PETER MALONE
ARTIST STATEMENT
Peter Malone constructs paintings that juxtapose different images side-by-side to build new relationships between subjects much the same way film constructs a tale through editing.
"Why nature? The question itself would scarcely exist if not for the 20th century artist's tendency to live on a diet of art alone. In those days the environment of the studio was all that was needed. 'I am nature', proclaimed Jackson Pollock - an idea that became so pervasive even Warhol's brilliant expose of the crisis in meaning such an orientation wrought proved more seductive than its own critical subtext.
But today, through the expansion of a tireless real estate market, our studios have shrunk to dimensions that compress working space and compel us to discard such conceits. Needing the outdoors for breathing space, some of us are becoming re-aquainted with nature. For my own part I seem to be developing a greater awareness of my diminutive role beyond the art world and the walls of the studio. I can see clearly now the ratio between art and the greater reality in which it actually exists. Most importantly, I do not perceive this change in perception as a retreat of any sort. Standing before a Monet at the museum, I recall how on Monet's visits to the Louvre he preferred the view out the second floor window to the Venetian masters hanging nearby. P.M./September 2001
"Second Nature" CAIRN Exhibition/Peter Malone's Statement/2002
"Nature is less a subject than a category of subjects. It defines everything under the sun, and includes the sun itself. It represents a culturally universal concept that may be omitted from art only by a conscious and disciplined effort. The most casual stroll through the galleries of the Metropolitan Museum of Art lead a visitor to image upon image inspired by nature. In the art of most cultures a broader sense of nature takes a secondary role only to representations of human activity in the service of myth and social convention. As the twentieth century unfolded Western Art's view of nature turned sharply inward. Explorations into consicousness via Surrealism, Expressionism, and ultimately abstraction led to a progressively widening gap between Modern art and nature as a subject.
With a few notable exceptions like Robert Smithson, the late twentieth century avant-garde had little use for the contemplation of nature, relying more on media-spawned imagery. Art itself became a species of growth needing a controlled environment of artificial light and unblemished white walls to better sustain its own history and material existence. Now as the new century opens and Modernism has completed its task of providing artists with as many ways to approach a subject as their mind's eye can perceive, some artists are returning to a reflection of the teeming life around them"/Peter Malone/"Second Nature"/2002
RELATED LINKS:
ARTIST STATEMENT
Peter Malone constructs paintings that juxtapose different images side-by-side to build new relationships between subjects much the same way film constructs a tale through editing.
"Why nature? The question itself would scarcely exist if not for the 20th century artist's tendency to live on a diet of art alone. In those days the environment of the studio was all that was needed. 'I am nature', proclaimed Jackson Pollock - an idea that became so pervasive even Warhol's brilliant expose of the crisis in meaning such an orientation wrought proved more seductive than its own critical subtext.
But today, through the expansion of a tireless real estate market, our studios have shrunk to dimensions that compress working space and compel us to discard such conceits. Needing the outdoors for breathing space, some of us are becoming re-aquainted with nature. For my own part I seem to be developing a greater awareness of my diminutive role beyond the art world and the walls of the studio. I can see clearly now the ratio between art and the greater reality in which it actually exists. Most importantly, I do not perceive this change in perception as a retreat of any sort. Standing before a Monet at the museum, I recall how on Monet's visits to the Louvre he preferred the view out the second floor window to the Venetian masters hanging nearby. P.M./September 2001
"Second Nature" CAIRN Exhibition/Peter Malone's Statement/2002
"Nature is less a subject than a category of subjects. It defines everything under the sun, and includes the sun itself. It represents a culturally universal concept that may be omitted from art only by a conscious and disciplined effort. The most casual stroll through the galleries of the Metropolitan Museum of Art lead a visitor to image upon image inspired by nature. In the art of most cultures a broader sense of nature takes a secondary role only to representations of human activity in the service of myth and social convention. As the twentieth century unfolded Western Art's view of nature turned sharply inward. Explorations into consicousness via Surrealism, Expressionism, and ultimately abstraction led to a progressively widening gap between Modern art and nature as a subject.
With a few notable exceptions like Robert Smithson, the late twentieth century avant-garde had little use for the contemplation of nature, relying more on media-spawned imagery. Art itself became a species of growth needing a controlled environment of artificial light and unblemished white walls to better sustain its own history and material existence. Now as the new century opens and Modernism has completed its task of providing artists with as many ways to approach a subject as their mind's eye can perceive, some artists are returning to a reflection of the teeming life around them"/Peter Malone/"Second Nature"/2002
RELATED LINKS:
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |