Spring 1984

Editor: We’re looking at Ray Parker’s "Spring," made in 1984. It’s acrylic on canvas and has these striking blocks of red and blue separated by white. The colors really pop, but I'm curious, what's your take on it? Curator: This piece, while seemingly simple, speaks volumes about the socio-economic landscape of its time. We're looking at acrylic, a relatively inexpensive and readily available material in the 80s, splashed onto a canvas. Consider the means of production here. How does the choice of readily accessible materials reflect a democratisation of art-making, challenging the elite status associated with traditional oil paints? Editor: That’s interesting, I hadn't thought about the economic side of his material choices. Curator: Exactly! And let's think about colour field painting itself. What statement is Parker making by choosing such simple forms? Is he perhaps commenting on the mass production and consumption that defined the 1980s, presenting a kind of visual shorthand that mirrored the efficiency of manufacturing processes? These fields of colour, applied with a deliberate flatness, push against any notion of inherent depth, reflecting a society perhaps equally defined by surfaces. Editor: So, it's not just about the visual, but also about the statement being made about materials and their availability. I suppose the flatness really emphasizes that. Curator: Precisely. How is Parker challenging notions of "high" art through his deliberate embrace of seemingly mundane materials and techniques? He forces us to reconsider the value we place on materials and process, asking, 'What constitutes art in an age of mass production?' Editor: I see. It changes how you look at the whole work when you start thinking about the materials like that. Curator: Exactly. Art isn't just the product; it’s a commentary on its production and consumption. The material speaks, and it has quite the story to tell.