Matt Niebuhr – Drawings

Matt Niebuhr - Drawings

You are invited to see new drawings on exhibition at Stumptown Coffee Roasters – Division Street cafe, Portland, during the month of March, 2011 by artist Matt Niebuhr.

A wonderful thing about drawing a line is that it can be any number of things. One line is not necessarily any more important or informative than any other line. We might assign a line a representative value,  it may become symbolic. Line as an idea drawn, can be a beautiful thing in all of its imperfect representation. – Matt Niebuhr “

INFO:
Matt Niebuhr – Drawings
March, 2011
4525 SE Division Street
Portland, Oregon 97206
For those of you unable to visit,  I’ve made a special link to the works in the show, and as always,  I invite you to visit my website:  www.mattniebuhr.com for new work and updates.
…examining the threshold at which ordinary visibility ends and perception begins…

Group Show – Nov 5, 2010 – Art Department – Portland, Oregon

Group Show @ Department, Portland, OR

Happy to be showing work from the Sand Dollar series in a one night only  Group Show!

FRIDAY ONLY

November 5, 2010

6-11 PM

Art Department

1315 SE  9th Ave

Portland, OR

Artists:  Jessica Breedlove, Jason Fiske, Kristen Flemington, Josh Latham, and Matt Niebuhr

ONE NIGHT ONLY!

Hope to see you there.

Information Show – Matt Niebuhr

Information Show - drawings by Matt Niebuhr

Notes concerning an “Information Show”

“In conceptual art, the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all planning and decisions are made beforehand. The execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes the machine that makes the art.” – Sol Le Witt -  Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, by Sol Le Witt – Artforum (June, 1967).

This collection of drawings is evidence of my explorations of a question concerning conceptual art that the idea or concept is the fundamental experiential element of a work of art.

Ideas are, strictly speaking, intangible. They exist as a mental construct and have no form. In this sense, ideas do not take up space. Ideas and concepts float only in the space of the imagination or “mind’s eye”.

Ideas can be made tangible in a number of ways. These drawings are examples of an idea for a work of art. When ideas are translated into another medium the intangible is made tangible. The idea is described through execution, a translation from the “minds eye”.

Some of the ideas executed in the exhibit are not my ideas. Some are. To me it makes no difference.

Only when the idea is translated into a physical form can it be shared. Whether an idea is spoken, sung, written, or drawn, it is only in this translation where the idea can be exchanged in some way with another person. The intangible is made tangible. The idea can be apprehended by another person.

Execution of an idea is not a perfunctory affair.

How it is made, why it is made, what it is made of – and then making (process)are essential questions and actions that must be decided upon. Each decision has a profound effect upon the execution and ultimately the form that expresses the idea. Means and methods influence the perception of the idea immensely.

“… while objects may be perishable, ideas need not be…” – Sol Le Witt.

Ideas in art (and life) are potentially useful but have little value until acted upon.

Objects in art are quite useless, but of great potential value.

Reflecting on self – finding a voice on ideas / craftsmanship

What about “style” I wonder… (ramble?)

How does it relate to determining your voice and articulating that voice and allowing others to find it – to be recognizable. It also has me thinking about how other artists look at themselves – through the democratic machine – the camera…. More about idea and technique (or maybe craft?). What role does style play?


Self-Portrait Three Times
24.1.90 Oil on Photograph
Gerhard Richter

Suppose a painter appropriates photography – to loosely record an image of self – three times. Is it a photograph (or just a narcissistic snapshot) or a painting? What might it say ? Richter’s self-portrait is more than just a photograph – not really a snapshot – after all. It does more than merely record. What transforms it ? The image or the stuff of the image (oil paint) ? Is it pretty? What is it that makes the object interesting to me – What provokes me to think.

In Richter’s self-portrait above – I visually I go back and forth into the image (the realness represented by the photo – yet recorded three times over) and then back to the physicality of the surface and the actions of the artist recorded at yet another time of the artist’s intention – an application of tool and oils… a layered time record. I think Richter represents both idea and craft in the image and I like it for that depth. But it’s all about the artist and his struggle to justify his painting right? But the craft is sort of only represented – not really embodied in the particular portrait example.

Consider another artist:
Chuck Close - Big Self-Portrait, 1968
Chuck Close b. 1940
Big Self-Portrait, 1968
acrylic on canvas
107 1/2 in. x 83 1/2 in.

Suppose an artist appropriates the photographic self portrait in a photo-realism sense -(beware ideology of “isms”) Close makes it his own I think by the fact that he painted it by hand – his hand – as opposed to the machine image – (and he does it again and again in different media over a long , long time )- but the image tries hard to be real – really real. It tries to be like a photograph record. But what is recorded here? Where do you go when you look at an image like this – where does it take you – admiration of craftsmanship – no doubt. Appreciation of artistic labor – and as I become more aware of this artists “body of work” a certain tenacity and an appreciation for change (physical aging / changes) over time. It’s old news, but I enjoyed looking again over the interview – “Navigating the Self” associated with Chuck Close’s show “Chuck Close: Self-Portraits 1967-2005″ – at the Walker last year… Chuck Close closes the interview with:

. . . I think if I had been one of those smooth-faced pretty boys, I would
not have done a lot of self-portraits. I don’t think it would have been very
interesting.

Here’s a link: Chuck Close Opening Day Talk at the opening of his Retrospective at the Walker Art Center.
This melding of photography / painting is of more interest to me in particular than the question of projecting an image over a canvas to assist in producing an image – but an interesting post is presented here - on Alex Soth’s archived blog… provoking how one decides upon a content of the image – basics – I suppose on composition / content. Maybe I just don’t get it…About “style” and “categorization” by photographers and by lovers of photography – for me anyway – what seems to come of this is nothing more than galvanizing me on my opinion that it is good to avoid a recognizable style (at some point) but this probably puts at risk a weak reception of work. Just how important it is to be recognizable and therefore more saleable? Very important problem and a question – if you are trying to support yourself through your art. On one hand this is troubling. It parallels the problem of educational pedigree as a ticket to serious consideration. I wonder about questionable motivations. I guess I have a thing for amateur works.

A sense of voice is important to develop – but determining when that voice is your own is excruciatingly difficult – and who gets to decide anyway? The buying public? How easy it is to fall into a mimicry – style and all. It takes a lot to figure out a direction – and to make it your own.
Perhaps my own view is a warped and narrow view – but that’s where I am at the moment. I think finding a tone in your voice is key – but how to do that? I hope to move beyond questions of style – maybe it’s just a matter of accepting style as a given (by others) and working with it as kind of constraint. It is just a matter of doing the work.
1981
Oil on linen
Gerhard Richter
© 2006 The Contemporary Art Institute
Maybe Richter has found a way to keep from getting caught up in style – by showing how irrelevant it is in his work – Something to think about.

Spiegel
1986
200 cm X 180 cm
Gerhard Richter
© 2006 The Contemporary Art Institute
Maybe it’s a good exercise to try an make a self portrait ?