RICHARD LOVING PAINTINGS, PRINTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS July 23 — September 7, 1990 ~ ART GALLERYMARKINGS Paintings, Prints and Constructions By Richard Loving Richard Loving has been a figure in the art community of Chicago since the early 1960s when he moved to the city from a nee in his work, While living on the farm, he was producing large th the move he began to vis painting which has endured as a farm in downstate Ilinois. The move signified a major eb scale works on metal with enamel. draw and paint agai lasting fascination and primary mode of h Loving was living in New York City during the 1950s, the time of Absteact Express the movement and i work. liam. However, he was not interested i the work of northern and southern European masters of the ead turned his attention to study 16th and 17th centuries, Loving was enthralled by these artists’ means of developing their images. Whether painting, drawing, |. the great masters tended to use small, eon trolled brush strokes in an additive process to create the refined images which they depicted. In this way, a layering of the marks placed over each other ereates the image. The use of small precise marks or cross hatches is eapable of ere image of acute realism, whieh is how Loving began us mark. As his ragery and style has changed, he has continued to employ the mark as a central technique in his work, The marks form a network, and the totality of the network creates the depi ion of shapes. ‘The use of the mark makes painting a “humanized” pro- ccess for Loving. The irregular surfaces of his painting could herefore, their never he achieved by a mechanical process: irregularity humanizes the work. They are not like the slick seamless surfaces of a photograph. Loving’s use of the mark is never a statement unto itself unlike the sweeping gestures of the 1950s. The mark depends on additional marks to reveal the intent of an artist; it ean make no statement on its own. Loving, like other artists such ax Agnes Martin, views the mark as an indicator of ti ‘The artist could a stand not have simply made a single and discernable mark without @ quantifiable amount of time used, whether the viewer realizes this consciously or not. The pl sieal motion of making the ‘mark is meditative for Loving. Using the mark to render the image, he inter Isto affeet the viewer's perception of time. His hope is that the viewer will feel compelled to spend more time and examine the painting more slowly than for one that has a more blended overall surface. As the mark can stand for oF si y time, it is equally ignifier for energy: in the most direct sense, the energy exerted by the artist to ere- as capable of being a diagrammatic ate the mark. However, Loving also interprets the literal use of his energy as a means to charge the for painted. He which he has ses, “the mark-making, by which the forms of these paintings are constructed, is indicative of @ growing interest in the paint-mark as an indieator or energy. Not only the energy of the artist, but something in and about the forms i Rhythm is yet another concept which the mark is capa. which I am depi ble of portraying. With an eye towards metaphysics, the There is an undeniable conerete physicality in the motion which is nature of the marks is a percussive indicator of rhythn required of the artist to create the image, Any repeated motion lends itself to creating a cadence or rhythm, In a com- plementary sense, the percussive element of Loving’s work plays off the gesture of Abstract Expressionism. In some of his most recent work, the mark has evolved to a short sweepil gesture which is used to depict the weight of water falling. Another element of the percussive properties of the work refers to the beat of a heart or the life pulse. This is a direct ref- erence to nature and in turn to life. Loving is not certain about the role which nature plays in his work but offers, *...1 have an utter fascination of what is behind ‘nature’ or even below it, ‘The area that is behind physical form, the governing principles, the connecting links, and the catalysis are of greater interest [10 me] than the physical structures.” The totality of the mark- making leads to a sense of density and weight. Like many artists, Loving has developed a set of rules or an imposed structure which he follows when ereating a paint- ing. He begins each work with an underpainting which is best ‘compared to organic chaos. The underpaint is not about being in control, but instead lets the ps exert its intrinsic nature with very little interference from the artist, To establish a sense of a liquid state, the canvas is laid on the floor, a refer- cence towards Jackson Pollock's technique, where drips, splat ters, washes, and spills are applied. The manner of applicationClimbing Now is Difficult, 1982, Oil on Canvas, Not Quite Helpless,of the paint brings chance into the process while the laying of, the canvas on the floor refers the process back to the ground and thus nature. This liquidity, created by the handling of the paint, serves to develop an aura of color as the starting point of sense of conflict through the use ‘of complementary colors. He is attempting to design, “a har- monic of complementary shock. ‘each canvas, Loving create to create a vibration analo- ous to the vibration of a stringed instrument. Once the chaotic underpainting is completed, Loving begins the overpainting. At this point, the tide turns consider- ably as to the method and the attitude with which Loving ‘works on the painting. The canvas is stretched, and further painting is done with the work placed on an easel. All of the chaos is left behind, and control and order begin, Regardless of the pattern or image which is to be painted, a structured order, which is firmly grounded in the application of control, is instigated and adhered to. ‘Throughout his career, Loving has worked from one set of parameters to another. Around 1975 he began a daily rou- tine of swimming. He began to paint abstracted imagery which was derived from the patterns cast on the surface of water. ‘The works were non-representational, and the patterns depicted a migration of ripple shapes which collided with each other. The resulting collisions then evolved into new shapes. ‘There were gutterlike borders on the sides. This was the zone which Loving used for pl have to abide by any preselected rules, ful chaos, an area which didn’t In 1981 Richard Loving made a trip to Europe, touring throughout Yugoslavia and Greece extensively. The trip be- came an epiphany for him in terms of his art. Loving shifted from painting non-representational forms to symbolic abstractions. With the change came an evolution of a pool of images which he began to use in his paintings. The images tend. to be universal in nature and somewhat abstracted in form. Some examples are lightning, crystals, flames, flowers, four tains, and waterfalls. While in Europe, Loving had the chanee to visit many of the old monasteries, uurches, and convents. The Byzantine paintings and mosaics which he saw made him reevaluate his ‘own painting technique within the context of modernism, In these works, Loving found a bridge for his painting from the theoretical gap of the fatness of modernism to a means to use imagery as a transcendence to the metaphysical. Loving express- ‘es the changes as, “And so forms and processes which were, for the most part, invisible gained interest. The influences and link- ages that not-so-visible forms and structures could not have on each other became the subject matter of my work.” Abstracted forms and images which Loving began to use in 1981 are atll present in his most recent work. Nevertheles the images themselves have changed throughout the years. Some have heen completely dropped from his vocabulary, while others have een continued with and without variations, Ephemeral images are of major interest to Lo likes to play with the notion that the forms are visible yet not tangible. The fault-ine in some work is used as a design ele- ment which divides the cally, representing a shifting and shearing, with the outcome of, the movement possibly being the dreaded snapping ofthe earth 1g: he savas in half visually and metaphori- jwation, Science and scientific principles have always been of overwhelming interest to Loving. He also views the faultcline as an equation of balance, A+B=B-+A. Lightning is found in many of his paintings and can be cencing the laws of natural science with the c terpreted as refer- on of lightning ‘coming from negative and positive charges in the air. The posi ti and negative charge refers to the duality of natural forces and the resulting release of energy when the charges are engaged. Lightning is a form of energy which releases heat and light, Flames occur often in the paintings and can be read as passion, consumption, and desire, or as heat which provides the energy to accelerate change. Coils represent a conduit for ‘energy, @ controlled path for energy t is one of the most constant of released from. Water themes and is used as a symbol for movement and the life source. Loving also uses sexual and erotic images. Flowers fre- quently occur and can be seen as represent ng the organic nature of life but also as an obvious reference to male and female genitalia, Crystals are a fixed system versus the changeable form of the flower. The pod form is the seed of rebirth. This could be the rebirth of romance or maybe a symbol for sexual rejuvenation. Fireworks are one of the‘oldest of all references to the explosive nature of love, to its excitement, Fountains and waterfalls can be read as the life force, a force which is expressed in the polarity between the ‘male and female, ‘This polarity could very well be the male ‘and female in each of us Th Loving. A border began to replac trical devices have been borrowed extensively by the use of an edge which had been utilized in earlier non-representational work as a ‘area of the canvas whieh was a free zone. The end of the can- vas did not have to conform to the rules which Loving the central area of the work, The use of the edge evolved into a border. The border is a direct reference to the sides of a stage which are created by curtains. The border functions much as the edge di |: itis an area which was never intended f viewing and thus is not subjected to analytical serutiny. Loving views it as an area “where uncrit- ieal activity takes place. al gest serims, veils or curtain forms which are used of the ps In a painting this could become i . The borders then evolved into provisal the context ing in the same manner that they are utilized in opera. They create dreamlike atmospheres which are able to make the invisible visible and render the ity. It is not unusual for a painter to want to work three ich the bird houses presented for Loving. In much of his work there is an sible obscured for concealment of an ai dimensionally, and that is the opportunity wl underlying humor or play in the bi ulness which is much more obvious d house series. Using his painting strategy of the sive mark, Loving sets out to poke fun at the imposing is the canon of architecture, The title of each bird hous name of « Chicago architect coupled with that of a Colorado bird, and all are portraits, The quasi-funetional bird houses Jearly an example of Richard Loving having fun. i elear that Richard Loving is an artist who has steadfastly walked outside of the current trends and, instead, has followed his own path derived from is interior vision and an intellectual response to the world ‘When he lived in New York in the 1950s, he e nal works through an additive process of ated represe small strokes and marks, When the Chicago Imagists were creating cartoonlike flat-surfaced ps Loving worked abstractly. Now that a dialectic is more readily acceptable in sual art (thanks to the 1970 thinkers and thus more room for Richard Loving and his art. there is more room for free Debora Duez Donato, Curator State of Illinois Art Gallery, Chicago, 1990 3 An interview between Richard Lov 9» Notes by Richard Loving. Acknowledgement I would like to begin by thanking Richard Loving for the many hours which he has spent working with me, Roy and Ann Boyd, of Roy Boyd, kindly contributed toward the printing of the brochure and were gracious and helpful whenever I asked for assistance, Toby Zalman, Z...Art & Graphies, worked her usual magic while producing the type- setting, as d d Jan Sachs, Chicago Press Corporation, with the printing of the brochure. Both Jane Stevens and Luke Dohner, State of Illinois Art Gallery, worked very hard to assure that the exhibit was a success as well as the following IMlinois State Museum staff: Dennis Campbell, Amy Knox, Kent Smith, Bob Sill, Brian Etheredge, and Phil Kennedy. And a final thanks to all of the lenders who have contributed work to the exhi Debora Duez Donato State of Ilinois Art Gallery State of Hlinois Center 100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 2-100 Chieago. 312-814-5322Exhibition Checklist Paintings Magicians Touch, 1981 Oil on canvas 54x 12" Lent by Private Collection ‘Trespassing Lips, 1981 Oil on canvas 62" x aa" Lent by Katten, Muchin & Zavis Water’ Breath, 1981 oi 54x 72" Lent by Allen and Suzanne Musikantow Canvas Climbing is Now Difficult, 1982 Oil on canvas 54x Lent by Kurt Gutfreund Precarious Juncture, 1982 Oil on canvas, or xa" Lent by Kurt G Water Caught, 1982-83 Oi on canvas x72" Lent by Sara B. Green Amorosa Tropicals, 1983 Oil on canvas a" x90" Lent by The Art Institute of Chieago, John and Mary Gedo Purchase Fund Collision, 1983 Oil on canvas Flora Annunciata, 1983 Oil on canvas 96" x 68" Collection of the artist, Not Quite Helpless, 1984 Oil on canvas 68 x96" Lent by Elyce and Mark Metzner Curtain Razor, 1985 Oil on canvas 72x 60" Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Daniel R. Lee Fire Veil, 1986 Oil on canvas Tx 60" Lent by Teri and Steve Barnett Helicalty, 1987 Oil on canvas or x80" Lent by artist Heliser, 1987 Oil on eanvas Bt x 60" Collection of the artist, Unfurl, 1987 0 a x 60" Lent by artist The Observer, 188 Oil on canvas 36" x 62" Colleetion of the artist, Exchange, 1988-89 Oil on canvas aA" x 120" Lent by artist, Aquarian Orders, 1989 Oil on canvas 50" x 70" Courtes Roy Boyd Fountain Head, 1989 Oil on canvas 50" x 48" Lent by Lisa and Howard Green Precarious Balance, 1989 Oil on canvas 52" x46" Courtesy of Roy Boyd Rising and Falling, 989 oil 8 x 96" Courtesy of Roy Boyd Landscape Elemental, 1990 Oil on canvas 56" x 86" Courtesy of Roy Boyd Bird House Sculptures Downy Tigerpecker, 1985 Oil on wood Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell Thrasher, 1986 Oil on wood Gehry Lent hy Private Collection Grave's Wren, 1985 Oil on wood Collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chiesgo Gift of Mr. and Mrs, Ted Bloch Miesian Pugin, 1985, Oil on wood Courtesy of Roy Boyd Red Dotted Birdy, 1985 Oil on wood Courtesy of Roy Boyd Weese' Grackle, 1985 Oil on wood Lent by David and Mary W. Green Wright’ Goduit, 1985 Oil on wood Collection of the Mi Contemporary Art Gift of Mr, and Mrs, Ted Bloch Figenman’s Lark, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Dr. and Mrs, Michael Halpern Moores Moonjay, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Dr. a Mrs, Steven Valfer Robin Rossi, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Teri and Steve Barnett Flaminto, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Ali Afshar Untitled, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Branko and Simone Pavlovich Venturi Warbler, 1986 Oil on wood Lent by Dr. and Mrs. Harold L. Klawan Print Series Visions/Revisions, 1990 Hand colored etchings 60" x72 (15 print installation) rtesy of Roy Boyd