimalist painting going on, in general, in my opinion. (I truly admire the work of Stephane Dafflon. Frederick Hammersley is a legend. And I really like Jim Isermann and Sarah Morris, too. Jo Baer and Jeremy Moon are other favorites.)

For quite some time, I thought I had to choose between styles. Sometimes, my internal debate was pretty frustrating, almost creatively paralyzing. The moment I embarked upon a minimalist approach, I started getting ideas for the other approach. Yet, last summer, it dawned on me that I didn’t have to make choices. I would just keep painting — doing what I wanted to, having fun, no categorization, no rules — the way it was when I started out, making parodies of cleaning products, like a next-generation version of the earliest work of Andy Warhol.

Nevertheless, this “no rules” approach causes some problems when I’m trying to explain what I do in a paragraph or less. The dichotomy seems like a schizophrenic lack of focus.

Perhaps continuing to paint acid pop pieces is just a sign that I haven’t wanted to let my “old style” go.

Since late January, I’ve been experimenting, trying to push the acid pieces forward. In the process, I’ve neglected the minimalist side of my work. Given what I learned yesterday (the conclusion of this blog post starts here), I’ve determined to refocus on minimalist and design-oriented pieces for the next few months. I will reevaluate where it’s all going at the end of the year. Meantime, if I jump back into the busier compositions, it’s just purely for fun, as an experiment, just jamming some ideas out, mashing patterns and stripes together.

Therefore, expect to see a concentration on more streamlined, simplified compositions from me in the near future.

As always, thank you for reading.

Grant Wiggins

On Mother’s Day and minimalism

Sunday, May 13th, 2007

Today is a weird day. This weekend has been a weird weekend. The last 10 days have been too hectic for me (the reason why I haven’t posted to this space in as much time). And this blog post might be just a little offbeat, too.

Today is Mother’s Day, and I cannot help thinking of my mom. I lost her to pancreas cancer on February 26, 1997 — just over 10 years ago, and I’ve been thinking about her a lot recently.

Despite the consumerist overtones of this “holiday,” I think it’s wonderful that sons and daughters are pausing to thank their mothers for all of their sacrifices … and for giving them the gift of life. But if you’ve lost your mother, especially to cancer, a day like today can feel kind of destabilizing.

    Sketches of May 13    
Sketch 20   Sketch 21   Sketch 23
 
Sketch 23   Sketch 24   Sketch 25

I don’t know how to celebrate this day, except for publicly admitting how much I owe to my mom, Alice Wiggins. She was an artist; she attended the Cleveland Institute of Art in the late 1940s and had a job for a few years illustrating cards at American Greetings.

She quit her illustration career to raise a family — my sister and my brother. I came along a lot later … the byproduct of a second marriage. But once I got old enough to take care of myself, my mom started teaching — her other passion — art and special education. (At one point, she taught my 9th grade art class; I called her “mom,” and she scolded, “That’s Mrs. Wiggins to you!”)

My mom had a lot of artistic hobbies, including painting, stained glass and dressmaking. And clearly, having an easel and art supplies around that exposed me to artmaking. When I was in college, I used to “steal” my mom’s paints and canvases, staying up late, experimenting with paint. And when I suggested to her that I take art lessons in college, she replied, “You don’t need that. They just stand over your shoulder and tell you what to do. I can tell you what to do.” She never really did give me a proper art lesson. And I still have never taken a formal art class.

Anyway, I have one last story to share, and then I’ll move on. After my mom underwent exploratory surgery for her tumors, back in June of ’96, I remember how she came out of her anesthetic really fast, not long after they had wheeled her into her recovery room. I sat on the bed, and we started talking.

“Grant, I want you to be happy in life,” she said. “I want you to do what you want to do.”

“I want to paint,” I replied, without hesitation.

“Then paint,” she said.

That conversation set everything into motion. From that moment, I decided that I was going to paint, with everything that I had, if only for the simple enjoyment of making something that I saw in my head and wanted to get out onto a canvas. I owe a lot of who I am today to my mom. And when she passed away, I felt like the sun had become extinguished, and I had lost my orbit. When the force that gives you life suddenly disappears, you’re on your own.

Then again, I do feel thankful that I at least could say my mom was alive for the first 23 years of my life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Changing the subject: On Friday, I delivered FF0000uturo, my modern abstract art contribution to this year’s Arizona Biennial, which will soon open at the Tucson Museum of Art. The opening reception is next Friday, and I’m looking forward to it. I’m also looking forward to showing a larger-scale minimalist painting.

To me, there are a couple of reasons why I’ve veered off into minimalism over the past four years: 1.) I like minimalist painting and 2.) There needs to be more art that appreciates simplicity, in my opinion. The product of high minimalist painters of the 1960s and early 1970s is just kind of a blip on the art historical timeline. For example, Jo Baer only painted minimally for a handful of years before she started painting flowers (and I can understand why she changed things up).

The question of how to manage natural resources is massive challenge. The “haves” of the world have got to start learning how to live more simply. I think that there needs to be art that demonstrates an appreciation for simplicity. All sorts of art being made these days is high-concept and complicated. Compositionally complicated. I’d rather go the opposite direction. Like my friend Shawn Wolfe writes, “Consume Less is probably too mild of a self-sacrificing battle cry. How about Produce Less?” Agreed!

And Mark Ryan, an architect friend of mine told me once (and this is a paraphrase), “Simplicity is hard. Knowing when to stop is hard. It’s a difficult lesson for artists to learn.”

In closing: I leave you with my artist statement for the Arizona Biennial: “In my minimalism-inspired work, I aim to build upon the tradition of minimalist painting of the late 1950s through mid-1970s — from Barnett Newman and Ellsworth Kelly to Jo Baer and Frederick Hammersley — by working with eye-catching color schemes found in contemporary graphic design.

In a way, my paintings are distillations of things we see every day, such as product packaging and semi-truck graphics. I’m inspired by the seemingly infinite combination of shapes and colors. However, my work offers no ostensible representational content, which might help to explain my paintings’ names. They are what you see them as being.

But why minimalism? Decades ago, minimalism was a turning of the tide away from Abstract Expressionism. For me, minimalism is about something else. It’s a visual antidote to overconsumption — e.g., the din of advertising, Christmas decorations reaching retail shelves around Labor Day, and vehicles that get 12 miles per gallon. The question of how to conserve natural resources is coursing through our zeitgeist. I’m exploring ways of saying and doing more with less, seeing beauty in simplicity more than ever.”

Grant Wiggins

On minimalism and pop art: Two new small paintings

Tuesday, March 27th, 2007

Here are a couple of paintings that I started over the weekend and just finished. They’re both 9 x 12 inches. I wish the fluorescent paint (the pink in the yet-to-be-named piece at left and the orange in the piece at right) showed up better, but I think you get the idea.

I love fluorescent paint! There’s nothing like how it glows at twilight or in a dimly lit room.

Minimalism and Pop Art

Minimalism and pop art

Meantime, I’ve been thinking a lot about a rethinking of minimalism that I saw in Art in America a couple of years back. At the onset of his essay, Pepe Karmel writes, “Together with Pop art, Minimalism continues to provide the basic language of contemporary art. It has become the great patriarchal symbol against which artists and critics rebel, championing Neo-Expressionism, Neo-Realism or Neo-Mad Magazine, only to succumb to Minimalism’s repetitious, all-embracing spell. But what is this art that retains such a hold on us?”

It’s funny now, but for a long time — especially in 2003, when I was first getting into minimalist art — I saw minimalism and pop art as polar opposites. Minimalism somehow ascetically negated popular culture. I used to agonize — I thought I had to choose one approach over the other.

From my current point of view, however, minimalism and pop art are complementary. They overlap, even — and the paintings you see above are proof. Fluorescent paint is, in my opinion, a pop art medium. It’s a commercial material, used to grab attention on windows, signs, and stock cars. But one can easily apply fluorescent paint to a minimalist composition, like the painting you see on the right.

Further, with vector-based software programs like Illustrator, minimalist and pop art compositions can come from the same place: one’s screen. The end product is just a matter of adding or subtracting graphical elements.

Ultimately, however, I’m not entirely sure how useful it is to talking about minimalism and pop art, anyway. I’d rather be talking about genres of the future — what’s going to happen, not what happened in 1964. So everything I just wrote is kind of moot. But wait, that’s being postmodern!

Thanks for reading.

Grant Wiggins