I have been making working drawings as proposals for sculptures from the time I was a fine art student at the University of Windsor. I also made works on paper and on small pieces of canvas as studies for the paintings that I was working on during that period. Those drawings as ideas continued throughout my two years as a graduate student at Florida State University. Drawings as ideas/proposals continued throughout my first period of abstraction as finished works on paper or as proposals for sculptures that might eventually be realized three-dimensionally. During 1977-1978, I did many streams of consciousness drawings as ideas for welded steel sculptures. I would make one drawing after another until I felt I had reached my limit during that sitting. They were then placed in envelopes that were dated and set aside. That process continued until the envelope was full. Sometimes weeks or months would pass by before I looked at what I had laid down on paper.
The drawings for the second period began in 1988 with my first large free-standing sculpture that ushered in my use of symbols and metaphors to create a short narrative. That approach to recording my ideas on paper was sidelined for a period while I worked directly constructing small sculptures as models that were seen as studies for possibly larger versions. Very few drawings were made during the construction of the “Portrait of the Artist” series. Often notes were written instead of working drawings. More times than not during this conceptual figurative period, I just started to construct work based just on an idea that I had. For the “Icarus” series I made 7 bronze studies with only written notations on the work.
The third working period that ushered in my reinvestigation of abstraction began with the copper and tin wall constructions. There weren’t any working drawings in this initial period of my return to abstraction as the work was constructed and developed as it was being worked on. However, I did make a number of small wall sculptures as studies that bore a similarity to the final version. It was not until 2013 that I started making drawings again as possible options to pursue. The drawings allowed me to explore other ways of depicting and developing the initial idea. Drawings for this body of work were made using charcoal and graphite. Once again, the drawings were seen by me as stand-alone works as the paper offered one type of surface to express my ideas that was different from the other physical surfaces that I was exploring and working with in the construction of my sculptures. With these drawings, I began treating and approaching the paper as if it was any other material I was exploring. The paper surfaces could be altered using a variety of sandpapers or scrubbed with a wire brush or simply made coarse using a variety of tools to create an irregular, textured surface that I used in the construction of my sculptures. The charcoal or graphite was then worked into the paper to develop the drawing.
From 2012 onward, I continuously made small 7” h X 5” w idea drawings as they emerged in my mind while working on the construction of my sculptures. As ideas came up while working on a sculpture, I would make notations of my thoughts with the idea of re-examining those ideas another day. Each year since, I have created between 150-200 such drawings. From this collection of drawings, I usually made some 25 wall-dependent sculptures a year.
Making a sculpture often takes a great deal of time from beginning to end. As a result, my body is frequently in one place while my mind is motoring along thinking of other things that come up as I am working on the sculpture at hand. When these ideas come up, I quickly record my thoughts as my memory is such that I will likely forget them while trying to complete the sculpture that I am working on. Consequently, there is always a small pad in the studio to record those ideas that may or may not be followed up on. As in the past, the idea drawings are put into envelopes that are dated as they correlate to the date on the drawings. Eventually I would look at those drawings. Sometimes weeks or months will pass before I look at those idea drawings again. Enough time will have passed by then that my head is likely to be in another space. As a result, I will see those ideas with fresh eyes. If they are worthwhile pursuing, I will make them. Not all ideas are worth pursuing further but they are relevant in keeping the imagination in motion and are a good record of my thoughts.
From 2017 onward, I have continued to make many pastel powder-coloured studies of my proposed aluminum wall sculptures. Once again, these works on paper were seen as stand-alone works. These drawings offered the opportunity to make colour studies of the compositions I was considering constructing or in some cases had constructed already. In the latter case, they were seen as further options. Often these drawings are the same size as the final wall construction. The paper surface offered a different visual response than the powder- coated aluminum sculptures, which I liked a great deal. (11/28/2021)
My drawings have always been about the work at hand in the studio. The drawings have been studies for work that will be realized or statements about the completed work or they have been about other ways of examining a finished work.
The drawings are a record not only of my thoughts, as in the idea drawings, that have come before the finished work, they are also a record of what I have made. Making a drawing of an idea often takes a long period of time between the start and the final realization of the idea. A great deal of time can be spent considering the many options a composition can offer. Even as the work progresses, thoughts on its conclusion are constantly being re-evaluated. I always leave room for the element of chance to introduce something not necessarily previously considered. Allowing chance to alter the direction that a work will finally take is essential to discovering new and unexpected aspects that were not previously considered. Surprises that unfold magically take the work occasionally in different directions than what was initially imagined. (4/21/23)
I cannot say that I have created a brand when it comes to my works on paper. I have a history of constantly changing how I present the imagery of my works on paper. There has not been that kind of continuous repetition that might lead to identifying who made the work. It is not about the continuity of a drawing approach that interests me but rather that I find a way to represent the next body of work in a way that reflects the three-dimensional work. (7/12/23)
The work produced since 2011, with my re-examination of abstraction, has not been about something as it was during my second defined/distinct work period but rather it is something. That something has been the focus of my ongoing interest in line and how the use of line impacts on the reading of a work be it two-dimensional or three-dimensional. It can be as simple as a single line moving across a large open field or as complex as a group of lines defining an architectural space.
The works on paper are my two-dimensional representation of my ideas. Though this body of work relates to the three-dimensional work it is nonetheless independent of it. They are stand alone works. The translation of the ideas on paper offers the viewer a different way of seeing and understanding an idea and composition. The results on paper direct how the three-dimensional might unfold in spite of the great differences in materials and processes.
The approach to presenting an image, at times, has developed using a number of different drawing materials, i.e. charcoal and pastel powder. At other times the works on paper have been constructed with the initial outline of the composition defined using a template. The template allows for the exact replication of the composition when the work is made with a series in mind. In this case the open defined areas have been covered at times using pastel powders.
There have been times when the exterior perimeter of the work on paper has been shaped much like the finished sculpture. At other times the final image has been developed across a traditional ground i.e., rectangular, or square format.
If I could characterize one dominant theme in my work over the past fifty years, it would be my interest in line, even though it has come and gone many times over those decades. Line was part of my artwork throughout my six years as an art student. It has appeared in many of my small models from 1974, some of which were constructed on a larger scale, such as “Trammel” and “Shift” from 1979 and “Lambeth Way” from 1980 to “Law’s Field” and “Windsor Field” from 1983.
What characterized these sculptures was the use of straight lines to define the visual image. The use of line changed in 1997 from being used to construct an abstract composition to being used to construct a narrative as in “The Blue House.” In 1998, line was used to construct a monumental narrative when two eight-foot-tall wheels and a combination of two modeled arms formed an irregular linear element that held up the horizontal platform in the “Chariot of Anger” from 1998-2000. Line in 1999 was used to form the grid as a framing device for “Untitled (Jeff Sproul)”. In 1997 the linear element no longer defined the abstract composition but rather was a working element in the narrative sculptures.
Line as an abstract component re-emerged in 2011 with the copper sculptures titled, “Drift No.1” through to “Drift No.5”. Line was once again seen as an abstract component of the overall abstract composition and3 no longer used to define a representational component.
The use of line as subject matter entered my lexicon of work in full force with that body of work constructed using copper and tin as a material as in “Linear Composition No.3”. Now the line was truly the subject. Lines were created using a variety of methods as in “Linear composition No.4, No.5 and No.6” in December 2012.
The quality of line has changed frequently over the years from being fast and furious to being loosely defined as in “Linear composition No.6” in 2012. In 2013, the use of line became more organic as in “Crossings No.1 and No.2” and can be seen as the precursor to the “Wrap” series, completed between April 2016 and February 2017.
Over the years, the visual field of lines have gone from being simple or elementary as seen in the models from 1974 to the complex collection of lines as seen in “Crossings No.6” in 2013 and “Crossings No.13” from September 2013 to February 2014. The lines in 2011 moved from being straight to being curvilinear and continued in from “The Dance No.1” through to “The Dance No.3”. As 2014 wore on, the line became straight once again as in "Crosscurrent No.1", March 2014 to “Linear composition No.8 (Variation No.1)”, August 2014.
The important thing to understand is that the quality of line went from being smooth to being coarse to being smooth again. That change was determined by the body of work in which the lines appeared.
Throughout 2014 and 2015, the use of the line went through many changes as the work at hand required of it for the composition to be finished. At times the lines were carefully constructed, whereas at other times the quality of the lines changed from one part of the composition to the other as in “Trace No.1”, “Trace No.2”, and “Trace No.4”, all completed early in 2016.
A radical change occurred in April 2016 in how the line was not only produced but presented to the viewer. A second radical change that was introduced at that time in that body of sculptures was the re-emergence of strong colours, after having abandoned strong colours in 1974 for a truth to materials concept. In the spring of 2016, strong colours were ushered in as an emotional component of what became my lyrical constructions. Line was no longer a component of the composition; it was now the subject of the composition. Line was no longer in low relief but rather it reached out towards the viewer and occupied the viewer's physical space. The lyrical constructions that followed “Wrap No.1” explored the physical space around the sculptures.
The chosen colour(s) imparted an emotional value to the lyrical constructions. The various “Wrap” sculptures explored compression, expansion, twisting, and overlapping to offer different experiences to the viewer. At times, the various “Wrap” sculptures had their components form a tight core only to explode outward as in “Wrap No.4”. Visually, the audience was pulled into the core only to be thrown back from it as in “Wrap No.6”.
There are moments when the work is quiet and elegant as in “Wrap No.9” and “Wrap No.10”. Each configuration adopts a mood of its own from being quiet as in “Wrap No.8” to being noisy as in “Wrap No.15” and “Wrap No.17”.
As the series progressed, two different qualities of line were merged to create a visual lexicon of tension and movement across the composition as in “Wrap No. 12”, “Wrap No.14” and “Wrap No.16”. There were moments in the “Wrap” series where the line twisted and turned onto itself to create open centres. The focus of the composition was on the perimeter with the linear elements reaching into the open core/centre. These linear elements wiggled and danced towards the central open core of the composition as in “Wrap No.15” and “Wrap No.17”.
Another group of the “Wrap” series, “Wrap No.18” and “Wrap No.20”, pulled the viewer into a complex dense core. The series ended for the time being with the diptych “Wrap No.20”. It is important to understand that I spend a great deal of time thinking about the work at hand, even when some of the work happens and develops as I am working on it.
Patrick Thibert,
December 3, 2018