I have to thank Mr. Stella for testifying to the strength of my own work, although he didn’t realize he had done so. He says that printmaking has “…one legitimate claim to superiority over painting,…it [creates] the surfaces it articulates with one coordinated action. Painting still has to cover its surfaces after the fact, it can’t have the luxury of creating them as it acts by itself.” Clearly this is exactly what my pouring method does, and I believe that is enough to make a genuine contribution to modern painting, at least the way I do it. It’s also a labor saving device that doesn’t rely on technology.
I want to stop talking about my own work on this blog, but at this moment of intense involvement with the work of Frank Stella I can hardly help it. For example, everything in the world is adjacent to something else, and every empty space or “negative” is in fact another positive, or contains positive forms that may be closer or further apart. Even Stella’s work, with all its fullness, has some breathing room, and each of those variously colored blanks is another positive form if seen from the right distance. So the difference between complexity and simplicity is just a matter of scale, which means point of view—in other words from how high we look.
My work is about the way the forms fit together, maybe with a qualitative difference from the arbitrary norm of American abstraction. And literature, which doesn’t have to come from any book. Wouldn’t an island of flowery meadows have something to do with death?