Thursday 30 June 2011

CHAD WYS









I almost died of joy when I found these. It was like everything I want to come up and be able to do was right there, in these paintings. And then I read that they were not painted , they were more like computer collages of old master's paintings, or something like that, I should ask the artist. His websites states that they are prints, not oil on canvas. My amazement fell flat and left place for disappointment, as the man was for a second my technical hero. But visually I find the artist has done something extremely amazing, it is hard for me to describe the feeling it gives me... I really wish these were real paintings though...

CHAD WYS ///NOCTURNE /// ARCHIVAL PIGMENT PRINT

Born in Illinois, 1983

CHAD WYS

4 comments:

Chad said...

Well, I am glad you didn't die at any rate.

Zèbre bleu said...

LOL. Seriously, I dreamed about your works last night!!! I think you gave me the EUREKA I was looking for. I am working on a series of paintings and I want to portray something specific and I did not know how i would... and I understand now that the overwhelming feeling I felt when seeing your pieces was that you gave me a clue as how to approach my own work. As I said, I can't describe the feeling, but I sure find your work amazing. You might not be my painting technical hero... but you are FOR SURE my visual hero ;)

Chad said...

Hi Marie. Thanks for the message. I'm glad these pieces are a source of inspiration for you. Your concerns about the technique are interesting and they ultimately speak to the main concerns of my work. I am an appropriation artist and I take that role beyond merely appropriating styles or ideas -- into the realm of appropriating actual objects and images. For me, this is the most significant gesture I make as an artist and everything else is icing. It is good that I stimulate you visually, but please consider that the technique I've chosen is part of an inquiry I mean to underscore. The technique of utilizing an object or image can be as meaningful -- I think -- as having trained technical proficiency at painting; though, of course, both techniques have great benefits and uses. I thank you, though, for your interest in my work.

Zèbre bleu said...

Hi. I don't think you understood me. I am an artist after all and not a communicator and I am not very good at explaining clearly my ideas. Anyways, now I'll try again. Hopefully I'll come accross.

I was not criticizing YOU over your technique. I don't care which technique you decide to use, I don't think you are a better or worst artist if you decide to use one or another technique. My comment was on a personal level (and by there I don't mean with you, but personal with me).

I am a painter. If I see a painting I know is very hard to execute, I am in awe and I am thinking that I need to work on my skills to get better, cause it is possible to be better. I saw your pictures. My heart stopped because it was perfect (to me) and technically it was perfect too (to me). And I am thinking : "Wow, this painter has it all figured out, he is so good. How does he do it? I need to go work and find a way to do it too, cause it is possible to be that good." Then I read that they are not painted. Obviously there is disappointment. Not towards you or the fact that you chose to work with this technique. There is disappointment because for a second I thought it was all possible and then it was not. The technical hero thing was on that level. I don't know if you understand me now. I hope. I am sorry you took it personally. As I said, I am a painter, not a communicator.

Next time, I'll keep my thoughts to myself and just stick to the bio and artist statement in a post.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...