Comments on: John Carter: Between Painting and Sculpture http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/ Abstract Critical is a not-for profit company aiming to establish a new critical context for all generations of artists involved with ambitious abstract art. Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:23:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Julia Cooper http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-299295 Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:19:26 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-299295 In reply to Alan Fowler expression implies emotion as in Oxford dictionary. So emotionally expressed. Where as Fred Pollock paints with careful analytic consideration.

]]>
By: Alan Fowler http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-288282 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:17:04 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-288282 Robin
You’re reading rather more into what I wrote than I intended, as I would certainly not go so far as to suggest that the concept of rationality applies only to the type of art of which Carter’s is an example. The difference in this respect, between work like Carter’s and, say, Fred Pollock’s, is, I think, one of the degree to which rationality is considered central – as it was to the Systems Group with whose work Carter’s has an affinity, but not, I suggest, to more expressionist works.
And perhaps, too, there’s a difference between rationality and your term, “visual logic”.

]]>
By: Robin Greenwood http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-287689 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:19:18 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-287689 …and to your second post, no.

]]>
By: Robin Greenwood http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-287686 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:18:00 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-287686 Sam,
You are correct – in as much as it was not Andrew, but John who “describes his use of marble powder with acrylic paint as about creating the material shimmer of a sculptural surface”; but then Andrew does rather encourage this conceit. What you say is not only tricky, but tricksy. How does the marble dust facilitate this “letting in of optical illusion”, different from any other constructed reliefs? Are these works not painted constructed reliefs, plain and simple, with nothing to do with sculpture? Relief has far more to do with drawing than it does with sculpture. What difference to the illusion does the marble dust make? So what, indeed!

]]>
By: Sam http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-287685 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:14:47 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-287685 & isn’t what Andrew is saying similar to what you have just posted on Fred Pollock and sculpture?

]]>
By: Sam http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-287615 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 09:55:28 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-287615 I don’t think that is quite what Andrew said is it? Surely the point is that the marble dust is part of a letting in of optical illusion into the work, a type of illusion different from (in a sense opposed to) that created by the 3D constructed reliefs, and which the constructed tradition, which he has lots of affinities with, rejects. Not too tricky is it? It may not conform to your definition of sculpture but well, so what?

]]>
By: Robin Greenwood http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-286747 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:14:33 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-286747 Alan,
I don’t like the implication of your last sentence – which I take to mean that you think a more “free” and “felt” abstraction – such as the work of , say, Mark Skilton or Fred Pollock – has no rationality to it, and is only “for the eye”. On the contrary, their art has a visual logic of a quite different order of magnitude to John Carter’s work, which relies upon a simple and rather dry mathematical or geometric formalism. Not that I dislike John’s work particularly, but it’s hardly an intellectual challenge. It’s a simple and safe aesthetic that engages the mind but briefly.

As for Andrew Bick’s proposition that these reliefs occupy a place between painting and sculpture – due apparently to the inclusion of marble dust in the paint! – well, that’s intellectually as slack as it comes.

]]>
By: Alan Fowler http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-286650 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:49:10 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-286650 Andrew Bick makes only a passing reference to the “rational geometric propositions” on which Carter’s work is founded. But what Chris Yetton (in his 2010 RA book on Carter) describes as “the ideal elements of planar Euclidean geometry” are central to a full understanding and appreciation of the elegant precision, as well as the ambiguities, of Carter’s structures. One example is Carter’s series of works in which the areas of positive elements (the solid parts) are the same as those of the neutral elements (the spaces) without this being obvious to the casual viewer yet at the same time generating a visually satisfying counter-balancing of forms. Both the shows reviewed by Andrew are will worth seeing by anyone who responds to, or is intrigued by, the concept of abstraction based on an underlying rationality – art for the mind as well as the eye.

]]>
By: Patrick Jones http://abstractcritical.com/note/john-carter-between-painting-and-sculpture/#comment-284520 Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:03:21 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=note&p=7543#comment-284520 This is an excellent show at the redfern and highly recommend seeing it if you can.

]]>