Ed Charbonneau: I know, I know, I know
se mn artist series: accent gallery
January 28 – April 2, 2006
“…we’re noticing how the paintings have taken on very different characteristics than the last show you saw… That show dealt with a number of problems—some rudimentary and material like how to physically make a painting, others more speculative like the question of Content, the issue of Context, and whether the paintings were in fact paintings, or some kind of hybrid objects.”1
While reading this particular portion of a letter to the Director of the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo (which appears in the catalog for the exhibition Uncertain States of America: American Art in the 3rd Millennium), I was struck by the similarity in the author’s categorization of issues addressed in artistic progression, production, and concept, and recent discussions between Ed Charbonneau and myself concerning the stages of evolution in his own paintings.
The aesthetic and theoretical problems and possible solutions that have been addressed within Charbonneau’s work follow a similar trajectory—paintings take on new form in comparison to previous work, materials undergo experimentation and intentional limitation, and concepts regarding context and the relationship of his work to the viewer increasingly take on a primary position.
Not long ago, Charbonneau’s concerns could be characterized as those of a traditionalist painter. For example, possessing the ability to accurately and thoughtfully depict a landscape and the likely objects therein—a tree, river, field, etc.—was of great perceived importance. How color and form, line and shape reacted and coalesced successfully within the same work was believed by Charbonneau to be the mark of a skilled and gifted artist. Time, or more specifically, how much time was devoted to a work was also taken into account, with the notion that more must equate to a superior result. Charbonneau’s appraisal of his own work and his process of art production began to shift as he challenged himself to consider personal motivating factors and broader conceptual concerns. Rather than focusing exclusively on the formal attributes or processes that he felt represented his abilities, he began to work toward paintings that better represented himself and relevant emerging concepts.
Whereas his earlier work addressed physical/formal qualities (i.e. the problems described as “rudimentary and material like how to physically make a painting” as above), he moved to experiment and explore concept and context, and as above, “whether the paintings were in fact paintings, or some kind of hybrid objects.” His “bullet paintings” exemplify his new approach through an amalgamation of unique materials and production practices. In these large-scale works, Charbonneau covers a substrate with black silicone and subtly applies white paint for a random or splattered effect across the entire surface. Adhered to the face are large sheets of clear glass allowing for light and image reflection, facilitating a reference to the surrounding environment. Literally breaking up the pristine surface, however, are holes and fissures of divergent size and number, produced by firing bullets at the work from guns of varying caliber. The cumulative effect of these layered elements alludes to familiar images of an idealized starry night, perhaps referencing a grand archetypal scheme, but also the grounded or harsh antithesis of this concept. In another departure from his previous processes, Charbonneau has involved other individuals to complete these works. Uncomfortable with handling firearms, Charbonneau has given his uncle the task of firing the weapons. In this way, issues of control, consistency, and the hand of the individual artist are challenged.
In another work, Sacred and Profane Love (after Titian), Charbonneau begins to explore concepts not only related to personal history, but to the history of art itself. As a boy, Charbonneau would frequently accompany his father in visiting his grandfather’s woodshop. Not able to participate in the production of fine woodcrafts due to a lack of skill and capacity, Charbonneau was left to make objects from the scrap wood and materials left over from “important” projects. These events culminated into a deep appreciation of craftsmanship and the elevation in status of refined objects. Within Sacred and Profane Love (after Titian), Charbonneau constructs a representation of the notion of pure skill and mastery of material, while critiquing the art historical status of modernism and formalism. Supporting a glossy monochromatic beam are stands constructed in a manner and with materials suggesting rough and hasty methods. This combination of objects, representing dichotomous methods and perspectives, also references the famous and then-controversial work by Titian, showing both a clothed and a naked woman, begging the question which is the sacred and which is the profane. In Charbonneau’s piece, the question becomes which component, the beam or the bases that elevate it, is more relevant, more important, or deserving of status?
1Uncertain States of America: American Art in the 3rd Millennium, 2005, (pg.52), A letter to Guunar B. Kvaran from Wade Guyton and Kelley Walker. Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo