There is an apparent freedom to her work but she is working within the constraints of her cultural upbringing and training. It is fascinating to think that different people, separated across the world, can come to the same conclusions in an artistic sense. She is Monet and Jackson Pollock but from an Aboriginal viewpoint. She painted what she saw either the micro view of Yam beans or roots or the mystical world of Aboriginal culture, translating body painting to canvas.
Aborigines can teach us about being present in our world, to appreciate what we see and what we've got. We are products of our environment and we can either fight that or embrace it. This feeds directly into my parallel project which is about my surrounding environment but with my literal English education I see people and buildings rather than shapes and colour. I need to look again.
George Shaw and Ken Howard make landscapes that are rooted in Place, but both work figuratively. Lowry's work was almost reportage of his environment. Maggi Hamblings Wave series are slightly more abstract.
Are Kngwarreye's pictures paintings in that they are made from paint, or drawings in that they are formed from lines and marks rather than flat areas of colour? I think that they can sit in both camps, they are on the divide between the genres.
I found a bit more information here in the Independent's obituary and here where the writer speculates about a shared collective unconsciousness and wonders whether "progress" has moved us away from our soul. There are some helpful teachers notes about a past exhibition. This Australian Government web post gives a bit more information on the background culture which created Emily Kame Kngwarreye.
Is it wrong that I see traces of Kngwarreye's work Sacred Grasses in this photo of frosted English grass?
No comments:
Post a Comment