Remember me on this computer
JP Delaney
About this artwork
oil crayon on cardboard
h.85cm w.55cm d.0cm
May 2008

JP's Description: todo

Rate This Artwork

Quite Good
Very Good

Times viewed: 10061
Times rated: 0

JP's portfolio
 <     > 
Copyright ©2003-2017 and participating artists
2008-06-18 19:00

I'm just testing the image upload as Federico says it's not working...

2008-09-23 15:36

I really like these things, I'd just like to know a bit more about your process. Could you tell me approximately how many times you have to run to the toilet during their execution? Here's a great time saving tip I use although you probably already know it, just keep an extra large pale handy, right next to your easel.

2008-09-23 23:02

But with those images from your studio window of a lush, well-cared for, and spacious garden, I thought you would liberally throw open the those studio doors and execute a thorough watering of the nearby shubbery? Much to the awe and consternation of your liberal-minded neighbours of course.

As for me, we live on the ground floor, so it's a just a short run up to much-needed relief. Unfortunately, I regularly run into the mothers of friends of my children who've always got a distasteful look of disapproval for me.

How can the kids possibly turn out right with such a reprobate of a father?

2008-09-24 21:27

Wow, simply throw the door open, I just never thought of it, you're definitely a man of vision. And yes the children of geniuses are unfortunately, inevitably damaged.
My main concern right now is that I misspelled "pail" above. An offence that I believe Arnold could have me thrown in jail for, as it contravenes the laws of The Pale of Settlement.

2008-09-24 21:52

I thought you were already under arrest? Aren't the internationally recognized Blue Laws enforced adequately by the Canadian Mounties? I presume the queen will have some appropriately disapproving remark to say about the woeful lack of demeanour of her subjects in the foreign dominions.

Other than that, I love the wrapping of genius we are enveloped with in your fanciful tale - my wife eloquently translates that as "Just a Worthless Bum and plain old useless Bastard".
Guess who wins?

2008-09-26 01:42

This is in answer to your call for help from the guys (I just checked and I believe I'm still one) in your Studio Log entry. As we all know there's no facility yet to respond directly so I'm doing it here.

Well I've thought long and hard on the matter and my conclusion is not everyone can be a de Kooning. But not to despair because what you can be, is a Delaney. By the way quit putting your reds before your blues (something I've just learned). I find it funny that you abstract folk lump de Kooning in with yourselves when in reality he basically always belonged to the classical European figurative tradition.

If I may be so bold as to suggest that you try to stay away from the edges of the beer cartons and the obvious grid that they suggest and try to find the least likely suggestions. In other words project from within (the forms) as opposed to the contours. It's not de Kooning's colour that's so inevitable, colour is always subjective, it's his organic and non cliched drawing that after the fact seem so inevitable because he always formulates his shapes from the interior rhythms and you really have to go looking for those connections, the contours are too easy. Everybody finds them and they become hackneyed.

Alright I guess I've confused yourself and everyone else enough for now.

And Arnold, those things you've put in your Studio Log look interesting but you've got to get them into your portfolio so we can have a good look. You just need some kind of generic photoshop application If you have a digital camera it probably came with one. Any of them are capable of resizing an image. Uploads on AP are restricted to 150k. At that size you'll have no problems uploading work and once that's done my scathing comments will be sure to follow.

2008-09-26 23:33

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I like these beer box paintings very much, my opinion offered above was only in response to what I perceived as a discontent by the artist with what he sees as habit, doing the same thing over and over. For the restless amongst us and that includes myself, we become sick of our own moves and in reality it might just be a central nervous system thing. What we do is what we do, why not make life easy and just be accepting of it?

2008-09-27 00:18

There's no add-a-comment function in the studio log section, by design, as the original idea was to give a space to the artist that is her/his own to manage as the artwork develops - without the "noise" of comments chirping in and possibly causing a loss of focus on the project at hand. That idea obviously hasn't worked out as we can see looking at the very incomplete contributions of the majority of studio logs, and so some sort of revision will have to take place if that activity is ever to become an item of interest. I'm not sure how that will be resolved but it's obvious some more work has to be done in that area.

A short response on the discussion of de Kooning. Even though it's so easy to slip into the labeling game of categorizing ourselves, I personally don't feel that tension of dichotomy regarding the figurative versus abstract approach. As I've mentioned before, our language is dealing with somesuch visual syntax in order to communicate a message that normally isn't possible (for us) to express in other languages either verbally or musically. The relevance then is in the communication - and not necessarily how it has been technically executed - in the end, what visual dialect being used isn't of importance (in my not-terribly-humble opinion). When I responded positively to the de Koonings I saw in Amsterdam all those years ago wasn't an act of sectarian appropriation (in fact I was very much a figurative painter then), but rather an appreciation of the exciting work of an artist of stature. Now that I meddle about with apparantly non-figurative represenations doesn't mean I'm at war with figuration. I'm just finding it personally more useful in whatever (limited) visual communication I attempt at this moment.

Your description of the formulation of shapes from interior rhythms I instinctively feel touches on a fundamental point. Naturally, I'm extemely eager to know what that means, as I simply don't understand what it is you're referring to. If it helps, my approach is very, very simple. As soon as an initial mark is made, the chessgame of resolving the "whole" visual conumdrum is initiated. In the end, I believe that our job is to achieve that resolution.

2008-09-27 01:49

Very convoluted comments JP. For a moment i thought i was reading Kagan! Little internet humor there - do we really know to whom we speak? Is Kagan really a 25 year old female artschool undergrad?
Certainly, one 'approach' to an artwork is as valid as another. i allow that figurative painters are as relevant as myself, even if they are stupid idiots!
But the importance, as you say , is in the communication.You go on to mention the 'dialect', i prefer 'lexicon', and here i must diverge, for i believe this to be of supreme importance.To me, the creation of a symbolic language in which to approach the oeuvre in which i hope to create the imagery to DEMOLISH a canvas, comes before all. It is primary, the 'enabler'of an artwork, the internal battle which must first be won.It is also the first thing i search for after becoming interested in another artist's work.
There is a word in Yiddish for this - the "Shaychus". No literal translation of course, but alluding vaguely to ones true reason for wanting to proceed....and in painting, it must be up on the canvas. When i learn the language you speak, then we may communicate.
So. Enough. If i stop to edit i won't post. Sufficient that i be embarassed tomorrow. I'm off to engage in some sectarian appropriation.

2008-09-27 09:14

Can you say some more on what is meant by creating an imagery in order to demolish a canvas.
Do you mean that the image strives to become something - I struggle for words here - cosmic? ("It is primary, the enabler.."), and should therefore lose it's physicality in some act of destruction?

2008-09-28 00:59

The de Kooning comment was just a bit of tit for tat, I've got a long memory and comments to me like "Why don't you just drop your figurative baggage?", etc, remain. You know by now that I view myself primarily as an abstract artist, the human figure remains my motif because human expression, gesture and movement fascinate me and keep me attached to the process. As "M'Orenu Harav" Arnold implies it is the "Shaychus" that attaches me to de Kooning and others and keeps me going. ("Shaychus", Arnold? I hope you're good and properly embarrassed tomorrow, I know I never am. And by the way who told you about my dressing up as a 25 year old female undergrad? I don't do it often just when it's extremely necessary.)
Sorry, back to the topic JP, I'd love to invite you over and show you what I'm talking about, I can't do it with words. Why don't you do this? Use your flattened box as a template and make a tracing (putting back roughly the main lines of construction). take a photo of the result, repeat it and replicate a sort of linear facsimile of a support you might make for yourself. Email it to me and I will endeavor to show you what I'm talking about.

2008-09-28 14:14

Listening to this debate somehow evokes a strange picture in my small brain: It shows something as Saint Augustine, Rabbi Hillel and say Ibn Rushd are sitting together in some kind of shadowy mosque or synagogue somewhere in the middle of a vast desert engaged in religious talk. And more and more getting lost in the fog of speculation, the black depth of theory.

Approximately two month ago John-Paul came up with his suggestion for a new project which until now, as far as I know, no one really got the idea of. From my personal experience I have the impression that J-P is absolutely capable of explaining what he means. So in this case something seems to be extremely difficult to understand or explain. And please be aware that here we only deal with verbal communication done in a language that many of us, at least partially, understand. And then in your debate there is talk about the necessity of learning the private, „symbolic language“ of an artist to understand what she does, about „visual syntax“ and „visual dialect“? ... Are you kidding? What are you talking about?

I know that particularly J-P is devoted to the idea of communication. That’s why he created artprocess, which as he says is made for artist to artist communication. Well, I am aware that J-P isn’t talking about art to communicate but about artists to communicate what indeed is a tremendous difference. But following your texts I slowly get the impression that it is art itself that you think is made for communication. So that’s why I want to intervene for in my opinion this is a completely wrong idea. Or at least it’s a superficial way to think about art. I tend to doubt that communication is the goal. I have the feeling that art isn’t about communication or even dialogue at all. Looking back into art history or at contemporary art it seems to me that the best parts of it are about monologue or more precise about soliloquy. (Other people might speak about mystery but that is not my kind of vocabulary.) Even an artwork that at first sight obviously seems to be made for communication like Goya’s „Desastres de la guerra“ turns out of having been a monologue and soliloquy as well. Something he worked on in secret and never showed to anyone and printed only in two or three copies for private use. And which were published no earlier than 35 years after his death. He was an old man when doing these etchings and probably engaged in a very intimate and painful process of reevaluating his attitude towards the French revolution and what came out of it etc.

By the way, languages are a very tricky thing. There are people like Maria or Patricia who are able to speak several languages fluently but this is very rare. More often as not we are only capable of speaking not more than two languages but many of us don’t even do that. So having this in mind I am sorry to say that talking about that one has to learn the private symbolic or visual or whatever language of an artist and then being able to understand her artwork seems a bit ridiculous to me.

2008-09-29 20:31

If there were no Hanjo, we'd have to invent him! One thing i like about this site is the surprise, the comments appearing from all directions and points of view. Just as one thing i like about the world of artmaking is the speculation, the endless explanations which only in their accumulation approach anything like reason...JP, what else can it be but cosmic? Metaphysics,..even the science concurs. Our visual apprehension of an artwork includes a thousand edits of which we are unaware. Only an amoeba sees things as they are. For us, it is necessary to create, between the picture plane and our eyeball, something essentially greater than the imagery delivered.
Back to work.

2008-09-29 21:52

Yes, I agree with Arnold in welcoming Schmidt over to our table in the artprocess bar, and surely enjoy his good-humoured introductory ""What a load of bullshit you're talking.."" remark (but for which he has to pay for the next round of drinks).
Then returning to the idea of communication, I would vouch to say that there appears to be three different ideas of ""communication"" in the conversation, one being an abstract form that talks about ""language"" i.e. the language of music, the verbal, or the visual, the second instead referring to an ""exchange"" between artists, and most of us would agree with Hanjo in that as artists our work has all to do with monologue. In rare occasions, such as the famous Braque/Picasso cubist period, one could talk about a creative dialog between the artworks of artists, but that's very much outside the norm, and therfore this idea of communication probably has little relevance in our case.
The third instance, and as you know by now - the aim of ap, has to do with artists getting together and simply talking and exchanging ideas, bitching, moaning, and sometimes fighting, but hopefully coming up with new ideas for a collective approach to *our* issue of how to succeed at being an artist today - taking into account all that word refers to - individual integrity weighing up to market appeal.
Following up on Hanjo's reminder of this previously-discussed topic:

Yes, I am aware this one has to be taken up again. I've been super-occupied with my dishwashing day job this year (no summer holidays this year) but hope to get some time off in Oct-Nov to properly devote to ap and explore new horizons with all of you.
Nevertheless I must warn you that quite a bit of what I was talking about in that earlier forum topic has to do with the second form of communication I mentioned above - that of the creative dialog between the ""artowrks"" of artists. Are we ready to take on such a challenge, ""Interfering Artists""?

2008-09-30 10:16

I heard about a free round and thought I’d join.
The reason I am always very careful with NOT using the word “language” in the same sentence with either music or visual arts is this: Language is an agreed upon code consisting of signs (words, sounds, you name it) and signs are one to one equivalents of agreed upon meanings so we can all know exactly what we are talking about. Now, unless an artist uses symbols (which are one to one equivalents of specific meanings) a visual artwork does not have a single, a one and only, precise message to put across, therefore its content cannot be codified, therefore language is the wrong tool for the job. I won’t go on with what it is that a visual artwork can mean if it means anything because this is common ground and I risk getting peanuts thrown at my face.

As far as the Braque – Picasso or Matisse – Picasso or whoever else you may think of are concerned, I think this is a very old game between artists (it was the artist that was throwing achievements on the table as an answer to the achievements of the other, the works themselves had no dialogue going on) and that is exactly what I am after here dear J.P. And allow me to believe that this idea of “communication” (your word) has every relevance in our case and it might as well be happening already here in artprocess. At least that is why I am still on board. The other thing about “our issue”, well I rather think our primary issue is to succeed in solving visual problems and yeah, this interaction (I am allergic to the word dialogue) sure helps a lot. The rest, well, it might follow with a little marketing.

2008-09-30 11:04

Γειá μας

2008-09-30 11:51

Welcome Maria. I like your comment but unfortunately I do not fully agree with you. I only agree say 99.9%. Scientists who work on the language phenomenon have said that spoken language comes to approximately 10% of our communication. As far as I know all media involved in communication of any kind are called „languages“ as there is body-language, the language of gazes, of gestures, of scents (pheromones) or what the shape of the body tells you about health, fertility, etc. etc. which make the other 90%. Nevertheless all these „languages“ only function if the recipient of the message can decipher what is meant. This of course doesn’t happen the way we deal with spoken language which as you points out follows an agreed-on system that we decipher conscious. What on the other hand enables us ... at least theoretically ... to speak and understand several different spoken languages. The knowledge of how to understand messages in the other obove introduced „languages“ is genetically embedded in our brain and we are unconscious of how that functions. So, for to cut this sermon short: There are languages other than the spoken one. The spoken ones can be learned by will, the others not really. So it comes to feeling or something like that and this is a field very complicated and unsecure to walk on. So „learning“ the visual language of another artist is ... if it’s not about mere patterns or symbols ... something almost impossible to do. So like Maria I would prefer to be very careful with the term language outside the spoken one.

2009-01-09 20:50

Hillel - back to this again. I can't tell you how much I suffered following your instructions to make the tracing of this thing.. I've always absolutely loathed the world of the graphic artist (I'm aware that you've been known to reside there at times) and I've even dabbled at bing a signpainter myself many years back (and made quite a bit of money doing so). However the very act of tracing - I find even the word repulsive - makes me weak at the knees.

Nevertheless the maestro requires it, so I dutifully go about the exercise. That was during a couple of evenings two months ago. I hid away the result and only now could pull it out and parcel it up in a package for you. Basically it's a rough tracing of this image done on 2 beer boxes exactly as shown, and is on it's way to you by Italian post (don't hold your breath) as we speak.

Let the painting lesson begin (should it ever arrive).

2009-01-11 00:06

All I was after was a template of the flattened beerbox because it looks different to what we have here... looks like some kind of weird 6 pack to me. I think you have 2 of them stuck together plus their own intrinsic lines of construction... Nothing to be afraid of or tracing etc... just the contours of the package (flattened) but if you've put it in the post already... kool, I luvz them Eyetalian stamps.
I thought as an interfering artist I "might" have some ideas for a way out of the usual for yourself... and now that you've put me on the spot, I better have. This seems to be test case #1 for your concept of interfering artists. My only problem with that concept has always been "How does one go about documenting it?"... Well let's see how we do with this one.

2009-01-11 11:29

You're right, there are 2 flattened boxes in the image, each one contained, once upon a time, 24 cans of Carlsberg.
I've updated the studio log with images of the 2 roughly penciled-in reproductions I made (one for you, and one for me).
I've absolutely no idea what we can do with these now, and I'm sure you're quite bemused yourself with the prospect of playing this absurd game of not minding your own business. At any rate, let's try and have some fun, and if anything useful comes of it, all the better.
We can also use this exercise to work out a better way of documenting, as you've already pointed out.

2009-02-04 05:04

Well, my dear,
while strolling around in the studio-log section I finally ran into your beer box elegy which really delighted me. I mean I really like to read your texts as I do with Hillel’s. On the other hand I feel a bit ashamed for it took me exactly nine month to discover these pieces even though you put my name in them. Unfortunately the link didn’t work (with me I have to qualify) so I still have no idea what you were talking about when connecting something out of my hands with the music of Bjørk (thanks for the kudos).
Okay, I cannot say much to your problems exept that they touch me and that in some way I like the results of your alcoholic self therapy in particular the vertical version on the easel. But if I can manage to visit Rome this year I promise that I come helping you with the beer at least.


Log-in and comment on this work