Donald Martiny discusses his artwork at FWMoA

In the 1950s, artists like Jackson Pollock and Franz Kline elevated the gesture to the position of the protagonist in abstract expressionism. In the 21st century, Donald Martiny advances that idea considerably further by freeing the gesture of gestural abstraction from the substrate which, heretofore, provided the context that brought gesture to life.
This re-uploaded video is Classic FWMoA and no longer has current social links and information. Visit our website at FWMoA.org for the most up-to-date news!

[@davidmayhew8083]

Wonderful!

[@1Ma9iN8tive]

Clearly articulated. I enjoyed his narrative. This work left me challenged. That’s great. Martin talked about the problems he had with the Four sided shape of the canvas which when applied with paint shifts from ground to field as his mark becomes figure ... but then chooses to set a four sided white ground behind the strokes in the exhibition - thereby activating the wall “as” the four-sided ground he was seeking to dissolve. This left me perplexed - the conundrum is that seeking to destroy all potential ground as field for figure only serves to activate any four sideness anywhere behind the figure as exactly the thing he’s trying to escape...what a mind fuck. I understood the dilemma of seeking to destroy the four sided ground in a world of four sidedness where field ‘ ground is inescapable. I think he failed to understand that potentially paint as mark and symbol of a semiotic conversation only served to highlight his nemesis the foursidedness of his exhibition space - a space he can not negate ... this then raises the potential for his work to be the semiotic discussion of a Martin work as a song tribute to four sidedness - or in essence ... it’s as if he’s trying to destroy any suggestion of a dance floor but the moment he starts dancing he activates that which he attempts to negate ... fascinating. Don’t shoot me for this criticism - I’m not attacking him as the creator of his mark. I’m comprehending deeper levels of his materiality and I have him to thank for this - and I’m deeply appreciative and grateful. I love, love, love his thinking, his philosophy, his materiality, his dance and his work. He achieves placing his work in the same space as the viewer. He achieved the index mark of the creator being preserved in the work to the degree where his mark as semiotic symbol “is” the work as opposed to the viewer seeing his mark “in” a work. Choosing to maintain the verticality in his exhibition meets the criteria of the world of painting. I wonder if his work is made in the horizontal first then situated in the vertical? If so then his mark doesn’t maintain the Horizontality of its creation...which isn’t a criticism at all rather an observation. How would resolve this if I were creating my own mark with paint as my material to ensure I maintained my Horizontality in the vertical? Is this better understood as sculpture rather than a painting? Is this then a shifter in terms of his materiality where he effectively is playing in the world of 3D with his work as opposed to the traditional employ of paint in the 2D? In terms of scale ... is his work still not large enough? What if his unique mark was on the scale of a building somewhere suspended in a public space somewhere where no reference to four sided ness exists? So many questions ... and I’m grateful for this response to Martin’s work.

[@GEN2WIG]

I resonate with this very much...

[@louhawk559]

Wall ornament technician at best

[@bryanmock1413]

Unique and creative approach I love how artist develop the ability to speak through their ass