ARTIST STATEMENT and BIOGRAPHY
I find painting goes beyond the notion that painted reality is “nothing but “ a precursor to a photographic realism. Painting is a phenomenological experiment. There is a synthesis between the visual and the kinesthetic that forms a powerful third range of human perception. Human space and form are not purely optical manifestations. The painting of mass and line can provoke a muscle sense, a physical ness between viewer and the painted relationships. Hans Hoffman called this “Push-Pull”. Matisse referred to this as the convexity of pictorial space. In this “meta-vision” or “minds-eye” the painter is not freed from the experience of perspective and local color and the naturalistic geometry of the objects and scenes. Rather, the painter can be liberated by the experience and knowledge of the defining aspects of human reality.
Vision encompasses the obvious factors of sight along with other less obvious paths to sensing reality. Human vision is based on a plasticity of structures that tell us more than what a photograph can convey. The visual system, governed by layers of logical relationships, goes much further than a photo interpretation of reality. Painters like Courbet and Cézanne understood these logical relationships as they rejected the establishment of a new French academic painting style that had begun to incorporate a photo-centric aesthetic. We see in these revolutionary painters an understanding of classical painting where the reality or meta-reality of a long tradition is almost lost. This tadition, carried on by Matisse and Picasso, ripe with cubistic and anamorphic distortion is often lost on modern audiences who have become unintentionally confused and miss lead. We have begun to think painting can be based on unskilled postmodern rejections of the past because the rules were abolished. Anything but that is true. There are still the universal and particular realities of human perception to be considered in painting. It is this timeless quality of painting based on a tradition of painters study of human vision needs to be continually renewed with each generation of painters.
We need to try to regain the hidden logic of realism once more. This logic, one discovers, is a metaphor for the recursive boundary between painter and the subject. The more intuited convexity and physicality hold a stark contrast to our contemporary photo centric, cropped off and flat boxy world-view. In a painting there can be kinesthesia not found in photos. Painting can be about the stereoscopic compressions, the peripheral spatial expansions, the anamorphic distortions and the hidden structures that to an observer incase those aspects integral with human feeling. I recommend young painters paint from that internal sense of a meta-reality the total visual system provides.
BIOGRAPHY: Timothy J. King
E d u c a t i o n
MFA-Master of Fine Arts– Painting & Drawing–2006, Northern Illinois University
MA-Master of Arts– Painting 1985, The University of Tulsa
BFA-Bachelor of Fine Arts– Painting 1981, Kansas City Art Institute
Foundations Studies– 1975-1976, Columbus Collage of Art & Design
T e a c h i n g
Loyola University Chicago. 2006 -
Current— Adjunct Professor of Art.
Illinois Institute of Art, Schaumburg. 2006 -
Current — Adjunct Instructor of Art.
Northern Illinois University. 2004 - 2007
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art.
Henderson State University, Arkansas. 1990 - 1991—
Adjunct Professor of Art.
The University of Tulsa. 1982 — 1983 Teaching Assistant in Painting, printmaking and Instructor of Record of drawing,
I have been a landscape and figurative painter for nearly 30 years. I have been living in Chicago and Elgin since 1992. I was born in Baltimore but I grew up in Lawton and then Tulsa, Oklahoma. I attended art school in Columbus, Ohio for my first year (Columbus College of Art & Design). On good advise from my painting teacher (Mr. Fullum) at CCAD I transferred to study painting at the Kansas City Art Institute in 1976.
CCAD was an excellent school to study foundations. It was more modernist conceptually and visually and less postmodernist than KCAI’s foundations program. CCAD had an excellent 2-D/3-D/color-design foundation. It also had a great Structural Drawing and Anatomy drawing foundation. At CCAD the foundations assignments were designed to be problematic and a bit confusing in wording. It forced students to collaborate and share concepts so solutions could be obtained. It certainly was one way to achieve a social problem solving experience. It was never made clear that this was legal and we often felt like we were cheating, like we were plagiarizing one another. That was a negative but the collaborative experience I found was one of the best preparations I have ever had for the work world. At CCAD I had one foundations drawing and painting teacher that gave me my first real introduction to conceptualizing drawing as simile and as interspatial form. I now call this the Dynamic Rock Structure Problem. It is still one of the best drawing lessons I have ever had.
As it turned out foundations at CCAD actually complemented my studies in KCAI’s strong observational painting program. For many decades KCAI had been well known as one of the best figurative painting schools in the nation. Soon I was painting and studying with Lester Goldman, Wilbur Niewald and Stanley Lewis. It was clear this was a magical time to be at KCAI. From this faculty at KCAI I learned many great lessons in drawing, painting and color.
In Lester Goldman’s studio I copied Tintereto and for the first time sensed the formal structure of great painting. Lester taught me many observations about the old masters relating to painterly form, drama and light. I remember an important drawing lesson from ... Read More