discussion

READERS' COMMENTS

FROM David Brody
Artist, Brooklyn New York
Februay 21

Hi Tom-

It was a wonder to see the ever widening radius, the ever tightening
snare of the drawings. I am deeply impressed by your ability to take
each day and squeeze something vital and coherent out of it. This sense
of a body of work in which individual items speak each for themselves,
loudly or softly but clearly, is the ideal of every artist, and
particularly to achieve this, as you do, eloquently, by means of maximum
curiosity and minimum formalism. Formal fascination, yes, formalism
never. Your drawings give heart to those of us who imagine it is
possible to to make art that is more compelling than mere narrative--and
that to do so it is far better to avoid clever deconstuctivist games,
which simply flatten the space of narrative without accounting for its
enviable power. There is such a thing as a narrative of formal ideas
and discoveries.

FROM Chris Ashley
The UC Berkeley Interactive University Project, Berkeley, CA
February 11

I have been aware of and valued Mr. Nozkowski's work for probably at least fifteen years, primarily through both print and digital reproduction. The work of many important painters, such as Mr. Nozkowski, isn't seen often enough in the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live. Fortunately, I was able to see his work in 1994 and in 1997 at the Stephen Wirtz Gallery in San Francisco (http://www.wirtzgallery.com/). It is indeed a revelation to see the work first hand and to observe the apparently handmade linen-on-panel supports, the rich surfaces bearing the marks, history, and decisions of their making and re-making, the relationship of the relatively small and intimate images/objects in terms of size and scale to the wall and to the viewer, and the relationships between paintings and drawings as a corpus of work gathered in a specific time and place.

Each of Mr. Nozkowski's final images is unique, at first bears little immediately apparent connection to its fellow paintings, and shows no obvious sign of belonging to a series. However, it is also fascinating and inspiring how each painting's dimensions, scale, color, marks, and surprisingly inventive imagery retain this individuality while bearing a distinct family resemblance. For me this is the "visual inventiveness" to which Mr. Hyde refers. The works share similarities, but also each shows a struggle with and resolution to the problem of how to make a unique image. I am struck by the ways in which Mr. Nozkowski's imagery can be grounded in and conform to conventions of gravity and three-dimensional space, while at the same time pushing at and defying the limits of representational space to create oddly mutant yet natural forms that are generated almost fractal or crystal-like, and that seem to be logical yet surprising developments of line, form, and space.

Holy cow! Does the paragraph above sound like it was written by an individual either romantically drunk or idealistically high on hallucinogens? That is the loopy effect of trying to put a definitive finger on the experience of looking at these paintings and drawings. They encourage and bear up under slowed-down looking. They initially destabilize the viewer, me, who sways during the viewing encounter from surprise to certainty, and from doubt to clarity, while experiencing an image that can range between familiar and new, plain and complex, dumb and impenetrable, simple and smart. This relates to Mr. Ross' comment on, "the notion of fourth dimensional constructions and Tom's depiction of impossible sculpture." When I look at the paintings I keep asking myself, "Where did that come from? What is he thinking? How did he do that? What do I see? How does it make me think? What is wrong or right here? Can I identify and describe the convolutions of this viewing experience?" At this point I look back to see what I've written so far and ask myself, "What are you talking about?" I'm pretty sure I know what it is; I have something very specific to say, and I know what it is to look and understand, but the language of the tongue fails the quick liquid language between eye and mind, that kind of processing of multiple images, references, sounds, colors, and movements in a heartbeat that makes so much sense until one tries to put it into words.

I would like to introduce the idea of humor into the discussion of Mr. Nozkowski's work, which is a kind of intelligence that is both a subject in the work and a byproduct of the process. His work ranges from broadly humorous and out-loud funny to curiously and intimately tickling. This humor might begin with a broad grin, turn to the knowing wink of acknowledgment, cross over to an insider smirk, twist appallingly to confusion and befuddlement, mellow into a friendly savoring of intelligence, and revel in genuine joy and pleasure.

There are many kinds of funny, but how does one describe and define what is funny? I'll make a brief, very personal, perhaps cryptic attempt to describe the kinds of humor I see at play in Mr. Nozkowski's work. What comes first and most easily to mind is the bold yet timeless slapstick humor of simple shape and primary color akin to the wearing of a clown nose and smile-- readily recognizable, yet still new and effective. Next, there
is the seemingly logical generation of form from preceding forms like the sum of a number from a sequence of random, meaningless numbers-- while one wonders what the point is, the operation still works, and one marvels at that. There is the sudden and surprising appearance of form and space like a cartoon character painting, with a few quick brush strokes from a can labeled "scenery paint," an entire functioning door on a wall for a quick escape. There are the associations of a form simultaneously embedded in and emerging from its environment, like the Creature from the Black Lagoon walking out of dark, murky water draped in seaweed, or a caterpillar gnawing its way out of a cocoon, halfway between being contained and independent. Finally, there is the surprise of intimate yet monumental, almost off-hand invention from modest, simple materials-- wood, cloth, paper, oil, water, pigment, ink, bristle, and graphite-- its amazing how that technology still works. I would be extremely interested in reading the comments of others who also perceive the presence and value of humor in
Mr. Nozkowski's work, and its role in painting, particularly abstract painting, in general.

OK, enough from me for now. The use of the word "intimate" in that last paragraph is its third occurrence in six paragraphs. I know what I see and say in my head, but that is richer than the words I can summon to describe that experience. As a testament to the power of Mr. Nozkowski's paintings let me just say that it has taken me nearly two hours, willingly, to compose and rewrite these seven paragraphs, yet I feel that I could easily
write another seven paragraphs, and could easily devote, with pleasure, perhaps several paragraphs to many individual works. And as a final testament, Mr. Nozkowski's work makes me, a painter, want to paint, and feel that painting is possible and viable. I think that is a good thing.

Chris Ashley










		back to discussion READERS' COMMENTS FROM David Brody Artist, Brooklyn New York Februay 21 Hi Tom- It was a wonder to see the ever widening radius, the ever tightening snare of the drawings. I am deeply impressed by your ability to take each day and squeeze something vital and coherent out of it. This sense of a body of work in which individual items speak each for themselves, loudly or softly but clearly, is the ideal of every artist, and particularly to achieve this, as you do, eloquently, by means of maximum curiosity and minimum formalism. Formal fascination, yes, formalism never. Your drawings give heart to those of us who imagine it is possible to to make art that is more compelling than mere narrative--and that to do so it is far better to avoid clever deconstuctivist games, which simply flatten the space of narrative without accounting for its enviable power. There is such a thing as a narrative of formal ideas and discoveries. FROM Chris Ashley The UC Berkeley Interactive University Project, Berkeley, CA February 11 I have been aware of and valued Mr. Nozkowski's work for probably at least fifteen years, primarily through both print and digital reproduction. The work of many important painters, such as Mr. Nozkowski, isn't seen often enough in the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live. Fortunately, I was able to see his work in 1994 and in 1997 at the Stephen Wirtz Gallery in San Francisco (http://www.wirtzgallery.com/). It is indeed a revelation to see the work first hand and to observe the apparently handmade linen-on-panel supports, the rich surfaces bearing the marks, history, and decisions of their making and re-making, the relationship of the relatively small and intimate images/objects in terms of size and scale to the wall and to the viewer, and the relationships between paintings and drawings as a corpus of work gathered in a specific time and place. Each of Mr. Nozkowski's final images is unique, at first bears little immediately apparent connection to its fellow paintings, and shows no obvious sign of belonging to a series. However, it is also fascinating and inspiring how each painting's dimensions, scale, color, marks, and surprisingly inventive imagery retain this individuality while bearing a distinct family resemblance. For me this is the "visual inventiveness" to which Mr. Hyde refers. The works share similarities, but also each shows a struggle with and resolution to the problem of how to make a unique image. I am struck by the ways in which Mr. Nozkowski's imagery can be grounded in and conform to conventions of gravity and three-dimensional space, while at the same time pushing at and defying the limits of representational space to create oddly mutant yet natural forms that are generated almost fractal or crystal-like, and that seem to be logical yet surprising developments of line, form, and space. Holy cow! Does the paragraph above sound like it was written by an individual either romantically drunk or idealistically high on hallucinogens? That is the loopy effect of trying to put a definitive finger on the experience of looking at these paintings and drawings. They encourage and bear up under slowed-down looking. They initially destabilize the viewer, me, who sways during the viewing encounter from surprise to certainty, and from doubt to clarity, while experiencing an image that can range between familiar and new, plain and complex, dumb and impenetrable, simple and smart. This relates to Mr. Ross' comment on, "the notion of fourth dimensional constructions and Tom's depiction of impossible sculpture." When I look at the paintings I keep asking myself, "Where did that come from? What is he thinking? How did he do that? What do I see? How does it make me think? What is wrong or right here? Can I identify and describe the convolutions of this viewing experience?" At this point I look back to see what I've written so far and ask myself, "What are you talking about?" I'm pretty sure I know what it is; I have something very specific to say, and I know what it is to look and understand, but the language of the tongue fails the quick liquid language between eye and mind, that kind of processing of multiple images, references, sounds, colors, and movements in a heartbeat that makes so much sense until one tries to put it into words. I would like to introduce the idea of humor into the discussion of Mr. Nozkowski's work, which is a kind of intelligence that is both a subject in the work and a byproduct of the process. His work ranges from broadly humorous and out-loud funny to curiously and intimately tickling. This humor might begin with a broad grin, turn to the knowing wink of acknowledgment, cross over to an insider smirk, twist appallingly to confusion and befuddlement, mellow into a friendly savoring of intelligence, and revel in genuine joy and pleasure. There are many kinds of funny, but how does one describe and define what is funny? I'll make a brief, very personal, perhaps cryptic attempt to describe the kinds of humor I see at play in Mr. Nozkowski's work. What comes first and most easily to mind is the bold yet timeless slapstick humor of simple shape and primary color akin to the wearing of a clown nose and smile-- readily recognizable, yet still new and effective. Next, there is the seemingly logical generation of form from preceding forms like the sum of a number from a sequence of random, meaningless numbers-- while one wonders what the point is, the operation still works, and one marvels at that. There is the sudden and surprising appearance of form and space like a cartoon character painting, with a few quick brush strokes from a can labeled "scenery paint," an entire functioning door on a wall for a quick escape. There are the associations of a form simultaneously embedded in and emerging from its environment, like the Creature from the Black Lagoon walking out of dark, murky water draped in seaweed, or a caterpillar gnawing its way out of a cocoon, halfway between being contained and independent. Finally, there is the surprise of intimate yet monumental, almost off-hand invention from modest, simple materials-- wood, cloth, paper, oil, water, pigment, ink, bristle, and graphite-- its amazing how that technology still works. I would be extremely interested in reading the comments of others who also perceive the presence and value of humor in Mr. Nozkowski's work, and its role in painting, particularly abstract painting, in general. OK, enough from me for now. The use of the word "intimate" in that last paragraph is its third occurrence in six paragraphs. I know what I see and say in my head, but that is richer than the words I can summon to describe that experience. As a testament to the power of Mr. Nozkowski's paintings let me just say that it has taken me nearly two hours, willingly, to compose and rewrite these seven paragraphs, yet I feel that I could easily write another seven paragraphs, and could easily devote, with pleasure, perhaps several paragraphs to many individual works. And as a final testament, Mr. Nozkowski's work makes me, a painter, want to paint, and feel that painting is possible and viable. I think that is a good thing. Chris Ashley