Literal and Metaphorical use of Colour and Space
About a month ago, or possibly longer, I went to a talk where two students from The Royal College of Art came in and spoke about their work. The thing that struck me the most about their work was how metaphorical they approached their practice. I can’t remember exactly what each of them did conceptually, but whatever it was, it was very far removed from how their work actually looked.
This got me thinking, maybe I should look at making work in a similar vein? Up until now I have been exploring colour and space in a quite direct and literal way. I have experimented with colours, groups of colours, application, size, shape, scale etc. All of which are a literal means to an end- creating the illusion of space within the painting
But what would happen if I addressed the issue in a more metaphorical sense?
What if I redefined what I meant by ‘Space’?
Dictionary definition(s) of space
A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
Position (two or more items) at a distance from one another.
Be or become euphoric or unaware of one’s surroundings, especially from taking drugs.
The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
The physical universe beyond the earth’s atmosphere.
The near-vacuum extending between the planets and stars, containing small amounts of gas and dust.
A mathematical concept generally regarded as a set of points having some specified structure.
What If I changed space to mean the ether in which the totality of everything we know and can perceive exists?
What is our relationship to space when looked at in this way?
How does colour fit into the equation, since they are both interdependent on each other?
These questions seem to raise more questions than they answer, I believe the best way to go about exploring them is to look to an artist who has attempted something similar.
Barnet Newman discusses his ideas of a contemporary sublime in his 1948 article- The Sublime is Now. He takes a relatively ‘old fashioned’ (out-dated might be a better word) concept and re- defined for a contemporary audience.
Newman writes “Instead of making cathedrals out of Christ, man, or “life,” we are making it out of ourselves, out of our own feelings.” Newman believes in the actuality of the sublime not just the representation of it. We are no longer living in a time of legend or myth, where religion is the pinnacle of human understanding. He believes that the sublime therefore does not lie in a perfect awe inspiring representation of a religious or mythical scene. It lies in ourselves, in our own realities and the only way this can be made manifest is through the abstract.
Instead of the viewer being directed at another world by a painting or a narrative, the true sublime is in the here and now. It is in the relationship between the viewer and the painting and the realisation of one’s own being.
Newman doesn’t go into detail and try to explain every nuance of his theory in his painting. He is more subtle and instead uses a kind of ‘metaphorical abstract painterly language’ to articulate his ideas. Such as the size and shape of the canvas, the colour field, and zips.
