Bob Thompson's Untitled (Procession at an Aqueduct) (2008)

by Christopher Orapello

I found Bob Thompson’s Untitled rendition of a Procession at an Aqueduct to be small and quaint, but yet strangely alluring amongst a room of vastly differently images and works ranging from various time periods and artistic backgrounds; yet my eye and interest was caught by this relatively simple image by the 1960’s African-American Expressionist simply by chance.

Originally I had no interest in pursuing its quiet beckoning, since from a distance there did not seem to be much interest for me on that far wall as I made my way through the exhibition space of the Gallery; taking in much larger and more demanding imagery; imagery which screamed and flailed desperately for attention from their places to whoever caught their glance from afar. As I came upon the image by Thompson in a momentary passing I was captured by subtle physical qualities which could not have been noticed from so far away. Qualities reminiscent of early works by Jackson Pollock (Going West, 1934-38), the more publicized images of Henri Matisse (La Danse, 1909; The Red Studio, 1911; Le Bonheur de vivre, 1906) or even comparatively similar to works by Hans Hofmann (Pompeii, 1959). But regardless of the obvious visual and stylistic connections displayed by Thompson in this image, Untitled (Procession at Aqueduct) still contained elements unique unto itself. Elements which gave this image it’s unique quality and appeal.

In the works by both Pollock and Matisse I see Thompson using similar advances on space, perspective, and placement. This is relatively evident in Pollock’s Going West, 1934-38 with its use of folded-bent-twisted space as opposed to a more linear or plain like approach and Matisse’s sense of object placement where we understand that they exist in space about the landscape within the picture plan, but we as the viewer still jump between a sense of distance and depth, to the feeling of the image being more of a billboard with silhouetted beings placed atop a flat surface. The ignoring of, or configuring of, perspective is also a factor is our sense of reality when we look upon this image much like in Matisse’s The Red Studio, 1911. While at the same time, Thompson’s application and treatment of shapes and objects, as if his images were suppose to be a painterly collage laying the visual emphasis on shape, color, and composition, is much more visually closer to works by Hofmann (Pompeii, 1959) than they are in such quality as Matisse’s mentioned imagery or even his later series of Jazz collages, which depicted similar shapes and forms through the use of actual paper based collage.

In the acknowledgement of Thompson’s use of collage like imagery, I began to imagine how effective his images would be if they were in-fact collages made of colored shapes of paper. As the comparison occurred to me, I instantly realized the horrific loss that this image would ensue if it were anything other than a painting; that in someway the physicality and application of the medium and the noticeable touch of the artist held a huge amount of the appeal and reason behind the allure and seductive qualities contained in this image. To elaborate further, what makes this image so initially captivating is the reality of the artist’s touch upon the canvas. This singular element alone was more about what made the image what it was as a piece of art than the imagery depicted or content revealed; similar in comparison to the allure of Pollock’s Action Paintings where the surface and the physicality of the mark and application of paint is part of the appeal of the work as a piece of art. One could even say that everything physical about Thompson’s image -minus the content- is what makes this image what it is as a work of art and no one-thing about it is anymore significant than the other because it was this very quality which finally made me give it a chance. Unfortunately, this quality could not be enjoyed from across the room which is why I was initially uninterested in the work. The subtle nuances of the surface lost their appeal and character if viewed from at least seven feet away. As a result, the painting demanded a level of intimacy from the viewer in order to be enjoyed. The small size of the image (approx. 24” x 30”) also contributes to the level of intimacy the viewer can have with this image because unlike a large abstract painting, this image by Thompson does not dominate, or visually assault, the viewer with its presence. The viewer can enjoy this image close up without losing it in one’s peripheral vision as can happen in larger works; allowing itself to be enjoyed in a more complete manner all at once. Contrasting previous abstractionist tendencies to work large and bold, Thompson proves that mark making does not need to be large and dramatic to produce an effect and that size is not everything it’s cracked up to be.