Ian Segrave

Saturday, 21 January 2012

Surface (2012)
Oil on canvas
80 x 120 cm

Surface (detail) (2012)
Oil on canvas
80 x 120 cm

Installation (3 props and a wedge) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
150 x 190 x 60 cm

Installation (2 props and a wedge) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
120 x 150 x 60 cm

Installation (2 props) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
130 x 150 x 60 cm

Installation (uneasy stander) (2012)
Oil on canvas
175 x 70 x 60 cm

Progressive Form/Regressive painting (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
90 x 50 x 60 cm

Top Lid (bad fit) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
90 x 50 x 60 cm

Points (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
90 x 60 x 60 cm

Podium Prop (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
100 x 30 x 30 cm

Installation (colour on top) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
220 x 70 x 60 cm

Installation (untitled) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
200 x 70 x 60 cm

Installation (untitled 2) (2012)
Oil on canvas, wood
200 x 70 x 60 cm

Small Surface (2012)
Oil on canvas
30 x 40 x 30 cm

All images courtesy of Kate Parker Photography

Thursday, 29 December 2011

Pull (2011)
Wood, canvas, emulsion
185 x 70 x 50 cm

Wonky (2011)
Wood, canvas, emulsion
170 x 70 x 110 cm

On An Edge (2011)
Wood, canvas, emulsion
200 x 100 x 150 cm

Open Lid (2011)
Wood, emulsion
145 x 80 x 70 cm

Holding On To Painting

My practice has always been about trying to negotiate the abilities painting; as a unique descriptive form, can be transferred or at least give emphasis to its physical surroundings. There has always been a sense of conflict whenever I view painting that encroaches upon sculpture in terms of its placement within a space; they seem to want to be a part of one another however there is always an underlying wariness as to what is in control. The conclusion then can only be assumed that the way the viewer navigates the space would be a direct control path as to how the work should be perceived. This would not so much make the work site specific, but site aware. Once this issue has been addressed the true metaphorical inclinations of structural shape and painted surface can marry into a desired form of unity. My work therefore is in constant play with these factors as to try and portray itself in the ‘correct’ manner; that is to say that it is accomplishing my preconceived notions. My recent works have been largely dominated by the desire to create a physical tension to something very basic, which may or may not have relevance to an objective form. I use the word prop to describe the action of these works, however it is more accurate to say that the prop in itself is a descriptive form. These works use painting in the loosest of terms; as they hold the physical contributes to painting (the frame) more than a subject matter to literate their source. Works such as Touch and Collapse are examples of how delicate the act of propping something to one another can be, and allows interpretation through the very factor of its instability to remain a standing form. Works such as Prop Window and Canvas Hanger use the theatrical term of prop; an object relational to another, or more emphasized to clarify its objective hood. I believe this dichotomy gives way to a more painterly conceived notion rather than a sculpturally derived narrative as it allows a certain play with interpretation; treating the physical space more as a frame to view the prop in act than an area to get fully involved with. Paintings tend to be a window into another place, a view hole cropped by reality; I like to think of my installations as doing something similar to this. My work is often placed against a wall, or suspended in a way that seems unconditioned by human hand, therefore restricting the viewer’s immediate involvement with the work; a sense of sensitivity when viewing the work makes it more visual than physical to the viewer and their perception of form and perspective gets narrowed. This allows a certain control that adds the physical connection to a visual stimulus; unifying my desires of painterly traits through sculptural means.