Tom Wilmott
Less than zero?
In aiming to retain the guidelines set out at the start of Preachin' in a language that's completely new - those that seek to enhance enjoyment over other concerns, a minimal approach has necessarily prevailed, but by sharpening my focus onto a single brushstroke the opportunity for error is inevitably introduced. Previously I have suggested that on a purely technical level the monochromes are theoretically uncritiqueable because there is no prescribed technique and therefore nothing technically "wrong" with them at all. However a new, contrasting mark can suddenly throw a painting into the murky unresolved. Taking into account tension between colours, surfaces and composition the chance of producing a disatisfying painting is now theoretically unavoidable. It turns "not bad" into "possibly bad". Or even "probably bad".
Irrespective of this enhanced risk of error the desire to make presents itself and the work is produced to fulfil it. This is not an attempt to develop based on the assumption that I ought to. Were it the case that the monochromes continued to fulfil every aspect of my desire to paint I would simply continue with them. This change addresses more complex (ha!) aspects of painting because that's what I find myself drawn to do. So far the results have been largely positive. There have been failures destroyed and materials reset, which has never happened making the monochromes, but these abortions have been relatively few and for the most part not of significant concern given what little is lost in failure - time, energy, materials. These are not epics, laboured upon for months. They can't be.
Naturally I have abandoned the figuration of the soap paintings from which the idea of a single mark as a completed painting originated. When they worked I considered the soaps very successful, but this happened all too rarely. Most expired on the easel and those few that survived were the earliest - the ones made on a whim. The more I plotted, the less success was forthcoming. They looked too precious and too much like hard work, lacking the immediacy that gave the first few life. As with so much they became frustrating to attempt and ultimately were consigned to the archive as an example of success in brevity.
Of course like the soaps a number of the new paintings aren't technically made up of just one stroke. They are a single addition on top of or into an existing painted surface, be it flat colour, thick impasto, matt, gloss or otherwise. Some however are true to the concept of one brushmark, with their supports lacking any previous attention. The two variations are lumped together (amongst others) because when I make them, or more specifically when i make the mark, the effect for me is the same. The immediacy, the sensation, the intrusion upon whatever the foundation surface may be is simply one thing acting to break the uniformity of another.
Having said this, it is a difference that piques my interest somewhat. This minimal, reductive development holds its own satisfying qualities. If I seek to progress down this path how much can I subtract? If a monochrome painted surface can be considered a painting in its own right without an additional mark, then a single mark on an otherwise unpainted canvas constitutes a painting that is reduced further still. From here, how much further back can it go and, most importantly, still fulfil the core requirement of enjoyment?
