Zealous Distinctions Oil Painting Series

Abstract
Zealous Distinctions is a series of oil paintings created to investigate the extreme disparities in the human condition.  It is a visual presentation that relies on famous icons to examine issues of circumstance, and how aspects of ones character and disposition result from many predetermined conditions including birthplace, family background, financial status, spiritual belief and more.  Among the famous icons in this series are politicians, pop-culture celebrities, and notorious figureheads, placed in a contrived landscape to create a community of individuals representing extremely different social, moral, political, and spiritual standings.  This is series a vehicle for contemplation on questions of fate, including why we are who we are and why we act the way we do.  By doing so, we must acknowledge prior influences on our placement in the world today.

Introduction
Statement of the Problem
As a figurative artist, I am foremost interested in how the body can be utilized to describe and teach us about our world.  My fundamental challenge in this series was to successfully portray certain ideas through paintings of the human figure; to use the body as a means to convey extreme distinctions on social standing, morality, political viewpoint, etc.  With Zealous Distinctions, I utilized the media’s proliferation of celebrity imagery from magazines and the Internet as my subject matter.  I carefully selected each individual to symbolize a unique and utter difference in success and system of beliefs.

Purpose of the Study
It is impossible to ignore the countless images of celebrities publicized by the media through magazines, the internet and similar sources on a very regular basis.   As such, my goal was to make practical use of my exposure to such information and imagery.  While the media’s proliferation of famous people normally exposes their personal lives and spreads senseless gossip, I felt a strange sense of obligation to alter the objective of such images.  Our society is so caught up with the obsession of celebrities, the personality of the individuals often takes control over the power of ideas, ideologies and authentic human connections.  Consequently, my perceptions of the images I collected had to obtain a truer sense of reality, where I strived to no longer see them as merely images but as true and unique individuals that they are. 

The execution of this series is an attempt at creating a closer relationship or greater understanding between the painted subject and spectator; as to heighten the emotional quality and overall content of the entire series.  By creating a closer subject/viewer connection, I question whether viewers can move beyond initial presumptions through a simple visual observation, and develop the ability to consider further, unseen implications.  When this occurs, a greater level of empathy, from one human to the next, is achieved.

Limitations of the Study
My interpretations of these subjects are limited to the pre-existing images I utilize.   My closest relationship to these figures is only partial, as I will never have a direct contact with these individual.
These paintings are also somewhat relative to the time period.  While Paris Hilton and Stanley Tookie Williams are people recognizable today, such may not be the case in the future, resulting in a loss of an overall decline in concept. 

Review of Research

Who Are We?
Oil on Canvas
36x94 Inches

Figures from left to right:

- Two children playing in dirty street conditions in Kathmandu, Nepal.

- Kenneth Lay: Former Enron CEO, found guilt on six counts of conspiracy and fraud with Enron’s collapse in 2001. 

- John Paul II: Catholic Pope (1920-2005)  

- John Lennon: John Lennon, British musician (1940-1980).  In regards to the painting: Lennon rejected religion and dogma, and described a vague spirituality through his music.  (From the song “Imagine”, Lennon sang "Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, imagine all the people living for today. . .Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too."  From the song, "God” he sang “God is a concept by which we measure Our pain, I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in I-Ching, I don't believe in Bible, I don't believe in Tarot, I don't believe in Hitler, I don't believe in Jesus", as well as others.)

- Ron Hubbard:  Founder of Scientology. 

The juxtaposition of desperately poor children with a corrupt businessman creates an obvious distinction regarding economic prosperity in a global setting. Most people know these extremes exist but rarely do we visually observe two simultaneous instances.

The last three individuals to the right are a source for insight into the plight of the children and Lay’s deceit.  Through such differences in wealth and providence, I applied different spiritual perspectives to contemplate and compare very dire circumstances.  Such questions are further raised by John Lennon’s personal values and how beliefs are so opposite Ron Hubbard’s religion Scientology, where extraterrestrial dictatorships brainwash and control people.  With each extremely different spiritual perspective, we have a chance to see the pure differences that naturally exist in spiritual preference and how the reality of the children and Lay is transformed relative to each belief system.  

What Are We Doing?
Oil on Canvas
36x94 Inches

Figures from left to right:

-Stanley Tookie Williams: 12/29/53 – 12/13/05, founder of the Crips street gang in Los Angeles and executed for the 1979 murders of Albert Owens, Yen-Yi Yang, Tsai-Shai Lin, and Yee-Chen Lin.  He was born to a 17 year old mother and had no contact with his father.

-Paris Whitney Hilton:  Heiress to the Hilton Hotel and Real Estate fortune, a celebrity socialite.

The significance of this painting lies in the upbringing of Stanley Tookie Williams and Paris Hilton.  Aside from their obviously different body image, these two individuals were born into incredibly different conditions with two completely opposite upbringings.  Viewers can question to what extent wealth leads to apathy or incompetence and poverty leads to despair. While these paintings are not meant to justify unconstructive or malicious actions of others, it is important to recognize prior influences that affect one’s disposition.  I purposefully placed the figures in a bare landscape covers a  sense of isolation, loneliness and mystery. 

Where Are We Going?
Oil on Canvas
36x94 Inches

Figures from left to right:

-Donald Rumsfeld:  US Secretary of Defense under the Bush Administration, largely responsible for U.S. involvement in Iraq.

-Iraqi Child with Weapon: A young 13 year old child holding a semi-automatic weapon.
 
Our place of birth is a major influence on our values and political beliefs. This painting is a comparison of political differences ranging from an elderly Western politician to a young Arab child. 

Procedure & Results

Through the handling of the paint, I aimed to heighten the connection of the spectator’s relationship and understanding of the subjects.   Embedded into the landscape are abstract forms in an effort to represent the ideas of this series in a non-representational manner.  Working with abstraction to portray the disparities in humanity added an entirely new element in the oil painting series.

In the first of the series titled Who Are We?, painted between Pope John Paul II and John Lenon on the surface of the landscape are a progression of loose rectangular forms that recede into space.  These imprecise, overlapping shapes evolve out of the cobble stones and are meant to be indications into the varying spiritual and moral perspectives held those in the painting.  They are painted somewhat transparent as to fill the space with mystifying abstraction to mimic the lack of certainty in any spiritual belief.  In other words, these forms compose the ground, but also exhibit unique lines shapes that are not entirely accurate to the landscape but hold relevancy to the rest of the work.  While it was my attempt to create intuitive and non-cliché abstraction to height the spiritual and moral message of this painting, it may be that my artistic choices are in fact learned reactions, and not truly original.  The subtle use of color in these shapes may be linked to my understanding the “heavens” where color generally equals happiness, bliss, or paradise, and the rectangular forms can be seen as symbolic steps of one’s ascendance into a spiritual place.  Reviewing these aspects of the painting, I can see there is little evidence for viewers to make any association between these forms and the spiritual beliefs, morals or motives held by those in the painting.  These abstract attempts are personally significant to myself, but can be loosely interpreted.  Nonetheless, the children playing in the dirty street conditions are dominated by the pale portrait in the foreground of Ken Lay.  Texturally painted with thick brush strokes, Lay’s greed overwhelms the thinly painted children who are positioned behind his body, where the thick application of his portrait is a  symbol of his voracity.  To the far right, Rob Hubbard is painted in variations of violet and other contrived colors to denote his imaginative belief system Scientology.  Pope John Paul II is placed in the center of the composition because Catholicism is the most influential religion in the US.  The Pope is painted in true flesh tones and largest in size.   Though I do not practice any religion, Catholicism is the closest religion I have any familiarity with, so it was my intent to connect to my audience through a recognizable figure that can be used to decode the content in the painting when other figures may be less recognizable to the viewer.

In the second painting What Are We Doing?, Stanley Tookie Williams stands in contrast to Paris Hilton by their physical structure and personal background.   Paris is placed at the center of the composition for her “everything revolves around me” mentality, holding a shopping bag with an oblivious smile on her face.   She is painted with artificial colors (primarily in greens and blues) to stress her materialistic and unordinary lifestyle, while Stanley is staring out of the frame in his contrasting orange prison uniform. Stanley was born into a very poor, gang and drug ridden part of South Central LA.  He used drugs and gangs to replace his lack of love and support from a father for the little opportunity his life presented.  With Stanley’s background in mind, I painted his left arm green and translucent, with minor gridlock strokes to present the notion that he was fixed into his destructive lifestyle even before he was convicted and spent years in prison before his execution.   Paris leaves a trail of nothingness in a landscape painted with primarily burnt sienna to emphasize a dry, barren landscape where nothing truly productive is accomplished.  Irregular brush strokes are used in the terrain to create something reminiscent of a hole or crevice in the bare landscape to the right, and the application of the paint is very abstract and counterfeit behind Paris.  I intentionally used excessively pure bright colors create a muddy, unsaturated mess.

In the final painting, Where Are We Going? I utilized the earth tones as in the previous painting, both for Donald Rumsfeld and the young Iraqi child.  By doing so I we see a close affiliation with their territory of the landscape that can ultimately influencing their political standing.  Embedded in the landscape are abstract forms, hints at some type of emblematical progressive force (Democracy) that is impeding into untouched territory.  While the application of the paint in this area is not completely un-representational, the complexity is much great in the area closer to Rumselfd’s face in contract to the lack of brush strokes on the right.  As the young Iraqi holds his ground to the right of the composition, his body has is covered by washes and glazes of earth tones and the sky as to be consumed by his birthplace and disregarded by Rumsfeld’s territorial invasion.  Out of all the paintings in this series, this work is the most literal, but still my intention is to hold heighten ones comprehension of our placement in the world by realizing we support and believe what we do because of our birthplace. 

Summary
Zealous Distinctions is certainly a series of paintings that encompasses a large number of ideas regarding humankind.  As opposed to viewing each painting one at a time, these painting work best as a series because the associations between the figures become more apparent as a greater number of juxtapositions are presented.     

I discovered in the process of creating this series that trying to close the detachment between the subject and spectator was a very difficult proposition.   While I may seem to have great ideas as to how to apply the paint to the figure or landscape and what colors to use to get my message across, my choices are often learned reactions that hold no obvious connection to the figures in the painting.

Still, I believe the series is successful in the end.  From the rendering of my subjects to the execution of the anecdotal landscape, the interaction of the figures is visually stimulating. I am confident there is adequate information for viewers to relate to the extreme human inequalities this painting presents, and hopefully to eventually recognize the prior circumstances that determine our placement in the world.

Bibliography
1)  Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128: 
2)  Fisher, S. (1986). Development and structure of the body image. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum:  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=648641
3)  Celebrity Culture in America: http://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Art/oldspeak-celebrity2.asp
4) Eckert, M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1992). The self-knower: A hero under control. New York: Plenum.
5)  Ellis, H. D., & Young, A. W. (1989). Handbook of research on face processing. New York: New-Holland.
6)  Kleinke, C. L. (1978). Self-perception: The psychology of personal awareness. San Francisco: Freeman.
7) Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 31, 464-472.
8)  McMartin, J. (1995). Personality psychology: A student centered approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9)  Patzer, G. L. (1985). The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum.
10)  Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press