Bacon didn't like psychological or psychoanalytic analyses of his work. For him, more important than the unconscious was what he called 'accidents'. or 'chance'. in his well-known interviews with David Sylvester he said: "I always think of myself not so much as a painter but as a medium for accident and chance" In this sense, Bacon's creative process was closer to John Cage's chance operations, than to Freud's unconscious.
A lot of speculation from Christopher Bucklow in this video. He really should, to put it politely, get on with his own art (about which we better not talk in this forum) instead of writing essays about Francis Bacon who was prolific in his output and actually produced ground-breaking and art historically important art with a profound developmental arc. I doubt that Bacon, unlike Bucklow, would have had the time (or interest) to write speculative treatises about other artists. He was too busy creating. Furthermore, Bacon despised attempts by critics and others at trying to squeeze an interpretation out of his work. He said so on numerous occasions. It seems to me that Mr. Bucklow is desperate to create some sort of legacy for himself by writing essays which evidently only the association with a man like Bacon can give him. Or he has too much time on his hands.
This is both profound and beautifully mesmerising. What a insightful writer ... amazing. Thank you.
Bacon didn't like psychological or psychoanalytic analyses of his work. For him, more important than the unconscious was what he called 'accidents'. or 'chance'. in his well-known interviews with David Sylvester he said: "I always think of myself not so much as a painter but as a medium for accident and chance" In this sense, Bacon's creative process was closer to John Cage's chance operations, than to Freud's unconscious.
@ luismanuel I'm glad someone is pointing this out! FACT!
Great essay, but it's odd that when I saw that image of head IV (Man with a Monkey) 1949. I didn't see a monkey but the mask of Darth Vader.
With respect, I do believe you are over analysing Mr Bucklow .
Take it easy ...
A lot of speculation from Christopher Bucklow in this video. He really should, to put it politely, get on with his own art (about which we better not talk in this forum) instead of writing essays about Francis Bacon who was prolific in his output and actually produced ground-breaking and art historically important art with a profound developmental arc. I doubt that Bacon, unlike Bucklow, would have had the time (or interest) to write speculative treatises about other artists. He was too busy creating. Furthermore, Bacon despised attempts by critics and others at trying to squeeze an interpretation out of his work. He said so on numerous occasions. It seems to me that Mr. Bucklow is desperate to create some sort of legacy for himself by writing essays which evidently only the association with a man like Bacon can give him. Or he has too much time on his hands.