The majority of this series of paintings has intentionally not been photographed, and so they appear in digital format as textual descriptions.
The raison d'être behind this decision was a means of resistance against the commodification and spectacularisation of contemporary painting. The visual culture of late-capitalism is that of the Integrated Spectacle; 'a social relation between people that is mediated by images'.1 Fast-paced, spectacular digital imagery is continuously produced, disseminated and consumed, reflecting the capitalist model of perpetual and exponential growth. Painting is by nature both slow to produce and engage with, and therefore opposes the dominant visual culture. It is a refusal to submit.2 To convert a painting into a digital image is to recuperate it into the spectacle, and pacify its subversive potential.3
The subject matter of this series draws heavily upon the spiritually dependant development of aesthetics and so is isolated from the disenchanted nature of capitalist culture. Therefore, the decision to not photograph the works is an attempt to forgo a process of mundanity and retain an auratic mode of transcendence.4 Following these lines of thought, it is possible to determine the necessity of not digitally replicating the paintings.
The text for each painting is simply a description, with no attempt to interpret the work or divulge meaning.
1.Guy Debord. The Society of the Spectacle. 1st ed. (New York: Zone Books. 1994). 4.
2.Adorno, Theodor W, Gretel Adorno, Rolf Tiedemann, and Robert Hullot-Kentor. Aesthetic Theory. (London: Continuum, 2002). 8.
3.Herbert Marcuse. One-dimensional man. (Boston: Beacon Press. 1964). 60.
4.Benjamin, Walter, and J. A Underwood. The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction. (London: Penguin, 2008). 5.