@matthewsgallery / matthewsgallery.tumblr.com
If you’re in Santa Fe, you should go see this show - I love this painting.
Jamie Chase
Time Capsules
September 2 - September 15, 2011
Nice throwback to Jamie’s 2011 show at Matthews Gallery.
See his most recent work here.
Joan Miró, Woman, 1949, bronze, 18.6 x 26.4 x 22.4 cm, Tate Modern, London. Source
Interesting choice of body shape for a woman, Mr Miró! The Spanish Surrealist often used a triangular or pyramidal structure to represent the female form in his work.
Joan Miró's sculpture perhaps recalls the Venus of Willendorf.
Study for “Morning in a City”, 1944, Edward Hopper.
See the painting here.
More art history.
"It’s not a stark representation of a viewpoint. The details I leave out become the reason that I make the painting in the first place."
So much respect for this artist. Jamie Chase, acrylic on canvas, 'Aspires', 'Being Open' and 'Seeming.'
It seemed like all of Santa Fe attended last Friday’s opening for ‘POV: New Paintings by Jamie Chase.’ Our front room was a swell window, capturing waves of art lovers and sweeping them through the gallery. As elbow room got tighter and people moved closer and closer to the canvases, art and life blended together. Painted figures became the streamlined shadows of chatting visitors, and an elegant woman’s posture found its soft echo in Chase’s acrylic brushstrokes:
“The human form is the intrinsic architecture of our experience,” Chase wrote in his artist statementfor the show. “[It] is… a common, yet universal, reference point.” The Santa Fe artist’s figures are instantly recognizable, but possess carefully plotted gaps in detail that lend them ongoing visual mystery. That’s why viewers often move in close, even when the gallery isn’t packed.
As the show approaches its second week, we talked to Chase about perspective, metaphor, color and finding a satisfactory stopping point. Read the interview below, and make sure to come see the show before it closes on August 8.
In your artist statement for the show, you mention the ‘lens of self,’ or the ‘frame through which we interpret the world.’ What did you learn about your own ‘lens’ as you worked on this show?
Part of it is how I look at the world, and how I feel about the human state, but also how I feel about painting and art. A lot of people are looking for more meaning in the paintings than I’m intending. I’m just enjoying the process of painting and finding the balance of the shapes and colors. That becomes my meaning.
Maybe there’s always been an underpinning of some sense of self in the painting I do, a sort of metaphor that attracts me to it. I guess there’s an existential quality to it… that could be cues to a particular story. It’s like meeting the viewer halfway, giving them some cues that lead them to a realization about the human experience, while leaving them to fill in the gaps on their own.
Do you meditate on the perspectives of your subjects?
Only if it’s directly intended to represent a particular person. In the pictures of Sasha, obviously a lot more thought goes into those in that regard. Maybe painting the female figure is my anima. I see that [feminine] representation as having a sense of quietude, more of ‘being as a reason for being.’ Not to say that women aren’t doing a lot, they just seem to have a sense of repose and a receptive nature toward the spiritual life that I don’t see in the traditional representation of males.
I think painting and writing are two of the few art forms in which only one human is involved in making the statement. For me, writing and painting are very intimate, and allow you to have this one-on-one conversation with whoever sees your work. I like that about it.
Not everybody will see my work, and I won’t reach some people because of my particular point of view about art. But I tend to make deep connections with the people who do like it.
What are some ways the human figure appears as a ‘metaphor’ in your work?
It’s a metaphor in that you look at the painting of the figure, and you can see that the figure is there, but you are also equally aware that it’s a painting. It’s not a stark representation of a viewpoint. The details I leave out become the reason that I make the painting in the first place.
The positive aspect of that is that the language of figurative painting is so ingrained in us that even if I leave something out, it’s easy to bridge what’s there. If you can get the architecture right, it’s easy to know whether it worked or not, because we’re so familiar with the human figure.
You can distort the figure for an emotional effect or psychological effect, but I tend to take a more classical approach when it comes depicting the human figure.
Read more of Jamie's interview here.
