Thursday, May 31, 2012


So here's the $64K question for today... "What makes a collage a 'collage'"? Or perhaps for this particular post, the question could be refined as, "Can a very minimal change constitute a 'collage'"? I suppose neither question really "needs" to be answered; but I find them both interesting. Here is a pair of images which prompted me to create this post in the first place. As soon as I saw this vintage image of the guy lifting the dumb-bell, I knew I would be using it for collage material. I've been intrigued lately by the variety and richness of "vintage grays". I was exploring potential placements of some of the other specimens I had lying around and found that this gorilla head looked pretty cool. With the gorilla head placed, I considered the possibilities of inclusion of other elements. But I kept coming back to the simple combination of gray dumb-bell guy with the muted brown (raw umber?) of the skull. I think it has a great aesthetic "as is". And thus the original questions. Does what I am showing here constitute a "collage"? If not, what would you call it? After exploring minimalism painting (a la Brice Marden) and appropriation art (a la Richard Prince), and after some of my own experiences with previous pieces, I'm not too "worried" about the answer. But I do find the questions to be thought-provoking and worth discussion. Any input would be welcome. Enjoy!

No comments:

Post a Comment