Artist's Interview: Part 3
Artist's Statement | Biography | Narrative Bio
Site Index | | Translate | Contact Us
Q: George Kubler, an art historian, wrote a book entitled The Shape of Time, Remarks on the history of things. In this book he attempted to describe a visual model for understanding time. In pondering the philosophy behind your work, have you ever considered what a time model might look like (as an art historian has) or attempted to determine the feasibility of time travel (as many physicists have)?
A: As to any thoughts on history, time and repetition, I consider time a particular property exclusive to the third-dimensional material creation. In higher dimensions, time, as the linear sequencing of events or as the measure of distance related to cyclic periodicity does not exist. In this creation, moreover, the illusion of time seems to be a by-product of the limitations of the third-dimensional plane which is characterized by extreme densification and crystallization. As such, somewhat like the inhabitants of Swift's Flatland who disappear when they make a turn perpendicular to their plane, we are unable to experience fully the more real simultaneity of experience of now-time, where everything is happening in the eternal present, as on a painting's surface.
I have heard the difference between linear time and now-time described as comparable to the difference between seeing a movie sequentially, frame by frame, with a beginning and an end, and seeing the film strip off the reel, laying on the floor, all the frames simultaneously accessible regardless of where in the reel's sequence it may be located, like looking at slides on a slide sheet rather than in projected sequence, or at a deck of cards scattered on a table. 2
This explains clairvoyance and the ability to "travel" to the past or future, as well as the ability to change the past and future from the ever present now. These phenomena require second order physics, however, which are normally not accessible within the boundaries of the third dimension's tempic field, and which science does not know about nor understand. These second and third order physics are what make teleportation possible, as well as instantaneous travel across this universe and travel to other universes. 3
Q: Relatively new theories on metaphysics discuss fractal geometry. There are now many artists using fractals and fractal-like structures throughout their works. Have you knowingly used any fractal-like structures in your works and do you put any merit in the idea that fractal geometry may visually describe all universal structure and reactions?
A: I love fractal images and find them absolutely fascinating, however I have not studied fractals in depth nor have I used fractals in my own work. From what I understand about fractals, fractal images are generated by computers programs using mathematical formulas. Colors may be assigned to certain values, and the formulas' parameters may be changed to yield different patterns. Fractals are characterized by infinite self-similarity at all levels of magnification or reduction. They are like worlds within worlds within worlds to infinity and back. There is something mystical in the very beautiful patterns that emerge, and I find them very beautiful, moving and exciting. I've thought about including fractal "guest galleries" in my website, inviting fractal artists whose work I especially enjoy to contribute images, but for now I am making do with links to the Infinite Fractal Loop Web Ring page where some amazing fractal sites may be accessed, including some with extensive information on fractal mathematics, history and theory.
Q: The artist Kandinsky claimed "The process of creation is the same in art and nature." His statement seemingly discusses a new drive in science known as "biomimicry."
Biomimicry has been described as "the emerging race to mimic natural processes." Do you feel that your paintings somehow mimic nature's templates?
A: I am not familiar with the term "biomimicry," but from your description it sounds like some kind of technological term such as ergonomics or artificial intelligence; in other words, a way of technologically imitating biological systems more and more convincingly for practical applications, or the imitation of natural processes or methods.
As for biomimicry in my paintings, my paintings may allude to natural effects at times, as in the paint dripping effects in some of the Ode to Nature paintings, and at other times they may use natural forces and materials to refer to those kinds of things, as in "using" gravity and thin paint viscosity to refer to the pull of gravity or to the flow of water. Nonetheless, my work's relationship to nature is metaphorical and conceptual, using formal elements to comment on, or to allude to natural structures or effects. Any of "nature's templates" are used at arm's length, "in quotes," so to speak, in the context of artistic craft. I am more interested, in terms of my work, in the metaphysical aspects of nature in the sense of its underlying structures, organizing principles and essences, than in Nature's dazzling beauty and in the details of its outward manifestations. As with time, and as with art, in general, surface effects hold little interest for me --which is not to say that I forbid them in my work, only that in my work they are incidentally tossed off, and that they are not substantially what I consider the works to be about.Regarding mimicry and effects in my work, I might add that I self-consciously work within the painting tradition, with traditional media, in the creation of more or less traditional modernist paintings. I more or less hold to Greenbergian standards of integrity in painting as a two dimensional, material surface activated by materials per se, usually oil paint, without trying to render convincingly "realistic" illusions with the painting materials which would attempt to fool the eye and negate the materiality of surface and paint. I believe, furthermore, in the capacity of painting to express directly (more or less) attitudes, feelings and ideas of the artist, much as an accomplished pianist or violinist can express subtle, deep and complex feelings, attitudes and ideas through the playing of his instrument. As may be clear, I do not subscribe to reductive Marxist-materialist doctrines denying expressiveness or content in painting in favor of a penurious insistence on the absolute supremacy of the materiality of a painting as object. Perhaps the one way I may be considered eccentric in my work in my unabashed use of the primed white canvas as an abstract, timeless arena upon which to deploy expressive marks.
All that said, nonetheless, I am not doctrinaire about any of these things and would hardly hesitate to reverse myself on any of them. It isn't blind allegiance to critical doctrines that determines my methods, but freedom to choose absolutely. That I may have expressed a certain consistency in my choices in the past does not mean that I always will. At best it would indicate certain predilections and the familiarity of habits.
Q: Going back to the last question, what might you think about fractals as a model for the "shape of time"?
A: I do not have an opinion on fractals as a model for the "shape of time," and in general do not find the subject of time very interesting, as it seems to me to be a created effect particular to this plane. Because it is an effect, though, time may appear elastic, there being different notions of time even within this universe, and we can experience it as such. 4
Q: Fractals are one method for visualizing the "worlds within worlds" model of the universe. Do you feel that the universe has finite space or infinite space and why?
A: Since there are more than one universe, there would appear to be boundaries to this one, although I am not clear as to how these limits would manifest. Beyond that, I would imagine there would be no reason for absolute limits to exist. I believe that there are no limits to creation.
Q: I found you through technology. Technology being the advancement of a worldwide network consisting of computers and high speed communications. Artists have often been considered technology oriented. When we say something is "state of the ART" we assume it's technologically advanced. Yet, advancements in most media (materials/techniques) are seemingly slow when compared to high tech alternatives. Why have you chosen to express your ideas as paintings? Do you experiment with other mediums or do you plan to in the future?
A: As to why I have chosen to express my ideas in painting (and drawing, and printmaking-- in traditional media), no compelling answers present themselves which do not also sound like apologies.
I mean, I could go on to say that, after all, I did take up website publishing, but that's not the same, really, even though it has facilitated a much wider audience for my work. This may be another one of those issues that I don't find very interesting...
Perhaps the fact of my paintings being so large may explain something...but not really (I was going to say that the physicality, the actual "presence" of the physical paintings affects their meaning and the viewer's experience of them-- what I've termed "absolute scale"-- so that the making of paintings with all of their attributes has merits of its own.)...
I guess I could also whine about new technology not necessarily replacing older technology-- after all we still read books and write with pencils...or I could say something about being able to make things that people can have around in their environments, like plants, or pets, and which affect them for the better, improving their quality of life...
Or maybe I could grasp at ergonomics, like why we can't make keyboards too small or else we can't type on them... But,-- naahh!...
Anyway, I have experimented with other media-- sure I have --I used to be a photography major, and I don't rule out experimenting with even more other media in the future-- honestly. (I must say, though, playing around with Photoshop to manipulate-- to weird out, rather --some pictures doesn't really inspire me...)
Look, if I have the need to use other media, I will, ok?... Hey, I'm cool!...
Nonetheless, this does seem to be an appropriate and valid question to pose to an artist, especially in view of the fast pace of new technologies and events in our world these days. Let's see...:
Painting (and drawing, and printmaking, and occasionally small-scale sculpture) have proven to be sympathetic media for my interests in art: the direct, immediate and emotionally resonant expression of conceptual ideas of a philosophical nature. This in contrast to a cool, dry, mechanical, passionless rendering or transcription of thoughts.
I enjoy working directly, physically, with paints, color, brushes and expansive surfaces. I enjoy the dance-like muscularity of painting gestures, full blown and with intensity, as a performance captured, communicating the uniqueness and particularities of the moment of execution, the sense of bringing to life in a vital and emotionally intense way the merest wisps of ideas whose impact remained unseen, unexpressed and unmanifest until their actual execution in a dramatic moment of decision. These media suit my personality, my expression, my essential self.
I recognize that there are other facets to me that may require different qualities of expression, different media, different scales, different attitudes. I have become proficient in this type of activity: in the languages of scale, color, light and shade, line, paints and materials; in the translations between them, in their individual appropriateness for specific purposes or expressions. These things suit me. It is important to me that there be fitness between medium and expression, that each medium be understood in terms of what it wants to do, what is most appropriate for it to do, what it does best, and that the right one be used, or that the right use of one be discovered, to match a specific expression.
I do not on principle rule out working in different media, and in fact I welcome these adventures and challenges. I am not hide-bound; I do insist in understanding a medium, for my relationship to it is not casual or unfeeling --all to the contrary: I consider media as direct extensions not only of the body but of the soul.
So yes, I experiment with other media and welcome the opportunity to learn about them, but for me it is not a matter of a casual liaison, but of a deep and intensive one, with media.
