so, back to james little...

color. yeah, what of it?? to start, it's rather overrated. white and black hold as much profundity as is needed in painterly expression. but, having said that, color, taken to it's apex, packs the weight of a bulldozer in overdrive. color can be tough. it can be lyrical... it can be anything in between. these are easy thoughts. no big deal. color makes for pretty pictures. it also makes for serious ass-kicking painting... the pink (or yellow) one artist lays down has nothing to do with the pink (or yellow) another artist lays down. in the end, it's about intent and an understanding of the material and nature of what it is that we do. the great colorists understand how one color (and, or hue) relates to the color (and or hue) laid next to it. the truely great, in this contemporary age-- so much history behind us-- twist our notions of color a bit to the side of what we think we know about COLOR... the color of james little is just that-- the color of james little. they are earthy and temporal when you want them to ground themselves in some sort of pastel definition. they are hard and bombastic when you want them soft and powdery... this is his strength, his mission perhaps...

and culturally, intellectually, we are all the better for it.