Ronnie
Hughes in
conversation with Slavka Sverakova after his show, Synthesis,
at Sligo Art Gallery, August - October 2006
 |
| Ronnie Hughes: Togetherapart,
2006, acrylic co-polymer on linen, 53.5 x 48 cm; courtesy the artist |
Hazily, I recall
that there was a painting called Synthesis early
on. The
title now embraces a body of work
from the last three years, a selection assisted by two galleries:
Rubicon
(Dublin) and Fendereski (Belfast). It includes a powerful composition
with one
yellow and one blue-black shape that mirror each other: Togetherapart,
2006. On the level of
abstract ideas this image is a key to more
than just itself as ought to become apparent from the following e-mail
conversation I had with the artist.
 |
| Ronnie Hughes: Yellow ribvault,
2004, acrylic co-polymer on linen, 153 x 147 cm; courtesy the
artist |
SJS: I take as a
starting point the catalogue to your current exhibition, with the
discussion
between you and Joseph Wolin. On page 9 you think of the paint surface
(not the
painted surface) as a record of the process. The Yellow
ribvault, 2004,
is an example of mimesis noticed after the work was
finished. The tree outside the window was there before, during and
after your
work was done.
This asymmetrical
relationship between nature and art is significant for the freedom it
offers. Before we immerse ourselves into thinking about
neural-net
responses to any stimuli, would you, please, describe, roughly,
how some
particular paintings in this exhibition are different
records of the
"type of touch"?
RH:
I
shall have
to answer this question 'roughly' as it is difficult to describe the
differences of 'types of touch' with any real specificity as there are
infinitely subtle nuances that are for the most part subjectively
perceived and
that can only truly be gauged in the presence of the actual work. The
factors
involved in gauging the 'type of touch' include the amount of paint
applied,
its opacity, its solidity / liquidity, the method of application or
removal
(laid, poured, trowelled, rolled, dragged, pushed, pulled, etc), the
type of
tool used (variety of brush, knife, sponge, cloth, etc), the direction
and also
the speed.
Some painters
use their material aridly, some parsimoniously, others bounteously,
voluptuously,
tenderly, delicately, crudely, violently, carefully. These adjectives
generally
arise from an assessment of touch and there can be no question that
allied to
subject matter this affects our response as viewers. My own types of
touch as a
painter, I think, generally exist within a narrow range that is
relatively
slow, measured and gently sensuous.
In a painting
like Yellow ribvault, there is ostensibly a
yellow ground with a soft horizontal drift against which contrasts the
more
purposeful directionality of the drawn 'vault' lines. In the flesh one
can
discern (due to their translucency) the 'held' brushstrokes which
indicate the
(relatively slow) pace and direction of each line; this evidence makes
one
re-imagine the construction of each successive line and for me this
reveals a
kind of controlled or dance-like set of component movements.
In Swarm,
the almost-easy drawing of the
wetly applied
grey ellipses over
their dark brown underlays imparts a certain anxiety (perhaps the
trapped
anxiety of me trying to physically construct the shapes, ie pushing a
loaded
brush around to follow the brown perimeter while struggling to ensure
that the
paint doesn't misbehave and form globs that ruin the edge relationship
between
brown and grey).
On the surface of Screen,
there is a thick, viscous orange that
could only have been dragged slowly over the surface. The succulent
weight of
this barrier contrasts with the relatively pacy energy of the linear
underdrawing. Work rests on these kinds of tensions.
 |
| Ronnie Hughes: Residue III,
1993, oil, wax on MDF, 91 x 91 cm; courtesy the artist |
SJS:
This rich connectivity between touch
and other
stimuli illustrates
well the difficulties and delights a viewer may experience.
Tony Bartley (Circa
64, 1993,
p 54) states that
in the then reviewed work you do not use metaphors or historical
references.
Nevertheless, he mentions one historical reference "absurdities arising
out of
the inappropriateness of contemporary notions of identity." His note on
"spatial ambiguity" inspires a thought, contrary to his claim, that
this may be
a metaphor. I think of ambiguity born out of the culture in which you
have
grown up and lived as an adult artist. During your undergraduate
studies in
Belfast, how strong was the desire to develop an art practice that
would step
out of the inherited frame? What was the most helpful inspiration to do
that?
RH:
I
think that one of the things that
brought me
to art was my
upbringing as a product of a 'mixed marriage' in the Northern Ireland
of the
'Troubles'. From Belfast originally, my family moved to Kilcooley (an
infamous
loyalist housing estate twelve miles from Belfast on the edge of
Bangor) when I
was seven years old and we remained there until I was seventeen. To
grow up as
part of a quite hard-core Protestant community, all the while knowing
that your
dangerous 'half-Catholic' secret renders everything a pretence, and
engenders a
certain mind-set of skepticism, of questioning and of contrariness -
quite
useful qualities in art. Of course I also had to get over my life-long
training
of "whatever you say, say nothing," and I think all my work at art
college
(during MA too) tended to sublimate the deep-seated anxieties that I
(and many,
if not most, other people of my generation) held.
After art
college, I had a bit more conviction about what my intentions were and
the then
theoretically fashionable climate of 'deconstruction' allied to my own
natural
tendencies formed the template for how I tried to dismantle the world
through
making art!
SJS:
Speaking
of
dismantling... others do that in unwelcome ways. Colin Darke (Circa
66, 1993, p 57) perceives
your images shown in 1993 at the Rubicon Gallery as "an objective
analysis of
... war-torn Belfast" as "metaphors for the present conditions in NI."
Your own
comment weaves a narrative out of nouns like destruction,
reshaping, deforming
and displacing
- all acts that
happened to people and the city. I admit, I do not see it as an
objective
analysis. Instead, taking Residue III
for example, I think of the
heroic modernists dragging autonomous, disinterested art into the role
of
courageous and honest witness. Once you decided to connect the
'all-over-paint'
model with an illusionist vignette,
did you encounter
increased demand on composition and key? Am I wrong in recalling the
switch
from dark key to high key?
RH:
The
"'all-over-paint' model with an
illusionist vignette" was
typical of the aforementioned template in that it was an attempt to
simultaneously play with different models of visual language in an
attempt to
create, or expose, something new (or, at least, fresh). Templates are
fine, but
one still has the physical problem of trying to make something that
works!
Combining different types of imagery did create more formal demands, as
you
suggest; however, this didn't always result in the use of a high key
(eg Constructed
heritage). I
think it would be more accurate to say
that there was a move away from my previous predilection for low-key,
or tonal,
painting.
 |
| Ronnie Hughes: Constructed heritage,
1991, oil, sand, cellulose, wax on muslin, 152 x 168 cm; courtesy the
artist |
SJS:
Peter Jordan (Circa
76, 1996, p 49) perceives
you as "expressive painter ... fond of dark key and rich texture." You
have
dealt with the evolution of the colour key above. Jordan finds it
difficult to
establish what the meaning of your images is, and objects to
abstraction as not
adequate to "represent the multidimensional nature of the world." Is
this why
you included words, even if incomplete ones, and selected elaborate
titles for
the paintings, eg Emigrant landscape
or Constructing heritage
/ Constructed heritage?
RH:
The
paintings that Peter Jordan found
difficult were not 'abstract'
as such but were a series of works made by projecting photographic
images of
street crowds (a stereotypical image in film and television) and then
painting
/ obliterating them in successive layers.
For me the use
of these images was much the same as how I used text, ie, as a 'sign' -
a
fragment of language with a set of given associations but with room for
movement due to context and (mis-)understanding. The method of
constructing, or
working with, these 'signs' was how I tried to form meaning and I
generally
veered toward meaning that was more poetic or multivalent (this is
still true).
With titles, I am also drawn to open-endedness rather than a more
specific, or
forensic, use of language. Titles can also be a way 'in' for people, or
at
least a stimulus to think about a work in a certain manner.
 |
| Ronnie
Hughes: Swarm,
2006, acrylic co-polymer on linen, 56 x 50.5 cm; courtesy
the artist |
SJS:
Gavin Murphy
(Circa 114, 2006, p 71)
notes the spatial ambiguity, the enigmatic
titling of the
paintings, and subtle interplay of textures, skill and awkwardness as
means of
a commitment to paint. While I go along with his observations, I am
acutely
aware of a shift between the early pre-MFA work, intoxicated with raw
emotions,
and the contemporary paintings like Illusion,
2006, which keeps the
Dionysian principle firmly under the power of Apollo. The story is now
not
outside the image, it is it. It seems to be a command to look, to see,
to
think.
Where
does the light come from capable of holding the high
key even if an area is black? I have in mind Togetherapart
, 2006. It reminds
me of the daylight above the small harbour with the fishing boats in
dark colours.
RH:
With
regard to the Gavin Murphy
paragraph
above, I don't think of
myself as having a "commitment to paint" - I have always seen myself as
an
'artist' rather than as a 'painter' even though painting is largely
what I do.
If I have a commitment to anything in my work, it is to exploration or
discovery.
 |
| Ronnie
Hughes: Screen,
2006, acrylic co-polymer on linen, 53.5 x 48 cm; courtesy
the artist |
Togetherapart
puts together an almost black
blue and a
cadmiumesque yellow. I was
trying, I think, for a 'logo'-type image. When I was making that
painting I was
on a two-month-long residency at the Albers Foundation in Connecticut,
and
among some of the drawings I was making were some gas-station signs,
and I'm
pretty sure that that was the influence.
I hadn't
considered the now obvious fishing boat / reflection nuance (if that is
what
you mean) of this pairing, but would you believe that the residency's
75-acre
site included a private lake with a rowing boat for my use? (It was a
facility
that I availed of quite happily!) I think that it could be another
example of
an influence slipping in unconsciously (like the branches in Yellow
ribvault)
SJS:
Well - there is a problem with the word
-
abstraction in art has been perceived as nihilist, decorative, sublime
and
ironic. At its least sophisticated, people think of abstract art as art
that
does not depict recognizable scenes or objects.
I
like the definition of abstraction in chemistry: it is a reaction or
transformation the main feature of which is a removal of some everyday
aspects
that allow integration into a non-trivial abstraction. All such
abstractions
are to some degree leaky - they are full to the brim of tacit knowledge
that
resists explanation. These abstractions break an aspect away from its
contexts
and offer instead new concepts, new hypotheses ... the explorer in you
must
cherish this.
Slavka Sverakova is
a freelance writer on art.