[Back to the fleeding edge] (^home page)  [Curriculum Vita]


Artist:  Frank Leeding (the artist formally known as "The Poet 't'")


Opening dedication to the muses

     Constructions -- Being much in the post-9/11 era and all that 
                      that informs, deforms, transforms - whence?

     Obstructions -- Mired in the 2-dimensional world of paint 
                     (and often times using acrylic paint in the 
                     "way that exhibits everything that people hate 
                      about acrylic") - whence?

Artist:  Frank Leeding (the artist formally known as "The Poet 't'")


Who am I?

I'm just this guy you see; part Irish, native American but mainly Cornish/British.
I see myself as an artist of the times; of the world. We are intimately connected
the events of our world, more so than ever since 9/11, and the internet. My works
are of several natures:

   Healing energies -- to bring peace and understanding to our
                       much beleagered world. Thus, my intense
   study of the worlds variious histories, cultures, and langauges.
   This is also motivated by intnese appreciation of all of myriad 
   wonders of nature and the universe that we all inhabit.

   Critical works -- If we, as artists, do not attempt to point out
                     the failings of our fellow humans, then we are
   as guilty as those who cause the pain, injustice, and worst of 
   all indifference. Many of my works confront the viewer with their 
   subconscious fears and the angst taht we all feel.

Where am I?

I see myself as part of the post-post-post-modern era. If indeed, as
Pollock sed, "After the atomic bomb, the old methods aren't enough" (NOT
an exact quote), then what of me and my generation who live in the post
pop-art era, and more importantly in the post-9/11 era.  Toto, kansas is
gone -- i'm not sure how to feel.

For me what happened was what i call "Pop Art Type-1". It came to 
a head when in Mad Magazine they had a guide for slobs as to how to seem 
really "with it". This guy (typical, American bachelor, 20th century; see map)
has his garbage stacked over in the corner, and on it a nicely made sign
that seys "GARBAGE", similarly for a pile of dirtly laundry over in yet
another corner. (How many corners can a room have?)

So, to me the minimalists sed:  If that's art, then we will destroy art.
                                (but, prob not in so many words)

So, when we see the evolution of artists such as Ad Reinhardt turns (i would
say almost violently) against "cutenss", and similarly with the other
minimalists; eg, Flavin's single flourescent light and Judd's stack of
luminescent boxes -- reducing the work to a "pure line" -- which at the
same time is NOT a pure line: It is *merely* line-ness".

Thus, i see that the gauntlet was thrown down. As such, i view my work
(some of it) in the vein of "up from minimalism".

What do I do?

My works almost always speak of the conflict with the vast possibilites of
texture (collage, massive paint usage) and the contraditicing influences of
minimalism (simple line elements, thin/small marks on paper, canvas, or print
paper). This confict, for me, recapitulates the conflicts around us in the world.


Thus, in terms of painting, the underlying (under-coating in trad art speek)
is formed by extra-ordinarily small segments of brush strokes. Then the 
"transformational element" is brought in with a set of "action strokes" 
-- performed at high speed.


Where do I go from here?


Questions naturally arise: Yes, but aren't you must copying the minimalists?
                           And clearly (or arguably) your "action painting"
is (again) *just* a copy of Pollock's technique! Your minimalist draings are 
from the tradition of Joan Miro, Paul Klee, and Saul Steinberg -- "Nothing
new here!"

To this I respond (for so I am informed/taught/thought-to-be) with a statement
from Will Insley (when talking about the so-called "anante-garde")

    Pop op came (and went?) so quickly,
    much valuable ground is still left
    un-digested.

    Many pop op artists are still at the
    beginning of investigations,
    momentarily hindered by the stigma  
    of last year's label.     

Thus, I lumber about upon my (some-what) trusty steed of "up from minimalism"
and joust against the endless stream of the windmills pop/commercial disney-esque
world that in reality is to me just a Gaudi-i-ly lighted Kafakaesque world 
barely disguised by a new hat.


--42--


NOTES

[1] Pop art type 1: Stuff that anyone can appreciate as art. A celebration of
                    "the modern". But, refer to: "We Have Never Been Modern",
    by Bruno Latour, beautiful translation by Catherine Porter.

    Pop art type 2: Social criticism: Yes, but what about the Guffin? Examples
                    are Robert Crumb, Aline Kominski, Carol Lay, Winston Smith.

    Pop art type 3: Interventionist (new term for me). Artists trying (thru the
                    medium of "pop" (accessible) art to *change* the world.
    At this point i would put Barbara Kruger in this category (I shop therefore 
    i am), but still put much of Judy Chicago's work in type 2 -- her recent
    multi-cultural kaddish/sabbath are *clearly* (or at least arguably) type-3.

{Back to the TEXT}


[2] Orig src: Art in America (Jan-Feb, 1967), [no pp. nos. given; wibble]
    Copied from Pp.217-219 of Richard's book:  [R. Kostaelanetz; "Contemporary
    Esthetics" [sic]].

    "The General Public is just a dis-interested in Advanced Art, as ever"       

{Back to the TEXT}

[3] Lighted (past perfect (active voice) of "to light") -- now known as "lit".

{Back to the TEXT>}