“If I knew what
a painting was going to look like when it was finished
I probably would have never started it in the first place.”
Ed Paschke
I probably would have never started it in the first place.”
Ed Paschke
Except for a couple of years in the army and truncated
visits to Europe and New York American pop artist Ed Paschke lived and worked in Chicago. For
25 years he had a studio in the Windy City’s low rent district colloquially
known as the "Jonquil Jungle," about which he
has said “"Right outside my studio door there is
the street teeming with life, and within that are sorts of diverse combinations
of different types of people. Some with varying degrees of sophistication.
Latinos, African blacks, Jamaican blacks, Asian boat people, American Indians,
Caucasians, all types are represented. It’s completely integrated, almost an
insane asylum out there and I love it. That is the idea of a big city. I like
the idea of the cross fertilization of cultures. It’s America."
Best known as
the pop artist who painted the movement’s underbelly Paschke approached his art
with the duality of both a performer and an audience.
As he told Kate Horsfield
in a 1983
interview “Well, there was an interest on my part in images that were
unusual, exotic, different; things out of the norm and circus life appealed to
me a great deal. I liked the idea of the heightened sense of reality of the
exotic and the unusual. So I began to use those things as elements, as source
material.”
Towards the end of that decade Paschke added
television to his repertoire. About which the New
York Time’s Ken Johnson wrote “In the late ’80s
Mr. Paschke began painting images that looked as if they were broadcast by a
television on acid, with lines of neon-bright visual static coursing over the
ghostly heads of vaguely menacing men. Few painters have captured the shifty,
electric spirit of postindustrial capitalism so vividly.”
For Paschke was painting as much for himself
as for a subsequent audience; questioning the validity and the application of
his assumptions.
As he had said “It was done so that there was
intentional ambiguity about a specific interpretation. So that you are walking
that tight-rope between: is it about this or is it about that? You could slant
or weigh it toward one side or another depending on your point of view. And
that was really my intention. It was to be walking that tight-rope and charging
these things so that they would be responded to in various ways.”
To which he added “Very rarely are the people
at the bottom influenced by the people at the top. It usually works the other
way around in terms of trends and styles and that sort of thing. That happens
to be my personal theory.”
No comments:
Post a Comment