The paintings of Rebecca Norton. [divider] I was looking over some paintings by Rebecca Norton yesterday in the print shop. It struck me that the geometric forms of each composition are quite loosely painted and celebrate the painterly imperfections that ensue. By 'imperfections' I don't mean that the paintings are flawed, rather that they delight in their 'hand madeness', their loose brush strokes and unsteady edges. Norton works with geometry, a math based discipline rooted in accuracy and perfection. If I think back to the major players within art history who have worked with geometric form like Malevich, Mondrian, Kelly, Martin, Stella, there is an inherent accuracy and perfection of the geometry that is also incorporated into the way the artists painted. Lines were perfectly straight or angled, painting was hard edge and controlled to create ordered, seamlessly harmonious compositions. Norton's work however removes that controlled painterly element within the geometric composition. Instead her style of painting seems more improvised, expressive and loose. Imperfect by certain standards. To be honest, it is a combination that at first took me to a place of discomfort. It is a strange juxtaposition to see the angled forms and precise geometric compositions mixed with expressionistic brush strokes. But why is that so? First off, it is not what I am used to seeing when I look at geometric artwork, I'm used to that controlled brush stroke and hard edge. In a broader sense, as a consumer I think that I have become intolerant to apparent imperfection. There is little room for it when buying something, I don't want an item with an imperfect paint job or a book with a creased cover. When I look around at most contemporary art, I see the 'flawlessness' conditioning of our commodity driven culture where artists don't leave anything to chance or potential imperfection. A lot of painting seems contrived, or risk free. Norton's looseness is a breath of fresh air and quite unexpected. While having this internal monologue looking at the paintings, I remembered Matisse's Carmelina painted in 1903. For the time, I'm sure people had a similar reactions to the one I initially had when looking at Norton's paintings. The deliberate looseness and resulting imperfection within the portrait is off putting, engaging and ultimately inspiring. The same can be said for Rebecca Norton's work. It's a mysterious contradiction of risky painting within an apparently ordered geometric composition. It functions beautifully as a metaphor for the sub atomic, mathematical chaos that ensues behind the facade of our seemingly ordered visual reality.

Written by