Friday, May 18, 2007


How do you create paintings that contain objects with
symbolic weight that carry little or no symbolic meaning?
A window latch, a flower pot, a floor mat, a door knob
an open sleeve with a cavernous space.
Universal symbols like fire, gold, etc carry meaning.
Classical symbols like crosses, halos, snakes etc
also convey meaning.
Symbols and references can make an art work lively
and interesting, but badly used can make
it seem trite and contrived.
Sort of too clever by half.
How many bad copies of Magritte or Dali can be found
on the minor galleries walls.
It's kind of fun sometimes to tip things on their head,
make art that seems to have a deeper meaning,
when it really has very little.
Keeping it open ended so the viewer can implant their own
stories and meanings.
Anyway, the flower pot with flowerless stalks

Photoman 1998


  1. Hmmm, many female artists have become adept at imbuing commonplace objects/everyday objects with personal and universal meaning. The 'real' meaning doesn't 'really' matter. Reading a painting shouldn't be any different than reading a book, we will all read something different.
    I thought it was a pot filled with incense sticks, that and the yeti footed chick put a different, possibly 'hippie' slant on my fleeting read of the work?


Recent posts

Popular Posts

All Images Copyright D.Howard 2010