Words in and words as - ART

Last night as I was going to sleep I was thinking about why I don't use words in my painting. There are reasons. But first let me say that I DO love the use of words - typography in particular, in design. I love the weight and balance of form, the way the smallest curve or flick changes everything, the relationship between the negative and positive spaces - the way the type relates to the page and onwards. So what's the difference to me between type in design or art? Well first thing you can do is check out this link. It'll take you to a site that lists 10 great examples of designers who specialise in typography to convey a  message. ...That's really the key right there - conveying a message.

When I produce a painting, everything I do is to contribute to the final image being exactly what I am after - being all it can be, not conflicted, united in it's message. How do I clarify? An example - question, is the work about something soft - then what soft techniques can I use? I wouldn't use  corrugated iron (unless it had to be kept outside perhaps!), I wouldn't use a palette knife (unless I could scrape the paint so finely I could build up layers of 'barely-there'). Is it a convoluted concept - would big format be best? Is it about organic life - best not to use anything plastic then - unless the statement requires a sarcastic view or overuse to emphasize some contentious issue... you know what I mean? I hope so! To get to the point - I rarely use words. So why don't I and why am I often so critical of other artist work when they do?

I guess it comes down to what the words are for, how they are written/painted/produced. Do they aid in conveying the message - or do they take over? Most often I don't want a word in there - too much, too obvious, too in the way of what my painting is about. I don't need them, they would distract. I want you to look at the artwork and 'feel' what you feel, think what you think slowly, not be told or manipulated by something so straight up and instant as a word. I suppose I would be interested  to try using them, if I integrated text in a fashion that it took you a while to get 'it' - like Laurie Frick's work (who I blogged about 21 Oct 2011), where the words are part of a whole and made out often only on closer inspection.

So many times I am convinced that using words is simply a shortcut - the easy way to explain what a painting is about. They have to be used so carefully used, with consideration, so as not to take over the artwork as a whole. In my mind words are best used typographically, in the way the designer in the link above have used them. The word is a gateway to it's meaning - to more meaning depending on the way it's been presented. Go here to read a little about Colin McCahon who is usually the first to mind for most NZer's when it comes to the use of words in art. He used words like the designers I've mentioned, only as a painter (which added a little more to it than just illustrative typography).

Anyway, that's enough about that - you may not agree with what I've put down here, it's made me think about my own stance, think about whether I should or could employ words - one or two. At the moment I'm happier using my love of poetry and song lyrics as a spring board for initial inspiration. Once I played Massive Attack's Teardrop (teardrop on the fire, fearless on my breath...) over and over while I painted one work - till it was finished, and I'm STILL not sick of that song!