One asked me why I did not show more about "me" in my work, specifically my landscapes. Another asked me what was the idea behind Jackson Pollock's work.
To the first question I answered that my friend wasn't looking past the landscape imagery and seeing my love of color and color interactions. I told him that the Landscape subject matter was an armature on which to hang color.... a structure to play with color interaction. The Landscape as an armature is something I love almost as much as color, especially river and stream-scapes. The two, color and Landscape, are symbiotic as to meaning in my work, in other words what is "me" in my art. I guess my objective of having my pastel landscapes take on the appearance of a photo from a distance doesn't help to see the color-play when the image is small on the internet. I want it to break down when close up at normal viewing distances. Something between impressionism and photorealism.
The second question relates to the first. I explained to my friend, responding to the Jackson Pollock question, that in the evolution of art, at some point, some artists figured that representational subject matter was getting in the way of their love of color, line, shape, emphasis, balance, etc., the principles and elements of art as subject matter "purified". Pollock's work plays with them all in a way that was new and unique and personal.
Jackson Pollock strictly plays with the elements and principles of art as the subject matter and avoids representational imagery.
My work utilizes the same elements and principles of art in its structure but for me, combines landscape and color as subject matter I love.
I do hope I answered both my friend's questions clearly.
