
This isn't really a novel approach. We experienced the almost exact same tender-tough in your face attitude of I'm-smart-beyond-cool-and-do-you-get-this approach with Roy Lichtenstein when his first collection of paintings was reviewed in 1964, and (in)famously repeated by Andy Warhol and his Factory. The question then, that sometimes repeats itself now, is/was whether using mechanics to create art demeans a work by the potential facility of reproduction, and is that art or is it reprographics? Is it fine art? Well, I guess that depends on you, the viewer, and you, the artist, on integrity, on formal adherence to fine art principles, and on what you like to view, etc. Lichtenstein and Warhol are unquestionable American art icons, as a by-product of American history, newsprint, advertising and graphic design, they resonated strongly with a population tired of the lofty refined exclusions of 'fine art.'
While Jerry's work isn't advertising or newsprint based, it is definitely in step with our contemporary history with his use of digital technology. His artwork process, based on sets of unique algorhythmic codes he created and developed to generate unique, or limited editions of images, narrates stories of natural beauty (that might quickly vanish), of movement and a wild universe of saturated colors, of universal communications, of a boy and his dog. When paralleled with Lichtenstein's grids or Escher's pencil or Rembrandt's brush, one quickly understands Jerry's process, his use of uniquely personalized codes, is merely another tool to manifest his particular vision of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment