Holding on to Nothing
March 5th, 2008
Holding on to Nothing
March 7-29, 2008
Davidson Contemporary
Seattle, WA
These works require both time and patience.
As with my past work, the horizontal banding is meant to create a restful visual field. The slight inconsistencies that betray my hand and the lack of sharp contrast allow the eye to wander across the surface of the painting, never finding purchase. The kernel of reference is to the landscape of the Great Plains where I was raised; however, the resulting composition has become a device in its own right — a simulacrum of the horizon that is meant to evoke the sensation of openness, without direct allusion.
These works are not minimal. They have more in common with John Cage’s 4’33″ than they do with Donald Judd.
——————————————–
Installation views:
Selected works from this exhibition:
02101007
watercolor on paper
18″ x 18″
$700 unframed
01081107
acrylic on canvas
48″ x 48″
$2800
01072707
acrylic on panel
22″ x 22″
$1300
01020508
serigraph on paper
20″ x 20″
$350 unframed
01011808
watercolor on paper
4″ x 4″
$200 unframed
01012908
watercolor on paper
18″ x 18″
$700 unframed
01022908
acrylic on panel
18″ x 18″
$1100
01030207
acrylic on panel
22″ x 22″
$1300
02081107
acrylic on canvas
36″ x 36″
$1800
I’d like to see this in situ – I’m positive that the digital compression and presentation online just doesn’t do the work justice. I really like the concept of this collection, and yet I believe that there is certain discomfort in observing something that isn’t. There’s nothing to “hold on to”, no point of focus, no frame of reference to provide comfort in context. Is there irony in how much effort you have gone to in order to achieve nothing to hold on to? Or was the creation all “in the moment” so the work flowed through you and time as it developed into a result that is neither there nor not there? Fascinating! Thanks for posting the exhibition for us to see.
Comment by AmieR — March 9, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Amie,
You are right – these don’t represent well in photographs. It’s an ongoing frustration of mine.
As to your other observations, I would argue that you mustn’t read “nothing” as negative. It is both negative and positive, simultaneously.
Comment by Matthew Landkammer — March 11, 2008 @ 6:02 am