In yesterday’s blogpost, I talked a bit about the influence that stained glass had on my work. Deep color, the luminosity and lines defining the forms within are all attributes that have found their way into my work. It was never a conscious decision, one where I said to myself that I was going to try to emulate the look and effect of stained glass. It was just one of those things that I took in and integrated into my personal aesthetic. Just something I liked to look at. And that somehow synthesized into the work.
In fact, I wasn’t even aware of the similarity until a few years into my career when several people pointed it out to me, asking if stained glass was a big influence. I think I always answered yes to the question. I mean, I liked it a lot so it had to have been an influence on some basic level.
Looking around the studio at the group of new work that is growing for my upcoming June show, Native Voice, at the Principle Gallery, there are a number of paintings that you can easily see the influence of stained glass. The piece shown above, From Out of the Blue, really has that feel for me, with the geometry of its puzzle-like pieces in the foreground and the brightness of its sky. I see that sky in glass as hundreds of small, sharp shards of varying sizes and colors, all radiating outward.
But maybe it being a painting and not stained glass is the attraction for me. Each medium has its limitations and being able to borrow attributes from one medium and integrate them into the vocabulary and process of another is exciting in itself. It is painting’s spontaneity that draws me to it, where instinctual moves can be made within moments that change the whole piece. I don’t know that I could get that with glass and could easily see a piece like From Out of the Blue becoming a contrivance in stained glass. Too thought out. Too worked over. Too clean.
Definitely not from out of the blue— which is how I like it.
Redtree Times 