24.02.09 by Jeff

Gregory Euclide

Interesting relief paintings by Gregory Euclide. I’m interested to see if people feel as strongly about this work as they did about Valerie Hegarty’s work (most discussed artist on this site), there are some similarities.

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief

gregory euclide painting drawing mixed media relief





  • http://www.margaritmuca.com margarit

    One of the things that the XXth century taught us is that everything could be Art. It just needs work, study, originality in thinking. Picasso is the artist that represent the XX century. Picasso taught us that an artist shouldn’t fossilize just in one style or technique. I’ve also seen the works of Valerie Hegarty and the thing I notice is that those artists are using always the same process in thinking, producing, drawing, etc… I think there is no evolution in repeating yourself. Picasso experimented all the possible styles and technique and invented most of them, that’s why call him “Artist”. I like some of the works of valerie and Gregory, they’re really original, I think there is a lot of work in those works but after a dozen they become boring. I made something lie that back in 2004 by repainting a work of Schiele and destructing it and then applying nails, glasses, paper and human blood. I made 5 or 6 works like that and then I undestood t was enough. I tried, experimented and then I experimented again with another technique, like mixing watercolor with wine, charcoal and oil, etc… Always experimentations.
    Excuse me for my english. It’s hard to explane your philosophy in painting in another language. thank you.
    margarit

    • http://www.jeffhamada.com/ jeffhamada

      your english is fine margarit! you bring up an interesting point in regards to work created in the same style, over and over. it’s weird because sometimes it seems the opposite is true – like if you try too many different styles no one take notice of you as an artist but if you were to stick to doing the same kinda thing over and over until you died you would own that style, it would be become your signature and it would be somehow legitimized in the sheer quantity that you produced.

  • Ben

    I don’t think you’ll get the same heated debate the Hegarty works (which I loved) did because of those last few pictures. All eight together make it seem like the first 4 are trying to achieve the same impressions as the last 4, just in three-dimensional space.

    Or maybe you can see it as a slow degradation or crumpling (or the reverse) from piece to piece. In any case, I think there is something more readily apparent for people to analyze and bite onto. The very wanton nature of the Hegarty is what got people up in arms.

  • http://www.jeffhamada.com/ jeffhamada

    ^ i think this is what i’m most interested in – in what ways people see this work as different from Hegarty’s. in terms of process they would be really similar – painting something and destroying it, in a way.

    the intent may be different, but without an artist statement we are left to interpret the work purely based on what we see.

    im sure there will be people who would feel more comfortable labeling this “art” and labeling Hegarty’s work something else..

  • Ben

    ^ For me, the effect is largely the same. Both artists have created pieces that—excuse the phrase—exist unto themselves. They are pieces that were inspired by the thinking world, affected by the physical world, and then left to rest.

    I like them a lot for that reason. What a direct way to represent our experiences, the clash between concrete ideas and our busted up carbon husks.

    Additionally, we’ve seen a lot of art designed to interact with the viewer in order to draw you in and cement the works in the real world. These achieve a similar feeling of “being in the real, physical world” but without any intent of interaction. They are in one corner and you are in another.

  • http://www.margaritmuca.com margarit

    I totally agree with you Jeff (can I arrogantly call you Jeff?). I am experimenting a lot of technique’s, materials, objescts, or other things. But Style is different. My style remains the same. It doesn’t matters if I draw with charcoal, paint with watercolor or Ink. Style is an expression of your soul. Techniques and materials instead are the instruments, the language I choose to express it. But I used Picasso as an Example. He had his periods (blue, rouge, cubism, etc…) but he was always Picasso. Not just that artist that made those scary faces. And His works show all the study and effort he put in them. In his works we can see his entire life. His Life wasn’t always with cubes.

  • http://www.jeffhamada.com/ jeffhamada

    great discussion so far! and margarit its not arrogant, i’m not the president or anything haha

  • Pingback: sticks and pine cones | c o l c h u

  • NETTE

    these works really play tricks on my eyes, i love them.

  • Tyler

    Mr. Euclide is my Graphics Design teacher and he is absolutely awesome at what he does.