Last week I went to the Robischon gallery in Denver to see the work of Chuck Forsman. Forsman is an oil painter who makes large scale paintings featuring many landscapes. Each work had it's own sense of scale that invited me into the piece to explore. Depth was well represented and gave each landscape a very scenic quality. Everything had it's own air of impressionism to it. Color was mixed by putting a variety of strokes side by side. It would blend and make subtle changes in hue and increase realism from a distance. Though landscapes were predominant, each contained at least one figure that brought context to the piece. These figures weren't always human, but they were characters who could interact or interpret the landscape. I tried to view the landscape first and then attempt to see it from the figure's point of view.
As I looked closer, hidden symbols began to appear. They were not obvious, but they stood out enough that they could not be accidental. They were all subtle things such as a tree's shadow becoming the landscape, or streets that were flattened by perspective. I could not read the symbolism in them all. There were even themes and motifs that I didn't notice until speaking with the curator about the pieces. For example, I did not see the inherent danger in the second piece of “Honeymoon.” In the painting, there are two planes flying in a cloudscape. The clouds twist and contort in different values representing atmospheric conditions of variable violence. My first interpretation yielded an emotion of excitement and serenity, which amplified when I found the piece was a diptych and compared it to its mate. This changed when it was explained that the setting was Vietnam, and the planes would be interpreted differently, with more dread than thrill, as a result of the relatively recent war. The added context of Vietnam was apparent in the other paintings in the show, unifying them thematically.
These were obviously works with intent. Countless hidden themes were supported by the painting. This is why the medium is so effectively used. These would not work as well if they were photographs because the ideas would take a second seat to the landscape. Photography is more about seeing what is real and drawing meaning from what we see, where a painting is an idea communicated through an image. Forsman has ideas in the root of all his works, which affects the way the scene is represented. If it were done the other way around, it would still be an appealing image, but it would not have the thematic depth of messages that the artist is trying to communicate.
Here's the gallery site if you want to check it out:
Thoughtful review, although I would disagree that a photograph is simply about seeing that which is "real" since all photos crop out information and focus in on a specific. Also photos can be manipulated and a similar photo montage could be created although the subtlety that you mentioned not noticing aspects at first may not take place in the same way.
ReplyDelete