Pages: << 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...26 ...27 28 29 30 31
It happens quite often that when achieving a collage, I must laugh or at least smile because the picture looks witty. Why? Surely because of the strange assemblage of heteroclite objects (see the famous definition of Lautréamont). Is it allowed in painting? Generally, one usually finds irony or derision today. Funny pictures come mostly from designers, I think. Is it because artists think themselves so important? In my collages, I like to go from one extreme to the other. Being a humorist would change me into an amuser. In my eyes, art can be more than that.
Form is loading...
I want to reflect here on collage and my way of making them. Enjoy.
Citation of Cesar Domela," a photo shows an object, whereas the photomontage presents an idea."
It seems to me that this definition hits the point.
Collage is a language for everybody, clear, strong, easily comprehensible
. It may be used for propaganda as under communism, but it can also be subversive, by the new meaning created with existing images.
In my conception of collage, this is the main point. Painting seems to me too much rooted in tradition, failing to free itself from it. Even the works of Picasso, displayed in Paris (Picasso and the masters) show this effort. Picasso creates very powerful works, but they are fundamentally linked to tradition.
When I am making a collage, I feel much freer than in a painting, where I have to struggle a lot like in one of my last paintings
Il y a un commentaire sur ce post mais vous devez être connecté pour visualiser les commentaires. Se connecter maintenant!
Formulaire en cours de chargement...
You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!