Page 24 - Studio International - September 1967

Jeremy Moon

You seem very much at home now with non-rectilinear together as well as single rectangles. Always the
canvases. Did you feel a sense of achievement when you problem with the shaped canvases has been that if the
first abandoned the rectangle? (If so) what did you feel outside shape of the painting is too complete in itself
had been achieved? it somehow closes off the central arena of the picture,
and when that happens it's no longer painting for me
No. I wasn't thinking in those terms then at all. The and I'm no longer interested or satisfied. Partly for this
first non-rectilinear pictures I did—in 1964—were a series reason most of my pictures in 1965/6 were rectangles.
of triangles—equilateral, 77 in. per side. At that time I The shapes I'm using now—although they may seem
didn't seem to be able to use colour diagonally in a strange at first—are just extensions of the square. The
square or oblong canvas. The triangle helped to open cut-down version of the three joined squares is the
things out for me and get the work less static and best shape I've worked with yet. If you could turn a
earthbound. After that I used variations of the triangle square inside out and still have something to paint on,
and groups of rectangles of different sizes joined I feel it might look like this.

Left: Indian Journey 1964
acrylic on canvas, 66 x 77 in.

Below left: English Rose 1967
acrylic on canvas, 62 x 53+ in.

Below: Electric Blue 1967
acrylic on canvas, 90+ x 104 in.