Culver City Flood 1976

Editor: So, here we have Charles Garabedian’s "Culver City Flood" from 1976, crafted with oil and watercolor. It feels like a fantastical scene, almost dreamlike, with this creature thrashing in what I assume is supposed to be flood water. What do you see when you look at this painting? Curator: Initially, the composition strikes me. Note the artist’s utilization of layered planes and skewed perspective. Are we truly observing a cohesive landscape, or rather a collage of visual fragments assembled upon the picture plane? Examine the beast itself. Is its form organic or contrived? Editor: That’s a good point! I didn't consider the different perspectives used. The dragon seems like it's in its own plane compared to the building in the background, which is confusing. Does that disrupt the unity of the work? Curator: The apparent "disunity" could be intentional. Consider how Garabedian employs color. Note the contrast between the earthy tones of the creature and the washed-out blues and greens dominating the background. Do these hues create a sense of unease, challenging our preconceived notions of pictorial harmony? Furthermore, contemplate the raw application of the paint. Is there a deliberate lack of refinement, perhaps hinting at deeper conceptual concerns beyond mere representation? Editor: I see what you mean about the paint application. It is interesting how he juxtaposes a mythical beast with something more mundane like... a car? I had not noticed it initially. Curator: Precisely. This seemingly random inclusion forces us to re-evaluate our interpretation. Editor: It makes the viewer work harder to understand what's being communicated through the whole. I was so focused on the creature at first. Thanks, that’s really given me a fresh perspective. Curator: Indeed, analyzing how these elements interact provides insight into the work's underlying structure. I found this truly enriching.