“Over the years my work has moved steadily toward abstraction,” explained Nelson. “My favorite paintings tend to be the ones that are less descriptive, less literal.” Ferreyra, too, is less interested in faithful depictions, but instead drawn to abstract mathematical possibilities. He said, “I call a painting finished when the entire canvas is covered in a harmonious tapestry of geometric color-mapping.” And though both artists lean on more contemporary styles of painting, they both look to traditional subject matter for inspiration, primarily the human figure and landscape. It is, in fact, this grounding in the natural world that provides the strongest link between the two painters—and the greatest diversity.
For Ferreyra, the human figure offers infinite possibilities for expressing emotion and the tricky perception of what those emotions truly mean. One obvious inspiration comes from looking at the work of Chuck Close, whose collaged, larger-than-life figural works turn the notion of facial recognition and beauty on, so-to-speak, it’s ear. Like Close, Ferreyra’s work attempts to shift perception in this manner, by working in monumental proportions, distorting his imagery, but also, by breaking down shapes of the figure into simplified shapes within shapes. This fragmenting of shapes, he explains, is central to his aesthetic and is something that has gradually evolved over time, from angular to more organic and gracefully curved, despite the provocative gesture each subject within his painting is exuding.
Two such paintings in this recent show are Delusion II and Delusion III. In II, the subject appears to be looking in a mirror, examining something in his mouth—a bit of food stuck between his teeth, perhaps. Unaware he is being watched, the painting gives viewers a sense of peeking into a private moment. Created on a grand scale, nearly six feet tall by four feet wide, Delusion II is oddly voyeuristic while, at the same time, somehow shifting the conversation from the model’s action to that of color patterns and design, until we no longer care as much why the model is looking in his mouth, but instead, why the artist chose to depict such a scene as he did, using undulating shapes to contour the human form, and harder-edged, spiked shapes behind the figure, leaving one to wonder if this problem the model is working on comes from within himself, an introspection that just may be a personal cross to bear.
In Delusion III, Ferreyra uses a figure and either her mirror reflection or, possibly, her doppelganger as a meditation on the perception of reality. “Is it possible to arrive at a clear and precise understanding of reality,” he asks, “or must we continuously avail ourselves of plural and relative notions thereof?”
When asked, both Nelson and Ferreyra consider Richard Diebenkorn, among others, an inspiration. This is perhaps most noticeable in Nelson’s flat, tonalist forms depicted in his urban landscapes. Of his latest work, he said, “I like to see how much descriptive information I can eliminate and still maintain a recognizable subject. If the painting is mysterious or engaging—what I consider “abstract”—the viewer has a few moments to try to figure it out; for me, those are very enjoyable moments.”
Arguably, the evolution of Nelson’s work has something to do with his way of working in the studio from small sketches and studies, often done outside. “I work on 50-60 paintings at a time, doing short, 10 to 15 minutes sittings. I cycle through 15 or so paintings per day, let them dry while I’m doing the next 15, then come back to the first set every few days. Some paintings are done after a few weeks. Some take a few years. The whole process is designed to eliminate unnecessary details and allow me to stumble into unconventional interpretations of the subject.”
