blog1

Representational and non-objective content: an experience

Dylan Pew

Upon approaching James Seawright's Mirror V I noticed a spot of light gathered on the floor. The puddle of light instantly drew me near it and I stood directly in its rays. After staring at my feet for a few seconds to make sure I was fully submerged in light, I glanced up. What I saw was one hundred and twenty-one images of myself and the surrounding area. Each image was coming from a different perspective but was completely readable on its own. I stared for a while, amazed at the sight of one hundred and twenty-one different perspectives of my body. Then my inner child took over and I began to move around. As I moved I noticed that even though I changed locations the images stayed about the same. I became the focal point no matter where I was located.

​
​Seawright, James, Mirror V, 1985, Fiberglass, reinforced cement and mirrors. Photographed at the Hunter Museum of American Art

 

Mirror V is non-objective, meaning that it does not depict a recognizable object but rather uses abstraction to relay the meaning or feeling of the piece. James Seawright does this in an odd way. Yes, the viewer becomes a recognizable figure but only upon looking at the piece. In reality it is only reflected light that is seen and in solitude there is no image because there is simply no one to look at it. Seawright is addressing the cosmological principle; that everything in the universe is homogenous and isotropic. By creating a changing focal point he is imitating the cosmos and depicting the idea that everyone is the center of his or her own universe. Seawright uses no images to portray this idea but instead uses purely interaction with the viewer to create an environment that is essentially like gazing at the stars. Read more about the cosmological principle here.

 Mirrors V does more than just display a distorted universal image of the viewer, it allows whoever steps into the warm, inviting, mathematically placed rays of light that are suspended in front of the piece to see not only the entire universe but also see his or her self through the eyes of each of the one hundred and twenty-one perspectives that Seawright created.  

After seeing more of the exhibit I came upon Love on the Beach, an oil painting by Philip Evergood. At first glance the painting appeared to have a great deal movement, it was as if I could see the people subtly moving with each other and their bodies sticking and sliding together. This was due to the technique used in the actual painting the image. On further examination I realized what was happening in the scene and suddenly became more interested in the whole story. Why is the woman looking at the viewer but the mans gaze is locked on the woman? Why is the woman grasping his arms and which way is she moving them? Why are they sitting on top of another couple of people? And what exactly is the man in the background wearing? It wasn't until I read the poem in the image description that I understood the story.

   

​Evergood, Philip, Love on the Beach, 1937, oil on canvas, photographed at theHunter Museum of American Art

 

The painting is representational because it clearly defines six people and implies a story behind each one of them. The feeling the painting creates is almost scandalous. It reminds me of another painting in the exhibit by Bo Bartlett called The Babysitter which depicts a woman unbuttoning her shirt while sitting on a couch. Like Love on the Beach the painting is a before shot. It suggests what is about to happen off screen and out of view. Anyone who has experienced what the subjects in the picture are experiencing knows what is likely to happen once they leave the beach and this anticipation is what viewers empathize with and allows them mentally step into the picture. Evergood's painting also connects with the viewer on different levels of intimacy, companionship and loneliness.

 

​Evergood, Philip, Love on the Beach, 1937, oil on canvas, photographed at the Hunter Museum of American Art

While both pieces are of different nature, styles, and context there are some similarities in the reading of the two. They both imply something beyond the piece of art itself and both interact with the viewer in some manner. Whether it be an idea about the cosmos or a nostalgic memory, the pieces take something from the viewer and leave him or her with something else; something universal; something true.