By D.F.Coleman © 2006 New York, New York
It is hard to get a Truman Marquez image out of your mind. A Truman Marquez painting essentially speaking is meant to resist comprehension. Yet it comes out at you frenzied. It pummels you, it cajoles you, and it tumbles along, happily assuming its roly-poly poses. Notwithstanding the veneer of Marquez’s aggressively surrealistic, vertiginous, fun-house atmosphere that confronts the viewer in the preliminary stages of beholding the work at hand over time something haunting, even unsettling, permeates the work.
This is the result of the artist’s highly sophisticated pictorial intelligence, which recognizes the value of indicating spatio-temporal involutions reminiscent on some level of the teasing work of Escher’s in order to draw the eye and the mind to the space of possibility that can only be aroused by enigma and paradox.
The artist’s overall ideological ambition is to frame philosophical issues, which obviously compel him. These are set within an order of the mind intent on circulating questions around the designations of sameness and difference, separateness and integratedness, volition and the involuntary, destiny and fate.
The artist alludes to the questioning of ontological premises and brings into play a set of considerations referring to the task of the artist which is to integrate himself (or herself) within the stream of teleological history and historical conventions. This task also includes the recognition that at some point a resistance of this quadrant of “knowingness” must be put into play. This refusal allows the artist to innovate (thus renovating the past) through present actions. Optimally, Marquez seems to be implying, the artist should end up, culturally speaking, as being seen in a space which is in advance to knowledge (and history) itself. Truman Marquez’s paintings are remarkable images, which contain spaces that refer to primary temporality seen as a dynamic unity whose dimensions overlap one another while never co-inciding.
His work suggest that he has given great care to recognize that questions leading to subjectivity and non-coincidence immediately introduces our awareness that time guarantees its openness to the Other, the very condition which allows for shared participation in the common creating of meaning. What we can all share in the viewing of this work is an artist engaged in the process of creation whose very subject is creation itself. This tautological, self-referencing engagement on the part of the artist leads the viewer to a space of wonderment, carnival vertigo.