When I spoke to her on the phone I got the clear impression that she was having an absolutely wonderful time. I honestly felt a bit jealous. This past month she has produced about 15 canvases, ranging from 6 inches to 6 feet. It was very inspiring to see the work. My mother is able to capture feelings and recognizable people in the loosest of brushstrokes. Her work is intense, not just something pretty for above the sofa. She's beginning to get some recognition, and it makes me so happy to see this happening. One of her longtime painting idols, Jake Berthot, stopped by the show and gave her some very high praise, along the lines of "You have it." Here are a couple of photos of her work:


The nature of paint is so far removed from what I do in 3D Land. Oil paint can sing, or scream, or lull you into a vortex of luscious color. Gooey. On the other hand, digital 3D is a cold, hard, synthetic, plasticky medium. Yet it's a frozen medium that can be coaxed into warmth. One of my earliest memories is being strollered around the DeKooning exhibit at the Whitney museum. At the time I was bored out of my mind, but I look back at this memory very fondly. I love the smell of turpentine and oil paint. I remember looking at my mother's oil pallette and thinking it looked good enough to eat, those juicy, wet blobs of rich color. But I really feel there is the possibility of bringing that life, that spontaneity to 3D. Some of my better pieces begin to approach this, I think.


I am fascinated by great artists' ability to convey something with just a few brushstrokes. This idea of a precise looseness. In 3D land, nothing is spontaneous. It's a long, painful, drawn-out process, and the final results tend to look frozen and lifeless. I'm not really sure how it is possible to stay loose working in 3D. But it is something I aspire to. Not rendering every possible detail, or limiting my color pallette seems to give some life to the 3D work.
The idea of transparency and layering that you see in J.M.W. Turner's work, or even Mark Rothko's, is also something I think about when working. There's a layering in these pieces that gives them a depth and luminosity that I respond to. Ironically, most of the 3D I see out there is very flat and 2D-looking. Things tend to look a bit like train dioramas; despite all the detail on the surface they are oddly fake-looking. I feel part of this fake quality has to do with disregard of how light plays off objects in the world. In terms of transparency and layering, here are a couple of pieces that I feel are relatively successful.




You may be looking at these wondering what visible connection they have to the paintings above and the artists I have mentioned. When looking for inspiration, I rarely try to mimic the final look of the artwork; rather I look to the piece's inner logic and structure. I look to what processes made the piece successful. Was it the layering of color? The line? The composition? The finished piece is a combination of all these different processes, and when I just try to copy the final look without really having explored the piece from within the results tend to stink. The process and the intention behind the artwork is the thing.





