Michael Autumn

Tag: exhibition

  • Tawny Owl in Landscape (Predator and Prey) “Stained Glass”

    Tawny Owl in Landscape (Predator and Prey) “Stained Glass”

    Title: “Tawny Owl in Landscape (Predator and Prey) (floral map)”
    Artist: Michael Autumn
    Medium: Resinous glass paints on faux leaded (composite plastic) clear cast acrylic sheet
    Size: 60cm (W) x 85cm (H)
    Edition: Original
    Authenticity: Hand-signed (bottom, far left) with purple glass paint on light pink painted cloisonné cell.
    Date: 02/2025

    Michael Autumn drawing and painting black detail lines and spots amid the laser cut black composite plastic faux leading.

    TL;DR

    Not tied to any particular medium or technique, I have tried to devise a way of achieving a stained-glass look with much more detail than is conventionally possible – using a clear acrylic sheet, laser-cut black composite “leading” (aka “cames” – the “H”-shaped strips of lead holding the glass pieces together), and the coloured “glass pieces” are transparent resinous glass paint.

    The scene is a tawny owl in a “tree”, in a landscape with animals, trees, bats, and the moon in the background. The main foreground “tree” trunk is actually made up of a variety of the owl’s prey creatures – and asks the question: if these owls eat 2-6 of these animals every day, and they live up to 24 years…?

    The centre column (the main tree trunk) of this artwork comes directly from my original thick oak wooden art puzzle (see https://michaelautumn.wordpress.com/2023/05/03/tawny-owl-with-egg-art-puzzle/). That work is naturally quite dark and monochromatic because it is a nocturnal scene, and most of the prey animals (depicted in the main tree trunk) are also nocturnal, and therefore dark and dull coloured. So I thought it would be interesting to turn the idea upside-down and make it into a vibrant kaleidoscopic “stained-glass” landscape scene.

    This imaginary landscape faux stained-glass artwork is my attempt to overcome some of the limitations of conventional stained-glass techniques. It’s hand drawn and hand painted (using transparent resinous glass paints) on a 10mm thick clear 850mm x 600mm acrylic base. The faux leading (aka “cames” – the “H”-shaped strips of lead holding the glass pieces together) (of different widths) is my devising: its hand-drawn, laser cut, black composite – glued to the acrylic base. The coloured glass effect is achieved with transparent resinous glass paint lasgely poured into each cell – an effect very much like cloisonné stained-glass.

    I’m lucky to be a completely free artist – unaffiliated to any art movement, genre, or medium; and not tied to any particular materials, methods or techniques. My main interest is expressing my creativity and achieving my designs to the best of my ability – using any material/s or techniques I can think of to help me achieve my goals. I like exploring new materials, tools, and technologies: you might call me a tech geek. I’m very interested in pushing art forward – as opposed to continuing centuries-old traditions and techniques. In every historical medium I can think of, past masters in those mediums cannot be matched – let alone surpassed – and I think it’s pointless to try. All artists can do what they like, but I am keen on creating new things. I’m very interested in trying new materials and tools that give new and/or greater creative possibilities. While I like the look of stained-glass, I find that the centuries-old tradition of cutting glass and fusing pieces side-by-side with lead – is too restrictive, time-consuming, and cumbersome. Through my own research and tests I realised it’s possible to create the same look, but more easily and in much greater detail.

    In this artwork I have simulated the opaque dark lead cames look of stained-glass using laser cut black plastic composite. I developed this idea through research and testing, and my design fully exploits the much greater detail possible. My most intricate laser can cut thin material and can readily cut 1mm latticework. The thinnest commercially available lead cames I can find are between 3.5mm and  5mm… The majority of the faux cames in this artword are 1mm, the widest is 8mm. This means not only that far greater detail in the design are achievable, but also more light can come through the window…

    Lead cames have the function of binding pieces of transparent glass side by side. But I am using coloured transparent resinous glass paint – so I don’t need to bind pieces of glass together. Cames also have an aesthetic that I like that highlights shapes and colours. I use different widths giving me greater artistic freedom than with conventional cames.

    Finally, the whole piece is covered in a thin layer of clear resin to seal everything and provide extra protection. So the actual stained-glass piece is a thin layer sandwiched between a sheet of clear cast acrylic and a clear resin topcoat. The base, or rear, acrylic sheet also acts as natural UV protection – filtering out up to 99% UV radiation. And, since this is the side facing the sun/daylight, means it is in the best position to protect the sandwiched coloured layer…

    This is just the beginning of me trying this new technique…

  • Royal Academy Summer Exhibition – Open Letter

    Dear Royal Academy Summer Exhibition,

    Ever since submissions of works for consideration to the annual Summer Exhibition have had to be done solely by photographs of the works – rather than sending in the actual works – I have felt very uncomfortable and uneasy about the selection process.

    Firstly, judging an artwork by a relatively small photograph on a small computer screen (of who-knows what quality…?) is a very disingenuous way of seeing art. This disproportionately disadvantages large works compared with smaller ones. Also it disproportionately disadvantages colourful, compared with monochrome, works. And the quality of the photographs may not do the image justice… I imagine some of the widely established best works of art in history would be rejected based on up to three 1920 x 1080 pixel photographs seen on a computer screen…

    Secondly, I am especially concerned by the request for certain pieces of information on the application forms – information that should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the selection process. Whether this seemingly irrelevant information is used in the selection process or not is simply not know, but the mere fact that it is requested – and with the process not being transparent – leaves this open to question…

    • Why do you need to know if we have exhibited at the Summer Exhibition before?!
    • Why do you need to know if we are a Friend of the Royal Academy?!
    • Why do you need to know the price of the work (you can ask for this if the work is selected)?

    The trouble of this covert digital selection process is that we have no way of even knowing if our photos are reviewed at all – or whether they are simply filtered out as rejects based on arbitrary, but irrelevant, information – or due to some other covert agenda… Who knows if preference is given to Friends of the RA…? Who knows if preference is given to people who have (or haven’t) exhibited before…? Who knows if decisions are based on the price of the work, or expected revenue from sales of the work…?

    I am not casting aspersions or making accusations about the selection process, I am merely highlighting that it is not transparent at all, it is far from the ideal way to see art, and it is certainly open to abuse. If you persist with this selection process you should make every effort to make it transparent – and not ask for irrelevant information on the application form. Some information is only relevant if the work is selected – not before…

    I mourn the days of simple transparency – when work was physically submitted and paraded in front of the selection panel – and it was sometimes filmed for all to see. This assured us that the visual impact of the whole work – with no irrelevant information – was the only selection criterion. In those halcyon days of knowing the selection panel were seeing the works in the flesh – and with no prior knowledge of the artist or the work – only then did we know that this was the most objective and honest way of a panel of RA artists making a collective subjective decision…

    I fully understand that during COVID-19 there was no alternative other than to submit photographs of artwork, but now there is absolutely no excuse not to go back to the tried and tested physically present ways – the method the RA used for nearly 250 years prior to COVID. The reduced cost of using photographs and the sending of emails has considerably reduced costs to the RA Summer Exhibition, but it is to the great detriment of the exhibitors…

    The Summer Exhibition is a hugely profitable source of revenue for the RA, but it relies entirely on the trust and support of artists. I will not be submitting any more works to future Summer Exhibitions unless we go back to the tried and tested way of doing it, or until the issues of transparency are completely addressed, and I urge other artists to seriously consider their position…

    Yours sincerely,

    Michael Autumn