A Response to Georges Rousse

What struck me first about Georges Rousse’s painting techniques, before he began to use paint to flatten a space, was how he allowed the confines of his studio space to dictate the figures he painted on each surface, which resulted in the paintings appearing flat and accentuating the dynamics of the room. I enjoyed seeing this transition between figures floating and, what Rousse describes as, “aggravated” in space, to figures/shapes that appear to be literally floating in space across a room, as if the shapes were a transparent wall of color erected in the center of the studio.

By using paint to create sculptural forms, Rousse in a sense adds to the architecture of the building by creating a convincing illusion. Rather than transforming the photograph, the artist manipulates the space and photographs this manipulation, but the result is so realistic and strange, that it could cause the viewer to question the way in which the photo was produced, such as by wondering if the space is real or not.

I find it almost mesmerizing and extremely intriguing how Rousse undertakes such a complex process to create a composition that looks so simple and effortless, as if a transparent sheet of colored plastic or glass were merely set up in space. This I think makes for a lovely contrast between both simplicity and complexity, and depth versus surface. These concepts are further exemplified in the artists transition from using paint to flatten a space, to changing the actual architecture of a room by cutting what looks like a two dimensional object into a 3D space. This results in a complex composition where the illusion of a flat, geometric object flattens a space, but at the same time unveils a new layer of depth to the composition. The result is both unsettling and invigorating at the same time.