EVOLUTION
“Just thinking about the evolution of Mondrian’s work gives me enormous pleasure”
David Sylvester art critic
“Evolution” n.f.(lat.evolutio, denouement) transformation graduelle et continuelle
(le Petit Larousse)
Having painted since childhood, I soon realized that it was both impossible and futile to try to copy nature; one had to interpret or re-create without abandoning nature as a resource. Ever since I have been trying to formulate in paint ideas inspired from natural phenomena. I have explored over a number of years several themes in series under the generic term “Elements of Landscape” including Clouds(photo1), Horizon, Reflection, Contre-Jour, Transparence Precipitation, Tangles(photo2), etc. The paintings are in traditional form using oil paint on hardboard, in parallel with smaller exploratory works usually in pastel and oil pastel on paper.
The later series in the ’90s began to develop beyond the traditional format boundaries as I started to question the enclosure of the picture frame and the picture as a self contained image, but as a selected part of a larger environment. The picture could also be an object with more than one facet(photo3); it wasn’t just a flat surface.
It had a different aspect according to its environment and whether it was seen at a distance, close to or from the side. Paintings are seen in movement and change in appearance according to differing environmental conditions.
I have always been fascinated by light, movement and the illusion of depth. I prefer the controlled gesture and I avoid correction by over painting. This is a legacy from the Far East. The development of oil painting in the West has allowed artists to correct to such an extent that ail trace of the act of painting can be obliterated. In traditional far eastern graphic art there is no scope for correction. The laying of colour side by side and overlaying layers of transparent colour creates vitality and freshness. Not only an illusion of depth can be created by this technique but ambiguities of distance can result using certain colour combinations and by using thin (transparent) paint as opposed to flat (opaque) paint. In certain circumstances the effect of foreground and background can appear simultaneously to be reversed.
These ideas eventually evolved into the concept of the “negative” and “positive”. The negative translated from an original gestural image, was initially the white paper surface(photo4), and then became the wall surface itself, which was introduced into the painting by using a transparent support surface on which to mount the “positive” elements. The wall surface then became an additional visual variant. Initially this was achieved by cutting out the “negative” elements and mounting on a second transparent surface, painting them in the same manner as the “positive”. I called this an “alternative negative”. I also realized that I could re-assemble the “positive” and “alternative negative”(photo5) elements provided there was a significant space between the two surfaces(photo6). This created infinite variations of observation.
This led to the idea to transfer several similar paintings(usually 3) onto transparent surfaces in layers to form a single work(photo7). In cutting out precisely the gestural marks and transferring them identically to the support surfaces there is inevitably some slight modification and occasional elimination but the intention is to be as faithful to the original paintings, without correction, as possible. The process of treating these new works is, in consequence, complex and laborious but at present I can see no alternative which excites me as much to explore other than the development and eventual evolution into something. The technique is a result of the exploration and evolution of ideas.
Robert CHAMBERS
b.1941 in UK
studios in Paris and Clermont l’Herault (Languedoc)
France
exhibited widely in the UK and France
POST SCRIPT
I try not to be influenced by other artists although I have made paintings in homage to other artists such as Rembrandt and David Bomberg. However I do find comfort in discovering retrospectively points of interest in common with other artists who have thought about certain things and made a decision. Jackson Pollock, for example did hint at a development towards a negative/positive idea in one of his latest paintings. His use of thick paint doesn’t in my view enhance the effect of depth and his “all over” effect is still contained within the canvas and has edges. Matisse painted his paper with gouache before cutting out his shapes. Patrick Heron used a small brush to paint his great flat surfaces in one go (in one painting he took a continuous 14 hours without a break to create one immense shape). This gives a texture to the apparent flat surface which is not immediately obvious. I also discovered recently the work of the Japanese artist Shozo Shimamoto(b.l928) in the Tate Modem in London, a painting made in several layers of torn and painted paper called appropriately “Holes”(1954)
