Search
  • Phil Dobson

In Denial


Working on a new painting I thought about the statement on the About page of my website that I was “denying the analogue nature of painting”. I didn’t intend this to be a categorical statement. More a strategy or a premise for the process of painting since I find the very large number of decisions required to complete a painting (which are often not based on any objective criteria) to be overwhelming. This could indicate a reluctance to take responsibility for the act of painting. It could also be seen as contradictory. If it acknowledges painting is an accumulation of discrete acts, then it could submit to analysis, almost leading to the view that its analogue nature is illusory, rather like the perception of continuity in a film. But given that the output is meant to be a coherent image, and given the characteristics and limitations of our vision - acuity, parallax, limits of wavelength sensitivity etc. - is it beyond definitive analysis, does it need to be killed before dissection?


26 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All