Doug Waterfield
ARTIST'S STATEMENT
Like most postmodernist painters, I am a synthesist. I am able to take what I learn from other artists and combine it with my own ideas to create an individual philosophy of art. The Russian Constructivists, the Merz of Kurt Schwitters, the collages of Picasso and Braque, Futurist painting, the cityscapes of Leger and Stuart Davis, and the work of fellow Arkansan Paul Maxwell - all of these have weighed heavily on my philosophy. I relish the idea of taking material that isn’t necessarily intended for artistic purposes and transforming it into something else. It’s one of things I find most appealing about incorporating collage elements, that is, the duality of each element. Each component incorporated into a painting retains its identity with regard to its original context, but it also gains a new character as a compositional element within a painting. This applies to paper items I use (sheet music, dress patterns) as well as the mechanical gears and cogs that also find their way into my work.
With the medium of molding paste, I am able to produce works that utilize texture as the dominant design element, and in an uncommon way. I am able to take high and mid-relief texture and use it as a foundation for each piece I produce within the context of industrial style, which is of the key influences evident in my work The theme of industry and every day household objects as a means to make art has as its primary goal relativism to the viewer. By using recognizable and familiar elements, I can connect to the viewer, if only in a peripheral way at times. I find that one of the main problems of contemporary art is its alienation of the viewer. For me, the viewer is a vital and necessary component of the work. The process of making art is also a critical factor for me. Like the Action painters of half a century ago, I want to leave some evidence of my presence on each canvas. This may take the form of fingerprints or instinctual mark-making. I want my industrial style to utilize a more human-friendly, organic approach to the rigid geometry of the theme of mechanical, thus softening it and making more accessible while at the same time, humanizing the work through mark-making as well as elements of randomness through occasional drips and splatters. This marriage of the organic and the industrial is what I believe I have created to be an original concept.
I would like my pieces to become more and more engaging. I feel that the more that a viewer can interact with the piece, the more likely they are to develop an appreciation for it as well as a desire for understanding. This preoccupation with the idea of the viewer’s role being so dominant is a direct result of my experience as an educator. I want people to realize that art doesn’t have to be nebulous, it can also be fun, and pleasing. I want people to understand WHY they like something. There is a certain joy in seeing people change their minds about art, once they understand the motivations behind it. I want them to grasp why they feel that this work more or less appealing than another? If I can demystify art for the average viewer, then I feel I will have done my job. So many artists feel the need to be aloof and secretive because they don’t want the viewer to become bored with the obvious. This is a legitimate concept, but it has, in my opinion, been taken too far and the viewers have become alienated. This alienation leads to apathy and the work then becomes unsuccessful and incomplete. Art is a catharsis, but a private one. It is work, but it’s a healthy release. It’s a realm of concentration and clarity of thought for me as well that helps me center myself. Each work is an automaton child; a product of thought and experimentation, of trial and error and rework.
