Materials and Techniques of Contemporary Arts Powerpoint.pptx
Joe Gibney- Dissertation Thesis
1. 1
Word Count: 7308
Joseph J Gibney
BA (Hons) Fine Art Degree
2014/15
COP.3 Critical Dialogue
A disregard for materiality: deconstructing the
picture plane; presenting the pictorial fact
2. 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise all those who have supported me throughout
my Fine Art Degree. Without their guidance none of this would have been possible. Firstly I
applaud the staff at Leeds College of Art namely the Fine Art tutors and Programme
Administrators who have developed and sustained a fantastic programme over the last three
years. This diverse and challenging environment has refined our abilities as we now emerge as
professional practitioners. Many thanks to Sheila Gaffney, Tom Palin, Kelly Cumberland,
Garry Barker, Dan Robinson, Liadin Cooke, Duncan Mosley, Richard Baker and Sarah Taylor
my strand leader.
I would like to say a massive thank you to the supporting departments who deserve much
admiration working largely behind the scenes. I commend the Woodwork department in
particular Roger Berry and Jonathan Greenwood for their countless hours making my designs
possible. Not to forget Jeremy Bennett from academic support and the college librarians for
aiding my academic research.
Lastly but most importantly I would like to express my deepest gratitude for my friends and
family. My Nana and Grandad for inspiring me and sparking this artistic interest from a young
age. To my parents who have always encouraged me and invested in me both emotionally and
financially, prior to and throughout the duration of this course. And without question my
girlfriend Chloe for persevering in spite of difficulty with her continual selfless efforts. To
everyone I am forever indebted.
4. 4
List of Illustrations
Figure 1: Reversal, Joseph Gibney, 2014
Figure 2: Backlight, Joseph Gibney, 2014
Figure 2.1: Backlight, Joseph Gibney, 2014
Figure 3: Untitled, Robert Ryman, 1965
Figure 4: The Treachery of Images, Rene Magritte, 1929
Figure 5: Châssis avec feuille de plastique tendue, Daniel Dezeuze, 1967
Figure 6: Rouleau de bois teinté, Daniel Dezeuze, 1975
Figure 7: Concetto Spazial, Lucio Fontana, 1949-50
Figure 8: Deflated (Yellow), Angela de la Cruz, 2010
Figure 9: Nothing 1, Angela de la Cruz, 1998
Figure 10: Ambiente Spaziale, Lucio Fontana, 1949
Figure 11: Larger than Life, Angela de la Cruz, 2004
Figure 12: Reversals, (Triptych) Joseph Gibney, 2014
5. 5
Figure 13: Backlit Reversal, Joseph Gibney, 2014
Figure 14: Free Stand, Joseph Gibney, 2014
Figure 15: Untitled, Joseph Gibney, 2014
6. 6
Positioning Statement
Material engagement is central to my Fine Art practice; from an early age my inquisitive nature
has driven me to explore, investigate and learn about the way things operate in the world
around me. Both my heritage and life experiences have provided me with an identity as an
individual and fine artist. I am from a family of skilled labourers who all create value through
the work performed and this has influenced the inclusion of craft within my practice. My work
does not however directly address or make statement about the position or the conditions of the
working class; painting for me is about discovery and the chance to understand the world
around me through the act of making. As a child I was extremely ‘active’ and family often
encouraged me to engage with something creative to direct my energy; I can vividly recall
myself painting for hours on end in my nana’s studio quickly depleting her most expensive art
resources. If I wasn’t painting I was otherwise with friends drafting the design of a multi storey
tree house or converting the garden Flymo into a fully functional hovercraft. Most of my
childhood constructions met a cataclysmic end, however they are all important memories that
define me as a fine art practitioner today.
As an artist I am interested in the potential and capabilities of materials to create interaction
through both visual and physical participation. Commonly I feel there is misinterpretation
towards the way in which paintings are viewed; often the viewer disregards the physical
materiality, fabrication and structural components of the painting in favour of traditional
pictorial illusion; paint is a catalyst for representation and is therefore rarely viewed as its own
entity. Rabbit skin glue and pigmented gesso on bleached portrait linen, 2014 (Fig. 1) attempts
to demystify the process of painting through the reversal and re-ordering of traditional
materiality. Components of the painting that would usually have been concealed are brought to
the forefront. Rabbit skin glue is the traditional size used for sealing both wooden panels and
canvas when oil painting. In this painting the size that would otherwise be unseen, takes place
of the paint thus becoming the focal point for my composition. Thinking about painting in this
way may seem overly theorised; however my intentions are purely to educate, to provide visual
understanding of the tradition of painting and create an active experience through the visual
and physical engagement with materials. More often than not the name given to a painting
represents the rendered pictorial illusion. Rabbit skin glue and pigmented gesso on bleached
7. 7
portrait linen gives precedence to the materials, provides them with their own identity and they
become the thing that is viewed, they are the pictorial fact.
I share similar deconstructive tendencies to the spatialist Lucio Fontana, and more
contemporarily Angela de la Cruz. In addition, artists like Daniel Dezeuze, Pierre Buraglio and
Toni Grand from the French group Supports/Surfaces also address related themes of
revealment and concern for the structural importance of painting in their work. I therefore
regard my intentions and obligation as a painter to communicate what painting is, revealing the
unseen, and to represent my lineage with the historical practice. In his book What Painting is,
James Elkins describes the visceral qualities of paint and how the artist’s materials are often
misinterpreted stating “Paint is water and stone, and it is also liquid thought. This is an
essential fact that art history misses, and alchemical ideas can demonstrate how this can
happen” (Elkins, 1995, p.5). Elkins understands that paint or the materiality of painting in
general has its own meanings and can be viewed literally also. Elkins questions the traditional
metaphorical windowpane viewing of representational painting; rather than concerning himself
with what the paint represents he highlights the substantiality of paint and the innate beauty of
the medium even before it is ‘shaped into the head of a Madonna’ (Elkins, 1995, p.2).
I understand that we are in the age of technological advancement and it has become apparent
we no longer communicate or interact like once before. Through our constant pursuit of
modern technology tradition is being forgotten, this is why I feel the need to relive traditional
craft. In Relational Aesthetics Nicolas Bourriaud presents the argument that technology is
reducing and if not replacing our need to communicate stating “The present day social context
restricts the possibilities of inter-human relations all the more it creates spaces planned to this
end” (Bourriaud, 1998, p.16). Today social networking allows us to create social relations even
globally without any physical communication or interaction. Automated services bypass
conversation that we once had with one another. For example, self-service cashiers in
supermarkets replace basic chitchat with predetermined instructions. Through my artwork I
aim to encourage visual and physical participation by creating a zone of participation; the
gallery space becomes a sensory experience through the engagement with materials and
processes. Backlight, 2014 (Fig. 2) was a site-specific painting that challenged the traditional
mode of hanging. Presented on a plinth rather than being traditionally hung Backlight could be
viewed from multiple perspectives; this created an active and engaging experience for the
8. 8
viewer. Backlit by the sun, similar to the principle of a light box; shadows were composed by
the triangular wedges onto the frontal surface of the canvas (Fig. 2.1). These projections
changed throughout the day as the sun moved across the sky; the painting had a period of
functioning and its appearance was determined by the variable direction and intensity of light
acting upon the canvas. Referring back to the idea in Reversal of showcasing the identity of the
materials, here the structural formalities of the traditional canvas and the environmental
conditions determine the pictorial image. There is no illusion of reality rendered; it is the
pictorial fact.
I have always considered myself as a painter however more recently I have become more
interested in the way in which materials can adopt space and create participation. I find myself
exploring the boundaries between sculpture and painting; I think like a painter but paint like a
sculptor. I am beginning to break down the dimensional limitations in painting thus creating a
more active and engaging experience for the viewer. My work recognises a disregard for the
act of painting and the historical lineage attached to the practice. When paintings are hung on
the wall they appear flat and two-dimensional however if they are installed they become part of
the space and are no longer passive, they invite human interaction. The traditional hang limits
the view of a painting to the frontal surface; however, installing the painting sculpturally and/or
arranging the materials to provide a revealment of structure, this can create an insightful and
participatory experience.
There are many contradictions in my practice as a painter the first being my meticulous
approach towards the act of making; this approach has reached a point of obsession with
traditional etiquette however I can never seem to pursue this perfection without addressing its
paradox. My practice is often driven by empirical investigation, observing how materials
interrelate in a spontaneous or considered fashion. Both works, Reversal and Backlight
appreciate traditional craft however they also support the unintentional and coincidental
approach to painting. There is a monetary value attached to bespoke craftsmanship; however,
on a more personal level, as humans we gain a level of self-satisfaction when we project
ourselves onto something creatively. The physical act of manual labour and the journey of
material incident has in fact become the end product that I present. My paintings are self-
critical, by this I mean they consciously make statement about themselves and not about an
elsewhere.
9. 9
Case Study
A disregard for materiality: deconstructing the picture plane; presenting the pictorial fact
The alchemical process of transforming earthy pigments and oils into beautiful works of art has
long been the painter’s endeavour. Before paintings are rendered and shaped into a
representational piece of art, they are in fact just paint “A painting is made of paint- of fluids
and stone- and paint has its own logic, and its own meanings…” (Elkins, 1995, p.2). This is
something which is often forgotten when paintings are viewed. Historically the materials in
painting are used to represent something else, an illusion of reality; and therefore are rarely
viewed independently. In his book What Painting is James Elkins communicates how the
materialistic qualities and the process of painting are often overlooked. Attached to every
painting there is evidence of its fabrication and this can provide the viewer with as much
information as the rendered image. Rather than concerning oneself with what the paint
represents, for example the history, lifestyle and social influences of the artist, the materials can
be understood with their own ‘logic, and [their] own meanings’ (Elkins, 1995, p.2).
“Art history and criticism are so adept at thinking about what paint represents
(that is the stories and subjects, and the artists and their patrons), then it should
also be possible to write something about the paint itself” (Elkins, 1995, p.3).
This essay will investigate several artists and particular groups of painters who challenge the
traditional etiquette of painting practice. These artists break the traditional rules of exhibition
and destroy the picture plane, not to dismiss tradition; quite the contrary, they do this to make
example of what modern painting has become and what has been forgotten. They challenge the
dimensional limitations in painting thus bordering sculpture and in doing so exemplify the
objectness of the canvas. They physically dismantle and reconstitute the structure of the canvas
in order to create better visual understanding and engagement with materiality. Understanding
the painting as a whole they perforate the once illusionistic picture plane and present the
pictorial fact (the real physical materials) rather than the pictorial illusion. The painting
therefore represents and presents itself as the piece of art, demystifying the process of its own
makings.
10. 10
To what extent does the conventional mode of the exhibition of paintings restrict the viewer’s
engagement and could alternative methods of presentation create a more active response and
regard for the physical materiality of a painting? Similarly, the frame and shape of the canvas
must also be questioned as its regimental structure may persuade certain ways of viewing. Is it
possible to assemble or re-appropriate the traditional materiality in a way that expresses the
importance of itself rather than referring to or implying an elsewhere? Could the structural
elements of a painting play both a combined supportive and aesthetical role? The artist creates
and the viewer responds; would a reverse in the authorial role initiate a greater interest and
consideration for the physical presence and fabrication of the painting?
To the artist, painting is a ritualistic act “A picture is both a sum of ideas and a blurry memory
of pushing paint, breathing fumes, dripping oils, smearing and diluting and mixing” (Elkins,
1995, p.2). The overall sensual experience is an addiction for the painter; however, frustrating
at times the challenge of painting can be, there is a compelling attraction for the artist to their
medium. To the non-painter the smell of volatile solvents, oils and varnishes can be
overpowering whereas to a painter this symbolizes their journey and history through their
ritualistic act of painting. The viewer however only experiences the painting visually as it is
presented on the wall of the gallery space. They do not have any authorial connection to the
painting presented, as they are never physically involved with materials during its production
or design. This physical detachment must contribute to the common disregard for the physical
materiality of a painting, when viewed in the gallery space often the material memories are of
secondary interest to other values such as the image.
“The material memories are not usually part of what is said about a picture, and
that is a fault in interpretation because every painting captures a certain
resistance of paint, a prodding gesture of the brush, a speed and insistence in the
face of mindless matter” (Elkins, 1995, p.3).
The mode of exhibiting paintings has changed considerably over time and this affects the
context to which the work is viewed. In Episode 1 of John Berger’s four-part television series
Ways of seeing he explains how the context in which a painting is viewed can aid or negatively
affect its interpretation “Originally, paintings were an integral part of the building for which
they were designed” (Berger, 1972). Biblical paintings were part of the physical structure of
the place of worship; the interior was covered with religious narratives and history. When these
11. 11
paintings are viewed in a modern context detached from their point of origin we struggle to
connect, it is out of place, lost in meaning and the sublime experience is no longer present. In
Tate Etc. Issue 21 The White Cube and Beyond Niklas Maak, Charlotte Klonk and Thomas
Demand discuss the formation of the modern gallery space. Towards the latter stages of the
eighteenth century museums were transformed into largely accessible alternative public spaces
“it was simply a public space in the midst of the city that could replace the park on rainy days”
(Klonk, 2011) the idea was not only to cultivate people about artwork and artefacts but also to
create a space for interrelation. In spite of this the atmospheric presence felt in modern gallery
space seems to have had quite the opposite effect.
“Our experience of visiting museums and galleries is traditionally characterized
by the quasi-religious atmosphere: nothing is to be touched, one is rather quiet
and reverent, nobody laughs, it is eerily still, nobody is allowed to talk loudly”
(Maak, 2011).
The modern exhibition space is often referred to as the white cube gallery space and was
conceived through a continual cleansing process of visual distractions. Over the year’s artists
have become increasingly concerned with context and how their work will be viewed. The
bleaching out of all visual pollution positions the artist’s work in an uncompromising neutral
environment. The viewer is removed from the realm of the real into this non-place exempt
from societal space and time. The variety of work exhibited in modern galleries is so vast that
for exhibition curators to provide an interior context that suits a collective would be almost
impossible. It is not surprising there is a detachment and little concern for the materiality of
painting due to the unwelcoming environment artwork is displayed within.
It is not only the quasi-religious atmosphere in spaces of viewing art that restricts. We have
formed this regimental etiquette with the presentation and display of paintings in the gallery
space. The contemporary approach to presentation is a precise and uniformed continuity around
the space of viewing. There is a commercial association with the professionalism of an artist
and the clean environment where their artwork is displayed. This pristine environment feels
unnatural given the dirty visceral nature of the painter’s medium; “A painting is made of paint-
of fluids and stone” (Elkins, 1995, p.2). How can paintings be perceived fairly when the
environment does not recognise its basis? This systematic presentation is ultimately passive;
limits the viewer from seeing traditional craftsmanship and prevents a personal interaction with
12. 12
the work of art. This professional mode of hanging presents the painting as a two-dimensional
flat surface rather than a three dimensional object. In order create an interest for the physical
materiality of a painting and encourage (the actual physical quality of) paint to be spoken
about; must the mode of display be that of an object? If the painting used the gallery space
more efficiently, becoming its own independent structure, would this encourage an active
educative viewing? A painting is not just a flat surface but a series of existing layers all of the
components work together to provide support for the image. It could be argued that liberation
from its traditional means of display and frame may provide a truer interpretation to the work.
If the painting must adopt the characteristics of the object in order to become more actively
engaging, then this questions the point at which the painting becomes a different practice
altogether. Robert Ryman is a painter who reacted against Abstract Expressionism not to bring
back realistic and representational painting; however, his aim was to draw attention to the
process of painting and its substantiality.
“Ryman’s own development can be presented as the investigation of the limit of a genre or
medium (an investigation that nonetheless occurs within painting but in doing so causes what is
meant by remaining ‘within’ painting to be recast” (Benjamin, 1994, p.73).
In Ryman’s Untitled, 1965, Oil on linen 26x26cm (Fig. 3) he makes the viewer consciously
aware of the paintings materialistic qualities, its processes and makings. The painting has been
displayed traditionally flat however the exposure of the linen in-between brushstrokes draws
attention to its object qualities. As Benjamin explains an investigation of what occurs within
painting instantly removes its inherent flatness and the painting becomes object-like “As
already has been suggested, the specific activity occurring here is that the work of painting
becomes an exploration of painting’s relationship to sculpture” (Benjamin, 1944, p.73). Ryman
exaggerates the materiality of traditional painting; it is painting as a condition of sculpture.
Nevertheless, he secures paintings identity by the use of traditional references for example the
traditional etiquette of display and correct materials and the order in which thy have been put
together. The small scale of the piece doesn’t over exaggerate the materials or impose them
onto the viewer; he presents them in a way that subtly argues their beauty and importance.
Rene Magritte’s painting The Treachery of Images, 1929 (Fig. 4) demonstrates the illusionistic
trickery of image when we recreate reality. Below the image of a pipe Magritte painted the
caption “Ceci n'est pas une Pipe” (This is not a Pipe). He states the fact that it is not a pipe you
13. 13
are viewing but rather an image of a pipe rendered with paint. In this painting and others like
One-night Museum (1927) Magritte used a technique known as ‘Trompe-l'œil’ (French for
deceiving the eye) to exploit the artificiality of image. Magritte recognises that we often
mistake an image or representation for the real thing. At this point artists began to recognise
this falsity and change the use of the canvas altogether.
In his essay ‘The American Action Painters’ from the Tradition of the New (1959)
originally published in Art News (1952) the critic Harold Rosenberg stated “At a certain
moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in
which to act. … What was to go on canvas was not a picture but an event” (Rosenberg,
1952, p.25). Artists had become no longer interested in the visual, aesthetical and
traditional illusionistic representation; painting was an experience. In an interview by
William Wright, Summer 1950 (meant for broadcasting, but never used) Jackson
Pollock said ‘The modern artist ... is working and expressing an inner world - in other
words expressing the energy, the motion, and other inner”. The act of painting had
detached itself from the frame and flat surface for which it had previously been
contained. For Jackson Pollock the physical act and experience of painting represented
him through a cathartic release.
“Realistic, naturalistic art had dissembled the medium, using art to conceal art;
Modernism used art to call attention to art. The limitations that constitute the
medium of painting—the flat surface, the shape of the support, the properties of
the pigment—were treated by the old masters as negative factors that could be
acknowledged only by implicitly or indirectly” (Greenberg, 1965, p.6).
In Greenberg’s Modernist Painting originally seen in the form of a pamphlet published by
Voice of America 1960 but later republished in Art and literature 1965 he communicates how
modern painting has become increasingly self-critical, western civilization now questions its
historical foundations. Prior to the impressionists the objective of the artist was to recreate
reality, allude the viewer to a third dimension on a two dimensional plane. The reasoning for
painting however changed when painters such as Eduard Monet began to challenge traditional
conventions. This modernist self-critique and consciousness that artists have developed takes
into account how the viewer will perceive the piece of work. Pre-impressionist art did not make
example of itself, it was about depicting the figure and existence accurately. Contemporarily on
the other hand painting deliberately draws attention to and presents itself as the work of art.
14. 14
There is no representation for the viewer to admire other than the physical presence, process of
and the act of painting itself “the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the
discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of
competence” (Greenberg, 1965, p.5). Some modern painters unlike their predecessors through
this system of self- critique regard the materiality equally if not more important than any
external representation.
In the early 1970’s the Supports/Surfaces art movement established some of the periods most
progressive work. In the Contemporary Visual Art Magazine Issue 20 1998, the American artist
Donald Judd was quoted recognising that "Half or more of the best new work of the last few
years has been neither painting nor sculpture" (Judd, 1965). Painters had begun to challenge the
dimensional limitations in painting thus configuring hybrid sculptural-paintings. The
Supports/Surfaces group argued that painting had reached a point where its most basic
principles had been forgotten. Conceptualism took precedence over traditional etiquette and the
material consideration in painting; these artists felt duty-bound to re-introduce the
fundamentals of the practice. The name Supports/Surfaces recognizes their materialist
approach to painting. The group was divided into two teams, which corresponds to the team
name. The Surfaces team included artists such as Viallat, Cane, Saytou, Valensi, Dolla and
Arnal; all who worked with un-stretched loose material. Dezeuze, Grand and Pagés completed
the Supports team who focused on the structural elements of the collaboration. The group
realized that painters were no longer concerned about the process of painting and had little
admiration for the condition of their medium. Through its progression painting has lost its
identity, its traditional values and etiquette. Supports/Surfaces used the painting to “show what
was hidden, to deconstruct and individualize each of its elements.” (Rubenstein, 2003) They
separated and isolated the two main constituent parts of a painting, the canvas and the stretcher.
Deconstructing the painting into its individual constituent parts they were able to re-assemble
the painting in a way that celebrates its structure. The process of stripping back in actual fact
provided more visual information for the viewer than the fully assembled end product. James
Elkins described a misinterpretation and disregard for the physical materiality of a painting
however the Supports/Surfaces tackled this problem by displaying the process of painting
through the revealment of itself. These artists challenged the dimensional limitations in
painting. Reconstituting the individual components of a canvas in a way that showcases its
integral features.
15. 15
Daniel Dezeuze was one of the founding members of the Supports/Surfaces movement, from
1967-1988 he produced a series of theoretical notebooks Textes et Notes. Some may argue that
the way Dezeuze analyses the practice of painting throughout these notebooks suggests that we
are to be faced with an art of dry theorization where socio-political themes replace paintings
traditional emancipatory values. The process of dismantlement involved in Dezeuze’s work
must not be confused with a destructive disassembly as he shows much admiration and respect
for the traditional materiality of painting.
“The kind of art Dezeuze gives us lacks aggressivity, preferring regenerativeness,
repotentiation, growth, an ever burgeoning, often smiling, otherness that has no need for
category or limit” (Bishop, 2011, p.172).
He physically involves himself with the work he creates often considering it as an extension of
himself “my work isn’t made by assistants or machines, I myself make all my work at my
physical scale and rhythm” (Dezeuze, 2014) his creativity is an extension of his own self.
Châssis avec feuille de plastique tendue (Fig. 5) 1967 (Frame with plastic sheet stretched)
demonstrates that material consideration is equally important as material application and or
reduction. When constructing Châssis Dezeuze chose to replace dense canvas for transparent
plastic in attempts to reveal the structure beneath which otherwise would have been concealed
from the viewer. The dismantlement of a painting into its individual components is important
for Dezeuze as a starting point however the re-assembly and appropriation of materials i.e. the
transparent plastic used in Châssis are what showcases the structure by revealment in his work.
The spatialist paintings and installations by the artist Lucio Fontana can also be evaluated in
conjunction with the work of Dezeuze and the Supports/Surfaces group. There are important
comparisons of practice due to the way in which they tackle the exposure of the structural
elements and the adoption of space. In Fontana’s Concetto Spazial (Fig. 6), 1949-50 he
employs a surgical destructiveness in attempts to exemplify the objectness of the canvas, to
break the down the dimensional limitations and challenge the traditional pictorial illusion in
painting. Fontana isn’t concerned with the appropriation and re-assembly of materials his
approach is purely deconstructive. Both of these artists create a presence of space and aeration
within the confines of the frame and however Dezeuze achieves this in a non-destructive
manner. His process of revealment is both considered and controlled through the careful re-
assembly of the structural components. Similarly, to Fontana he challenges the traditional
16. 16
representational role of the canvas surface using it as a means to present the canvas itself.
Fontana spontaneously butchers the canvas using sharp implements, an immaterial approach,
breaking the surface tension by surgically removing matter, creating voids in the canvas; this
absence of the surface consequently reveals otherwise unseen elements.
“I make a hole in the canvas in order to leave behind me the old pictorial
formulae, the painting and the traditional view of art and I escape symbolically,
but also materially from the prison of the flat surface” (Fontana, 1968, p.34).
Rather than the canvas being a singular flat surface on which to represent, Fontana breaks
through the support to explore the finite and infinite space within and around the confines of
the frame. Dezeuze begins from the foundations and assembles the canvas; a material
approach, re ordering and displaying the materials rather than them being hidden. Although
Fontana disassembles and Dezeuze regenerates the canvas, they both use the void to reveal
matter as Bishop put it “an absence allowing for the perception of further presence” (2011,
p.174). Understanding the painting as object and revealing its structural components, these
artists create a depth of field. The painting has multiple perspectives it can be looked at and
also viewed through, both internally and externally creating a greater visual experience for the
viewer. Concetto Spazial partially succeeds in the attempt to escape materially from paintings
inherent flatness however not entirely. Châssis completely detaches itself from the traditional
mode of presentation leaving behind the traditional pictorial formulae and fully presenting its
factual presence and lineage.
The deconstructive process used by the artist Angela de la Cruz similarly compares to
Fontana’s impulsive disassembly of the picture plane. Quoted on the Lisson Gallery website de
la Cruz states, “The moment I cut through the canvas I get rid of the grandiosity of painting”
(de la Cruz, 2014). This statement suggests an intended degradation of the paintings
materiality. The realisation of the structural elements of the canvas changed the way in which
de la Cruz viewed paintings. Summarising her practice on a Post-it note for Jerwood Visual
Arts she writes “My starting point was deconstructing painting… one day I took the cross bar
out and the painting bent. From this moment on, I looked at the painting as an object” (de la
Cruz, 2014). From this collapse in form and surface flatness de la Cruz became consciously
aware of the supporting framework beneath the surface. The surface plane was no longer
needed to represent, in Deflated (Yellow) 2010 (Fig. 7) de la Cruz personifies the sagged
17. 17
structure-less canvas in order to represent the hardship, strain and crippling effect of life on
humans. Along with her affirmation of structure and the traditional practice of painting de la
Cruz also uses the objectness of the canvas figuratively. Similarly, to Fontana and Dezeuze she
re-evaluates the illusionistic role of the canvas surface and presents her work in an engaging
fashion. Rather than painting an illusionistic figure, she manipulates the structure and frame of
the canvas to mimic the human condition.
Dezeuze’s Châssis reveals the underbelly of the canvas, the framework an important
component which would usually have been hidden and therefore dismissed. This painting
makes example of itself, literally and metaphorically the viewer can see through the painting.
Replacing canvas for plastic allows the viewer to see the composition of the stretcher the
‘reality’ rather than the traditional illusionistic representation. His work seems to acknowledge
the misguidance caused by traditional painter’s illusionistic representation of reality; rather
using the canvas for mimesis, he presents the non-fictional existence and reality of the canvas
itself. Dezeuze’s installed paintings provide the viewer with information which otherwise
would be concealed; they are paintings that communicate, “what painting is, is no longer, and
can be” (Bishop, 2011, p.167). Dezeuze explores the role and order of the materiality in
painting through various configurations; this allows the structural components to be the things
that are presented and viewed.
“Painting becomes frame, multiple unified frames, frame becomes painting, wall
becomes ‘canvas’, absence of canvas becomes a window upon infinity, void, the
‘frame’ is stained or painted or unpainted, ‘un-painting’ becomes painting,
rigidity of frame…matter becomes art yet represents itself” (Bishop, 2011,
p.167).
Dezeuze understands that the traditional mode of hanging prevents the viewer from true visual
understanding and also the artist from truly expressing the materials they have used. Some may
argue installing the paintings in such a way presents works like Châssis as sculptures;
nonetheless Dezeuze refers back to and insists a consideration for the traditional practice of
painting; its exhibition is therefore a means to provide understanding. With Châssis the
impression of vulnerability is given, the painting has been removed from the gallery wall and
stripped naked to its skeletal parts. The painting leans upright, semi-self-sufficient, relying on
its own rigid stature highlighting to the viewer the importance of its form. The once intrinsic
and structural components have now become an external aesthetical feature. The frameworks
18. 18
are visibly present, space has been opened up, there is a sense of aeration and freedom, and the
painting has become part of the surrounding environment. The painting has transformed into an
act and place that provides understanding and knowledge, there is no need for the viewer to
imagine, as Michael Bishop explains, “it has no lyrical, metaphorical or symbolic agenda, it
speaks no language other than its form” (2011, p.169). Allowing the viewer to ‘peer through’
the paintings once illusionist surface encourages an insightful way of viewing. The painting is
now an experience and provides an opportunity for the viewer to learn about the history of
painting through the act of looking. In June 1969 the Supports/Surfaces group held an
exhibition titled “The painting in question” and in the exhibition catalogue they summarise
what painting means for them.
“The purpose of painting is painting itself and the paintings on display relate
only themselves. They make no appeal to an "elsewhere" (the personality of the
artist, his biography, history of art, for example). They are of no escape because
the surface, breaks shapes and colours that are operated it prohibits mental
projections or dreamlike ramblings of the viewer. Painting is a fact in itself and
it is on his land that one must pose the problems. It is not, nor a homecoming, or
looking for an original purity, but simply exposure of the pictorial elements that
make up the pictorial fact. Hence the neutrality of the works presented, their lack
of lyricism and expressive depth” (Dezeuze, et al, 1969).
The Supports/Surfaces artists want to convey painting for what it actually and physically is
recognising that ‘painting is a fact in itself’ a catalyst for representation and through this
becomes of secondary importance to the viewer. Rouleau de bois teinté, 1975 (Wooden roll
stained) (Fig. 8) a framework constructed from strips of wood that cross over each other
forming a lattice. Similarly, to Châssis, Dezeuze makes use of both the wall and floor space in
the gallery. The raw elemental presentation of frame and structure prevents the viewer from
any mental conception of reality; they are faced with the physical presence of the thing alone,
“The pictorial elements that make up the pictorial fact…” (Dezeuze, el al, 1969). The absence
of the pictorial surface and the exposure of structure exploit the physicality of painting. In
Châssis Dezeuze uses transparent plastic to stretch over the frame and he stays true to the
traditional process of stretching. On the other hand, with Rouleau de bois teinté the lineage
with historical practice is not as sincere. Here Dezeuze reverses the role and order of the
materials that make up a traditional canvas ‘Painting becomes frame, multiple unified frames,
frame becomes painting…’ (Bishop, 2011, p.167) rather than the canvas, the frame and
structure become the support on which he paints; the need for canvas surface has been
19. 19
replaced. This reversal of the use of materials disconnects the painting with its traditional
fabrication however somehow focuses the viewer even more so towards the substantiality of
the painting process. Discarding the veil-like cloak in this painting gives full clarity of the
structural elements; as the group explained in 1969 “The purpose of painting is painting itself
and the paintings on display relate only themselves” (Dezeuze, et al, 1969). The piece reveals
itself, traditionally when paintings are hung on the gallery wall the viewer cannot appreciate
the reverse side. Rouleau de bois teinté however presents without its frontal surface, exposing
its self and allows active engagement.
Similarly, in De la Cruz’ Nothing 1, 1998 (Fig. 9) components characteristic of traditional
painting have been entirely removed. The canvas has been taken off the stretcher and then
displayed as a ball of painted fabric on the gallery space floor. Again, similarly to Châssis the
impression of vulnerability is given firstly by the position in which it has been placed among
space at sunken level; secondly the name Nothing reinforces its positioning, a reduced status
not worthy to be hung on the wall. The method of deconstruction is different to previous works
mentioned in this exposition such as Châssis, Rouleau de bois teinté and Fontana’s Concetto
Spazial. There is no attempt to destroy the pictorial plane or peer through the surface, de la
Cruz removes the structure altogether. There is no doubt her work takes into account the
tradition of painting however she deliberately defies conventional practice. In the
contemporary art magazine This is Tomorrow de la Cruz is quoted explaining, “by using the
rules of painting it is then possible to subvert, revert and break them” (de la Cruz, 2010). The
canvas has been stripped from the frame, and the frame then discarded however this
disassembly is not achieved by piercing the surface plane as witnessed in Fontana’s spatial
concept. The artist challenges the confines of the frame by removing the structural elements
altogether. The role of the support has been shifted once again; painted surface liberated from
the support, the gallery space in place of the wooden frame now becomes its container. In
Nothing 1, de la Cruz mimics the human behaviour and states of mind; by removing the
framework the painting has a cowering demeanour. The canvas balls in a heap on the floor due
to its inability to stand.
“We carry forward the evolution of art through the medium… art was no longer
to be thought of in terms of brushes and painting restricted to canvases and
frescoes… art had changed direction and dimension” (Fontana, 1968, p.34).
20. 20
In The last interview given by Fontana, with Tommaso Trini on July 19th
1968 Fontana
explained how painting has begun to escape from the confines of framed flatness and enter a
new dimension. Fontana anticipates that the art of the new will parallel our technological
advancements; traditional etiquette shall be replaced by modern materiality and concepts.
Artists are continually questioning and challenging, being innovative with their ideas and
application of materiality. Prior to Fontana’s Buchi (Pierced) and Tagli (slashed) paintings, it
seems important to address his Ambiente Spaziale with Black Light 1949 (Fig. 10) displayed at
the Galleria del Naviglio in Milan (but was subsequently destroyed). An abstract object was
painted with phosphorescent paint and suspended from the ceiling. The reactive paint was
illuminated with the use of ultra violet lighting also referred to as ‘black light’. Fontana’s
materismo or art of matter revolutionized the way in which painting could be viewed and
presented. Ambiente Spaziale was a pioneering example of what was to become installation art.
When people entered the environment of Ambiente Spaziale they were not confronted or
imposed with objects or forms typical of usual gallery settings. “The spatial artist no longer
imposes a figurative theme on the viewer, but places viewer in a condition to create it himself,
through his own imaginations” (Fontana, 1950, p.67) the isolated black void removed the
viewer from reality and opened up a dimension of virtual absence. The gallery space became a
sensory experience created both for and by the viewer.
De la Cruz’s Larger than life 2004 (Fig. 11) also makes use of the whole gallery space. The
enormity of the canvas makes statement of its structure and physical materiality. Ambiente
Spaziale was an example of gravity-free ‘spaciality’ the materials were suspended in an infinite
atmosphere of darkness. In larger than life the frame contours and folds to the shape of the
gallery space; this adoption of space is different to all of the previous paintings discussed. The
scale of this painting does not seem to be restricted by its frame or structure but determined by
the boundaries of the room. Similarly, to Nothing 1 the gallery space becomes the container in
which it is framed. Again de la Cruz challenges the professional etiquette of hanging and
showcases the formalities of painting through the act of installation. As the name suggests
Larger than life is a monumental painting and challenges the boundaries between painting and
sculpture. She transforms the traditional two-dimensional canvas into a multi dimensional
experience. De la Cruz does not set out to create perfect paintings she disfigures the traditional
canvas by removing its grandiosity. Crudely but perfectly she portrays the human condition
illustrating our imperfect existence with unpretentious materiality.
21. 21
The reductive methods used by the Supports/Surfaces group, Fontana and Angela de la Cruz
can seem severe at the best of times however through this severity they have achieved
something which could not have been gained though complacent acts. They did not aim to
insult the practice of painting; as recorded by Trini and published by Stedelijk Museum 1988 “I
did not make holes in order to wreck the picture. On the contrary, I made holes to in order to
find something else” (Fontana, 1968, p.34). By dematerialising the traditional canvas, they
have in fact provided the viewer with more information. By removing, appropriating and re-
ordering traditional materiality the canvas becomes a self-representation. The quest to provide
structural soundness and the perfect support for presenting image has in fact concealed its own
makings altogether. These artists reveal the elements that would otherwise have been concealed
by its customary fabrication. Traditional illusionistic representation has caused a lack of
concern for the substantial materiality of painting. The acknowledging of what painting has
become and what it actually and physically is has allowed these artists to demystify the process
of painting. Their work does not allude to or represent an elsewhere; it is what it is, true and
honest.
22. 22
Rationale
Throughout this exposition I have communicated my concern for the way the physical presence
of the painting is often hidden. I understand that this could be a combination of the mode of
presentation, the traditional etiquette of painting fabrication and the authorial role. The artists
that I have considered during my research present the canvas as a self-critical representation
rather than a painting that recreates reality. My practice is driven by the importance of
materiality however throughout this research I conclude that in order to award the materials
with equal admiration I must firstly dismantle, deconstruct and destroy the grandiosity of the
painting. Similarly, to the Supports/Surfaces artists I divided the canvas into its fundamental
components; from here I reassembled or appropriated the properties of certain materials in a
way that publishes them with their own identity and own agenda.
Reversals, Triptych 2014 (Fig. 12) are a positive scrutiny of traditional canvas preparation. The
materials used and their order of assembly in the traditional stretcher provides longevity of
image. Nonetheless it is this meticulous recipe to conserve that has unfortunately mystified the
craftsmanship and the substantiality of the canvas alike. Taking into consideration Dezeuze’s
Châssis avec feuille de plastique tendue I constructed my triptych so that the underbelly of the
canvas would be exposed. Like the plastic stretched over Châssis I investigated the
transparency of traditional painting fabrics that would offer a similar effect. Unlike Dezeuze I
kept my lineage to painting intact testing only traditional materials, mainly varying grades of
portrait linen. Stretching Reversals with Super-fine fabric the customarily hidden materials
such as the gesso, glaze medium and the wooden stretcher became visibly present. The
metaphorical windowpane viewing used in illusionistic painting has become literal; the viewer
looks both at and through the canvas. An existential theme is no longer forced onto the viewer
they see only the real physical presence of the painting. Referring back to Rabbit skin glue and
pigmented gesso on bleached portrait linen; the name corresponds to a presentation of the
physical elements of the painting and not an unsubstantial or ethereal experience.
These two deconstructive paintings are however limited in their success to engage the viewer
with process and materiality. Backlit Reversal 2014 (Fig. 13) moves one-step further in its
efforts to create participation. Combining the ideas of both Backlight (Exhibited at Open
Closet, lamberts Yard, 2014) and the Reversals Triptych this painting confronts the traditional
23. 23
mode of presentation and questions the boundaries between painting and sculptural practice.
The plinth offers a new way of interpreting the work; historically in architecture the plinth
exists between structure and ground, the work is now part of the surrounding space. Generally,
we present things of greater importance above floor level. The canvas receives a higher status
and regard by the viewer. Rather than being a passive painting hung on the gallery wall the
viewer actively engages with the canvas.
These paintings have continually challenged the importance of materiality and the role of
structure in contemporary painting. Free Stand 2014 (Fig. 14) and Untitled (Fig. 15) show how
painting can be thought of as a form of installation. These shaped canvases of varying sizes
stand independently among the gallery space. My paintings have progressed from being
dependent on the support of the wall to fully self-sufficient objects reliant only on the stability
of their own form. These installed paintings prove that the structural and materialistic elements
of a painting can also be viewed aesthetically. Displayed side by side as seen in Figures 13 and
14 the frames interact and relate to each other. Their mode of display creates an accessibility
and intrigue that traditional paintings cannot provide. The curatorial consideration now plays
an equal part in my practice to the painting; by presenting the canvas and the void the gallery
space becomes part of the work also. The inherent flatness of representational painting is no
longer an issue as my paintings now provide an experience.
24. 24
Images
Figure 1: Gibney, J., 2014. Rabbit skin glue and pigmented gesso on bleached portrait linen.
Figure 2: Gibney, J., 2014. Backlight [gesso on sized superfine bleached portrait linen]
(Exhibited at Open Closet, Lamberts Yard, Leeds, 2014).
25. 25
Figure 2.1: Gibney, J., 2014. Backlight [gesso on sized superfine bleached portrait linen]
(Exhibited at, Leeds College of art, Blenheim Walk, Leeds, 2014).
Figure 3: Ryman, R., 1965, Untitled [oil on linen] Available at:
<http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A5098&pa
ge_number=4&template_id=1&sort_order=1> [Accessed 23/08/2014].
26. 26
Figure 4: Magritte, R., 1929. The Treachery of Images [oil on canvas] Available at:
<http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/blogs/treachery-images-rene-magritte> [Accessed
25/08/2014].
Figure 5: Dezeuze, D., 1967. Châssis avec feuille de plastique tendue [frame with stretched
plastic sheet] Available at: <https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/resource/c6rXbB9/ro4B4rx>
[Accessed 05/09/2014].
27. 27
Figure 6: Fontana, L., 1949-50. Concetto Spazial [punctured stretched canvas with seal coat]
Available at: < http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/fontana-spatial-concept-t03961> [Accessed
25/08/2014].
Figure 7: de la Cruz, A., 2010. Deflated (Yellow) [oil on canvas] Available at:
<http://www.lissongallery.com/artists/angela-de-la-cruz/gallery/668> [Accessed 10/02/2014].
28. 28
Figure 8: Dezeuze, D., 1975. Rouleau de bois teinté [wooden roll stained] Available at
<https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/ressource.action?param.id=FR_R-
862aec458066eb5319e0b662fdef4082¶m.idSource=FR_O-
97c28c3d737c971cf1ffefa31e6637b0> [Accessed 10/09/2014].
Figure 9: de la Cruz, A., 1998. Nothing 1 [oil on canvas] Available at:
<http://www.lissongallery.com/artists/angela-de-la-cruz> [Accessed 11/09/2014].
29. 29
Figure 10: Fontana, L., 1949. Ambiente Spaziale with Black light [papier mâché,
phosphorescent pigment] (Destroyed). Reconstruction Available at:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVe25WMPi8> [Accessed 28/08/2014].
Figure 11: de la Cruz, A., 2004. Larger than Life [oil and acrylic on canvas] Available at:
<http://www.lissongallery.com/artists/angela-de-la-cruz> [Accessed 20/08/2014].
31. 31
Figure 14: Gibney, J., 2014. Free Stand [isinglass size, bleached portrait linen on stretched
MDF Frame].
Figure 15: Gibney, J., 2014, Untitled [oil paint on MDF Frame stretched with tight weave
Muslin].
32. 32
Bibliography
Books
Benjamin, A. (1994). Object Painting. The University of Michigan. Academy Editions.
Bishop, M. (2011). Contemporary French Art 2: structure and aeration, freedom and the
unnameable. Amsterdam. New York.
Bourriaud, N. (1988). Relational Aesthetics. Reprint. Paris. Les Presses du réel, 2002
Centre Georges Pompidou. (1998). Les années Supports, surfaces dans les collections du
Centre Georges Pompidou. Paris.
Elkins, J. (1998). What Painting Is. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Guggenheim Museum. (2006). Lucio Fontana: Venice/New York. New York.
Lisson Gallery. (2011). Transfer: Angela de la Cruz. London, England.
O’Doherty, B. (1999). Inside the white cube. San Francisco: University of California press.
Rosenberg, H. (1959). The Tradition of the New. New Ed. Cambridge. First Da Capo Press.
1994.
White, A. (2014). Lucio Fontana: Between Utopia and Kitsch. Cambridge Massachusetts. MIT
Press.
33. 33
Schimmel, P. (2012). Destroy the picture: Painting the void, 1949-1962. Los Angeles. Skira
Rizzoli Publications, Inc.
Magazines
Finch, M. (1998). Supports/Surfaces. Contemporary Visual Art Magazine. [online] Available
at: <http://mickfinch.com/supports_surfaces.htm> [06/09/2014].
Maak, N., Klonk, C. and Demand, T. (2011). The white cube and beyond. Tate Etc, [online]
Available at: <http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/white-cube-and-beyond>
[Accessed 02/09/2014].
Rubinstein, R. (2014). Theory and Matter. Art in America. [online] Available at:
http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/theory-and-matter/> [Accessed
10/09/2014].
Rubinstein, R. (2003). The Painting Undone: Supports/ Surfaces. Artcritical, [online] Available
at: < http://www.artcritical.com/2004/02/01/the-painting-undone-supportssurfaces/> [Accessed
05/09/2014].
Websites
Dumousseau, N. The movement Supports/Surfaces. [online] (09/01/2015) Available at:
<http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/mper
so3.htm&prev=search> [Accessed 09/01/2015].
This is tomorrow. (2010). Angela de la Crus: After. [press release] 04/05/2010. Available at:
<http://thisistomorrow.info/articles/angela-de-la-cruz-after> [Accessed 10/09/2014].
Christophe Gaillard Gallery. (2014). Surface(s) / Prise(s). [press release] 25/01/2014.
Available at: < http://www.galeriegaillard.com/en/expositions/texte/75/presse-release>
[Accessed 20/08/2014].
34. 34
Greenberg, C. (1960). Modernist Painting. Reprint. Art and Literature, 1965 [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.labconvergencia.org:16080/sitio1/mel/html_nva_version/sem_art_mex/Document
os/Lecturas%20Unidad%203/Clement%20Greenberg.pdf> [02/09/2014].
Jerwood Visual Arts. (2014). Post-it quotes- Angela de la Cruz. [blog] 30/06/2014. Available
at: <http://blog.jerwoodvisualarts.org/?p=594> [Accessed 10/09/2014].
Videos
Art Basel. (2014). Salon / Art History Today / Lucio Fontana (1899 -- 1968). [video online]
Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhPNhvwqKIU> [Accessed 11/08/2014].
Artdone. (2014.) Lucio Fontana Ambiente spaziale 1948-49 recontruction 1974/2014. [video
online] Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVe25WMPi8> [Accessed
19/08/2014].
Channel 4. (2010). Turner Prize 10: Angela de la Cruz. [video online] Available at:
<http://www.channel4.com/news/turner-prize-10-angela-de-la-cruz> [Accessed 07/09/2014
Christie's. (2013). Video: Lucio Fontana's Concetto spaziale, La fine di Dio. [video online]
Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OpHsdDxdxk> [Accessed September
2014].
Daniel Templon Gallery, (2014). Daniel Dezeuze - Battements, chemins. [video online]
Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orcH46Jnahg> [Accessed 02/10/2014].
Gary Lichtenstein Editions. (2014). The Art OF Charles Hinman. [video online] Available at: <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMu_z0h28hM> [Accessed 06/10/2014].
35. 35
MOCA. (2012). Destroy the Picture - Paul Schimmel - MOCA U – MOCAtv. [video online]
Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRb4qFCA5JA> [Accessed 04/10/2014].
Tw1975. (2012). John Berger/ Ways of Seeing, Episode 1 (1972). [video online] Available at:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk> [Accessed 16/08/2014].
Primary Sources
Ackroyd-Willoughby, L. (2014). Speedy Materials. [installation] The Stanley and Audrey
Burton Gallery, Leeds. (Personal viewing 20/09/2014).
Fontana, L. (1960). Concetto spaziale Attesa. [painting] Tate Modern, London. (Personal
viewing 08/08/2014).
Harding, A. (2004). Slump fear. [painting] Walker Art Gallery. Liverpool. (Personal viewing
10/10/2014).
Kruczenyk, F. (2014). Casting Light. [exhibition]. Leeds College of Art. (Personal viewing
09/10/2014).
John Moores Painting Prize. (2014). [exhibition]. The walker Art Gallery. Liverpool. (Personal
Viewing 10/10/2014).
Liverpool Biennial. (2014). A needle walks into a haystack. [exhibition]. The Old Blind
School. The Bluecoat. FACT. St. Andrews Garden’s. TATE Liverpool. (Personal viewing
10/10/2014).
Bloomberg New Contemporary’s. (2014). [exhibition]. World Museum. Liverpool. (Personal
Viewing 10/10/2014).
