9.6.01
Do you ever consider painting straightforward, pictorial representation?
All of the work stems from that desire to re-present these images in a straightforward manner but not being in possession of that particular virtuosic faculty, has forced me to approach them from a slightly different angle.
Why filter or layer?
The filter was initially just the evidence of the process; a simple, systematic means to transfer these images that I was intrigued by. In the new paintings the filter has taken on a life of its own....filter as equivalent, primary, or secondary to the image it is portraying.
Are the paintings developed around a specific matrix of co-existing values?
Not so much developed around as in acknowledgment of that agitation between abstraction and representation, expression and the absence thereof and a studied, scientific approach versus intuition.
What happened to the technological reference imbedded in most of your paintings made between l996-2000? How do you describe your recently developed filtering system?
That reference seems as applicable to Islamic pattern or Byzantine mosaics as it does to digital technology. That allusion still resonates, albeit much more quietly. These new filters are also based on the principle of utilizing pattern to reconstruct an image but rather than employing geometric, repeated modules, I’m now using a second image through which the source image is seen.
How and why do you use distance in the paintings?
Primarily due to the fact that I don’t have an emotional investment in the material from the outset. That and the fact that you can’t see a painting with your nose against it.
9.9.99
Do you think of your paintings as a way to expose, and enjoy, the rather lurid voyeurism inherent in photography, especially in amateur and commercial photography?
I don’t think of this work as being particularly voyeuristic. The more recent work has seemed to lean more towards a gentle or subdued image. I think of the drawings I have been working on as being much more voyeuristic, using photographs from swingers magazines which are meant to be titillating but ultimately occur as lonely, desperate attempts to find adventure and fulfillment. I think that the paintings are merely voyeuristic due to the fact that the images are not mine and I find myself looking for a story within them--a story which I try to expose by boiling out the proverbial impurities.
In making these eight or so paintings, how intentional is the range of subject matters, and what are some of the unifying factors for the grouping?
The range of subject choice is not really an intentional device employed in the hope of steering the viewer to a particular conclusion, but ultimately there does exist a rather quiet, if not silent, conversation between the paintings--one that arises not so much out of a common theme as out of a common hand. The subjects in the most recent work have become less of a statement and more of a simple means to an end.
You seem to have upped the abstract nature of things, making more obvious demands on the viewer to fill in, rearrange, continue...
...and embrace this amorphic, nebulous middle-ground between the simple pleasure of re-creating something recognizable and cogent, and the sheer frustration of losing that object/image. I feel the more abstract work informs the representational paintings and vice versa. Demands are made on the viewer to find representation in the abstract, and hopefully this allows them to fall into those less recognizable moments found in the more straightforward work.
What is your favorite thing about this simultaneity of abstraction and representation?
Possibilities.
Is it that you often scan books looking for a picture of something specific, or with specific qualities, and just can’t find it? Are there sometimes surprises that you clip and save for months or years, yet still can’t quite paint? What is it about those? Or the ones you think would be perfect, and you try, yet they don’t translate.
It’s a rare occurrence to find an image that strikes me as something that I would be interested in painting--sitting down and actually executing it. Most of these images are floating around the studio and waiting for the right moment to be exploited. I’m always looking for something specific; I guess I just don’t have it down to a science yet. The work that does not translate well usually comes as a surprise (as do the successes) yet the relative failures seem to lead in their own interesting directions.
Are preparatory drawing or paintings necessary?
I do not work with preliminary sketches for the paintings. Preparatory drawings would deny the enjoyment of the excavation of the image, and it is this process of discovery and evolution of the work--the physical construction--that keeps my interest.
Do many paintings get near completion and then tossed?
There always seems to be something salvagable in the failures, if only the materials used to make them.
Not dodging content so much as attempting to introduce a more plural interpretation of content through the employment of a contradictory or suggestive title.
The titles read rather like the appearance and disappearance of images in your paintings, latent or oblique, yet after a view, also obvious and with a sense of humor. Is humor important to you?
I guess... I mean, to inject some levity into work which could be construed as formulaic and stiff is definitely important to me. I think of the titles as a seed of information--not always humorous, but hopefully providing entrance into the work.
Are your paintings attempts at unifying oppositional values?
I don’t think of the values as being oppositional. I’m merely using these tools in order to construct paintings.
What is the origin of the module, and what is its relation to the subject?
The module for all of these paintings is based on a grid of equilateral triangles, which in turn forms six-pointed stars. The relation of the module to the subject composed by it really has less to do with the subject that it is defining than it does with the shape of the unit itself; the way in which it intersects with the piece that it is resting against or atop, the overlay of the second pattern over the first, forming a matte surface between the semi-glosses, the organic against the mechanical. Again, I find it similar to the choice of subject in that it is introducing something new, a sense of play, and keeping something fresh that so easily could become stale.
5.2.98
Do you think of your paintings as a way for you to study something?
Instead of using the word "study" I would say I am chronically fascinated by the specific emptiness of certain images. Turning them into formal arrangements of color, pattern, and repeated form becomes a sublimation, a ritual that allows me to enter their profound vapidity.
What’s the source of your images?
The sources of the paintings are found images: postcards, travel brochures, newspaper clippings, images culled from internet dating services, and amateur pornography.
Are there specific, overall qualities you look for in an image, or is it more to the particularities of the subject matter?
I think both determine the particularities of the subject and the overall qualities of the image. The subject matter is inevitably wedded to the atmosphere/ambiance of the picture and it is this systematic relationship that intrigues me.
How do you get from the commonalities of the original to the painting?
As straightforwardly as possible. I begin with the image, lay down a proper sized grid in relation to the size/scale of the image, translate this grid to the canvas, find a motif that works well within the particular canvas, and start the painstaking process of actually painting the thing.
Are the shapes of the units related to the painting’s meanings?
No, not initially. But what begins as play/experimentation culminates in a bemused recognition of the emergence/discovery of the final effect of the coalescence; i.e. how the structure holds, supports, defines, and ultimately becomes the image itself.
Is repetition of interest?
Repetition is obviously an interest, more like a mantra. The meditative boredom and masochistic rhythm are central to the work. What about humor?
I think the use of humor or subversion serve as comic sidekick to the more stoic works as well as offsetting the analytic/dry nature of the process.
Is the structure purposefully blurring the science/art separation?
No. Artists have always responded to the idioms of other disciplines; incorporating, adding to, or simply ignoring them.
Are your subject matter choices a way for you to work comfortably within the painting tradition?
Certainly. The work unabashedly looks to that tradition and hopefully uses history as a springboard to invention. The paintings aspire to a classicism filtered through a pre-millennial screen.