Michelle Concepción

  • Work
  • about
  • News
  • Essays
  • Contact
  • Work
  • about
  • News
  • Essays
  • @

1 – The Metaphysical Fairyland of Michelle Concepción, Thyrza Nichols Goodeve


2 – Abstraction-Sensation, Peter Frank


3 – Depth and Transparency, Gerhard Charles Rump

The Metaphysical Fairyland of Michelle

Goodeve, Thyrza Nichols. Logical paintings catalogue, 2017.

Michelle Concepción, Cover of exhibition catalogue: Logical paintings

“Concepción’s is an art not of things, but of their ghosts.” 1When the friction and incongruities of the world overwhelmed me as a child, I would close my eyes and disappear into the world of torrential atmosphere that lived behind my eyes. When this happened, my body’s proprioception transferred from the sensation of a trunk connected by limbs, into a substance without mass, like light, an aqueous spirit animal or ghost, falling through space. A similar feeling comes over me when I look at Michelle Concepción’s paintings. Coordinates disappear as each canvas suggests a universe in motion, where color and scale have no measure except the size of one’s imagination. Black Pearl, 2016 could be as small as a cell seen under the power of a mega-microscope or as large as a galaxy that is so many millions of light years away as to be closer in time to the Big Bang than our 21st century.

Imagine we are Mr. A. Square from Edwin A. Abbott’s 1884 Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions landing in one of Concepción’s paintings. In his world, three dimensions are outlawed. In fact, his encounter with Mr. Sphere is reason enough for him to be accused of treason and imprisoned because it is sedition to acknowledge a logic beyond what a line or point can feel.

Behold yon miserable creature. That Point is a Being like ourselves, but confined to the non-dimensional Gulf. He is himself his own World, his own Universe; of any other than himself he can form no conception; he knows not Length, nor Breadth, nor Height, for he has had no experience of them; he has no cognizance even of the number Two; nor has he a thought of Plurality, for he is himself his One and All, being really Nothing.2

Not so for Michelle Concepción. In fact, if Mr. A. Square visited Night Painting, 2017 or Hybrid Fade, 2015, there would be no need for him to exchange law abiding behavior for his right to inhabit higher dimensions. As you can see solids do not block one another; shapes collect without being territorial because they have a presence, as wash, which suggests generosity. In En el jardin, 2017, or even the dense yet breathy Between the Lines 2, 2017, acrylic follows the logic of watercolor, an ontology of transparency, mutable and attentive to what is contingent. How many layers of being emerge when a palette of red, yellow, and green pass in and out of one another like sea creatures? Where does one shape begin and end when one can see a seeming infinite collection of layers, nested and nestled one on top of one another? How many substrata of time would be represented if each coat represented its own individual zone? What would Mr. Sphere say to this?

As I look at Before Night Falls, 2016 or Night Painting, 2017 I am reminded of what Walter Benjamin says about a photograph:

search such a picture for the tiny spark of contingency, of the here and now, with which reality has (so to speak) seared the subject, to find the inconspicuous spot where in the immediacy of that long-forgotten moment the future nests so eloquently that we, looking back, may rediscover it.3

Although nothing could be further from Concepción’s diaphanous aesthetic than the referential reverence of photography, her paintings, while wholly abstract, are defined by the logic of contingency unburdened by weight or territorial possessiveness. The interlocking layers of color, texture, paint, shape, and air seem to inhale and exhale into and out of one another, freed of mass or recognizable temporality. Yet, all is contingent, dependent on what it touches. As shapes hover and incorporate one another in Black and White Clusters, 2016 or Whimsical, 2017 their ontologies shift. How else to account for the many states of the white and grey translucent biomorphic blobs as they float across and interact with opaque black, like ghosts set in motion. Isn’t this what Peter Frank means when he says Concepción’s work “is not an art of things but ghosts”? For who has less patience for earthly dimensions than ghosts. They have their own logic of abstraction as they haunt and hover the living like Concepción’s biomorphic beings exist on several planes—porous yet scratched and crossed with marks. Texture is a kind of memory; geometry a logic of interaction. But within it all, I can not let go of the sense I am looking into time. After all, ghosts and Concepción’s paintings are accounts of being – in her case the ontology of abstraction.

In this sense Concepción is the arbiter of life-forces as much as she is a painter of color and shape. As she pulls her brush across the surface, or scratches at a line, what she is really doing is channeling the vital principle of each shape, line, swish, blotch, and pattern of textured color at the moment when it is most alive. The paintings are testaments or snapshots of the moment of their creation, where the shadows and specters—ghosts—which hover around them are allowed to come into view before passing away. This is not an aesthetic of competition aimed at who will win, but rather art as a metaphysical fairyland or allegory of existence, founded in painterly acts of generosity. In Black and White Clusters, 2016, or the more foreboding Night Painting, 2017, apparition and object exist in pools of potential rather than presence; zones of dimensionality shift before our eyes – no longer referencing the art historical space of mid 20th century abstraction but rather, like Klee or even Rothko, existence itself. Isn’t that what color, is, a consequence of wavelength; continuums of color made of photons whose signature property is, they have no mass. And isn’t this paradox of being at once present (as a body) and absent (lost within the metaphysical torrent of Concepción’s paintings) precisely what it’s like to be a ghost, or a visitor to a dimension we have yet to understand?

 

1 Peter Frank, “Michelle Concepción: Abstraction-Sensation,” in Michelle Concepción, Volver, Artspace Virginia Miller Galleries, 2008.
2 Flatland, Edwin A. Abbott, 1884. Section 20: “How the sphere encouraged me in a Vision,”
3 Walter Benjamin, “A Short History of Photography,” 1931.

 

Michelle Concepción: Abstraction – Sensation

Frank, Peter. Volver, catalogue, 2008.

Michelle Concepción, Cover of exhibition catalogue: Volver

The power abstract painting holds over the beholder is not so much that of form itself but of its suggestion. The ideologies of artistic practice may motivate painters and fix their positions in the discourse of art history, but for viewers of the work itself, the painting exists as image and/or object-an image or object whose relationship to the quotidian world of perception is ambiguous and multivalent. Our associations frame our understandings: Frank Stella’s declaration that “What you see is what you see” may be a theoretical tautology, but when what you see is what you associate with what you are seeing-a process of recognition, that is, of discerning resemblances-an abstract form takes on resonance outside the control of its maker.

An interpretive responsibility thus befalls the beholder, acknowledged by Marcel Duchamp when he opined that “The viewer completes the work of art.” In her painterly practice, Michelle Concepción acknowledges this responsibility, and enters thereby into an ongoing relationship with the viewer. Rather than insist that all that is in her work is pigment assuming shapes on a support, Concepción amplifies the associative resonance of those shapes by manipulating the pigment-and, masterfully, the relationship of pigment to support. A painter of effect (although not merely a painter of effect), Concepción subjects a highly refined formal vocabulary to an intricate interplay of facture and illusion, luminescence and darkness, apparent volume and apparent transparency, color and colorlessness, surface and infinite gradation. Such an effect-driven interplay opens up a universe of comprehensions, none of which Concepción controls-and all of which she profoundly influences.

Each of us sees the myriad interplays of form, color, and shade that dominate Concepción’s paintings slightly differently, perhaps, but we all recognize that her forms float, often one across another, and that they occupy a neutral field that can be read at once as behind and amid her shapes. The nature of those forms is impossible to assert. Some of us see inorganic objects like stones or oil slicks, others of us discern microscopic organisms, still others read these blots and tendrils as plant forms (especially aquatic ones), and so forth. Some of us are certain these shapes, whatever they are, are in motion, while others among us see them fixed in the picture, even establishing patterned rhythms. The interpretive possibilities are manifold, but they remain just that: interpretive, not definitive, and possibilities, not actualities. If for Concepción the paintings are at least what they are made of, for us, not privy to her technique, not even this is fixed.

Gerhard Charles Rump has remarked that Concepción’s forms “show themselves to be a section of the world much larger than the extension of the canvas,” 1 and the tendency of the forms to repeat in most of her paintings until they pass out of the picture (continuing the microorganic metaphor, as anyone knows who has tried to frame a protozoan under the gaze of a microscope) bear out Rump’s observation. But equally, the nature of these paintings as image fields helps us retain a sense of the paintings as concretions, as things, meaning that on at least the level of material, the objecthood of any given painting confines its shapes to its surface; the shapes may imply a pictorial limitlessness, but ultimately they are subject to the traditional bounds of pictorial practice.
The poetics of Concepción’s art emerge from this web of artistic generation and audience reception, from the constant play between what has been made and what is perceived. But this play, this enmeshing of meaning, does not bind such poetics. Those finally anchor in what effect Concepción’s paintings have upon something behind our eyes. We do not feel lighter, brighter, smaller, larger, more enchanted, or more mystified because these works have fooled our eyes into reading them this way or that; we feel thus because these works are painted to convey such sensations. Their ability to trigger metaphors serves their ability to trigger feelings not the other way around. In the end, they are not pictures, but paintings-abstract paintings, meant to transcend the condition of images and provide instead the condition of sensations. To amend Stella, What you see is what you feel.

Perhaps it is not necessary to note that “sensations” and “feelings” do not connote “emotions.” Concepción’s art exists in a realm of expression at once more somatic and more conceptual than emotive. In this, her diaphanous plants, her floating worlds, her Magellanic Clouds-call them what you will-transport us not simply with their beauty, although they are capable of that, but with their various formal qualities. Their color, their grain, their patterning, their partial disembodiment, their suspension in some sort of fluid or humor-these and other plainly seen but not plainly felt factors conspire to commute sensations that beggar description.

The hundred-year history of abstract art is a history of distilling the ineffable. Whether motivated by intellectual argument or spiritual quest, the abstractionists in our midst have chosen not to depend on the recognizable world as a subject, although it remains available to them, and us, as a visual or conceptual armature; rather, it is the world inside their heads, and ours, they choose to elaborate. Michelle Concepción follows in the footsteps of Kandinsky, Malevich, Mondrian, Rothko, and a host of nonobjective painters who in their various ways have explored and conveyed what was at once deep inside them and all around them, visually inchoate but profoundly immediate in experience. When this auratic force emerges and coalesces, we tend to find the mundane world in such formulations. But even as we do, those formulations act upon us and within us. Concepción’s is an art not of things, but of their ghosts.

 

Peter Frank is Senior Curator at Riverside Art Museum (California) and Associate Editor of THEmagazine Los Angeles. He was editor of Visions Art Quarterly in Los Angeles, where he also served as art critic for the LA Weekly for twenty years. In his native New York, Frank worked as art critic for the Village Voice and the SoHo Weekly News. He has curated shows and published books, monographs, and catalogues around the world.

 

1 Rump, Gerhard Charles. “Profundidad y transparencia en las pinturas de Michelle Concepción” Catalog Michelle Concepción Hybrids, 2006.

 

Depth and Transparency

Rump, Gerhard Charles. Hybrid, catalogue, 2007.

Michelle Concepción, exhibition catalogue: Hybrids 2008

It is astonishing how seemingly effortless Michelle Concepción has found her very own and meaningful position in contemporary painting. But it is, as always in such cases, the result of hard work, bravery – and genius. Her often large-scale paintings in acrylic on canvas are built up in several layers, the quality of the appearance of the colour depends on their transparency, and it also gives visual depth. The pictorial objects are wilfully ambiguous, alternating between the micro- and macrocosmic realms.

Do we look through a microscope and watch colonies of unicellular organisms? Do we see colourful pebbles on some distant beach? Or do we gaze into the sky to follow some kind of strange clouds with our eyes? There isn’t a ready answer. The ever-changing image corresponds to the variety of aspects any given object can have in and by our perception. This is a world of its own, like any good work of art, but even more so, as the paintings include this as subject.

In her earlier works, Michelle Concepción tended to restrict herself to very few colours, although the images did not have a quasi-monochrome character – on the contrary, they seemed to activate more hues and shades than the artist actually used. The most recent works, often incorporating the Spanish word for “floating” in the title, cautiously open themselves to a wider palette. This opens an enormously wide space for further artistic investigation, the number of aesthetic solutions to problems of the relationship between colour and form becomes very much larger, the individual paintings even more intriguing. Floating is Michelle’s subject, indeed. The colours and forms float, both within the restraints of the format of the canvas and visually before our eyes. But they also show themselves to be a section of a world much larger than the extension of the canvas, especially as Michelle doesn’t employ any pictorial tactics to present a “hortus conclusus”, a contained zone for her fluffy and tender round shapes. On the contrary – the clouds of colour point at their theoretically boundless world.

The balance between the organic and the non-organic, the small and the large, is, especially in the more colourful canvases, supported by the super-forms built up at the intersections. We may see this pictorial “fulguration” (the unpredictable appearance of something new) as a commentary of understanding in general. If we don’t – we are still left with great painting.

 

 

 

©  Michelle Concepción 2023