INWARD SMILE - GICLEE PRINT EDITION OF 50[/caption]
Q: Minimalism is deceivingly simple and I would like to ask you a little about your process. Some of the simplest designs in reality & in digital environments tend to arise from complex arrangements of basic building blocks. I see conceptual parallels with your own work. What tools do you utilize to arrive at these deceivingly simple compositions, or in other words what are your building blocks?
A: You are right to say that minimalism is deceptive, and I think that you are pointing in the right direction by looking for the building blocks. I spent a lot of time looking for the building blocks of my own work, at first I thought they’d be the key to something. What I’ve learn overtime is that finding a block only gets you a block, you have to have a plan to start getting somewhere. So, my most essential tool isn’t a thing, it is the plan.
Q: I see a connection in your work to conceptual artists like Sol Lewitt, in the sense that your actual work isn’t a physical object rather a manifestation of a plan or in your case code. The resulting image can then be made into an object through print that can then be scaled and created on demand. Would you consider yourself a conceptual artist & whom would you say have been your biggest creative influencers?
A: Definitely, but I am someone who has fought, kicked and screamed as I have become a conceptual artist. I didn’t want to become the artist I have, but I like what I am doing now. It is a bit of a strange place to be but it isn’t that unusual I think. We artists and creatives like to think that we control the flow of our work, but we don’t always. My work started to get better when I lost control, when I stopped worrying about the work and instead focused on the plan and process that could make it possible. The thing about conceptual art and especially artists like Sol Lewitt is that the instructions tend to look beyond a singular object or image. There isn’t anything special about writing down the instructions to build a cube but if you put down the instructions to have it built in such and such a response to it’s surrounding or form, then the magic starts to happen.
I have a short list, a long list and a very short list of influencers. I’ll give you my very short list; Imi Knoebel and Ellsworth Kelly. They are artists I’ve been inspired and humbled by countless times.
Q: I have had some people describe your work as 2 dimensional. The print is 2D with an element of spatial illusion in the composition, but considering that your work exists digitally, in print and also as a 3D object (say as a rug), I would say that the work is very multi dimensional. How would you respond to the 2D comment?
A: The work is solidly 2 dimensional, but it pushes at the boundaries of 3 dimensionality. The element or hint of spatial illusion is where my work energizes. The illusion of space or depth is a simple but really powerful part of the design and I rely on it heavily. Even as 3D objects the designs tend to remain flat until the illusion of space is created by the viewers perception of depth, be it through shape, form or color.
[caption id="attachment_12773" align="alignleft" width="480"]
DREAMILY RECOGNIZED - GICLEE PRINT EDITION OF 50[/caption]
Q: Lately I have seen a shift in your work away from strictly rigid geometric forms into more organic shapes. I love the contrast and connection between the two. Are the organic forms created using the same programming techniques as the more rigid geometric compositions?
A: All of the shapes and patterns are the results of programming. The organic shapes emerged naturally, all be it surprisingly from much the same process it took to draw the linear geometric forms. The organic shapes happened one day when I was staring at a collage by Hans Arp, thinking about the undulating bulbous shapes and I realized that many of them are just circles and ovals that have subtly changing radii. When I described it like that writing a program to draw organic shapes was actually pretty simple. The key is learning how to describe what you are seeing.
Q: I particularly enjoy seeing fluid organic shapes like that in the Contemptuous Picturesque being constructed from tiny geometric, or rule based forms. I relate it to the true nature of intelligent life, a deceivingly complex, ‘free thinking’ organic structure that is actually the result of complex arrangements of inanimate particles; the illusive concept of mass and the indefinable soul. There seems to be a metaphysical element to your latest work that I find very intriguing. Is this something that you are thinking about?
A: Meaning has a way of sneaking into pure abstraction, regardless of whether we want it there or not. I like that it does and I try to encourage the shapes and compositions to sort of embody an aura of insightfulness. Sometimes this results in a hollow work that is has no deeper meaning. It cynically stands reminding us to question our desire for meaning. At other times, like with the Contemptuous Picturesque, I try to build upon elusive deep feelings and create a work that can fill a void.
Q: What direction are you steering toward in your work and where do you see your work heading in the future?
A: I wish it were that I was steering my work, just as I wish I were steering my life. Loosely though what I am working on is continuing a daily practice of creating, it is almost a meditation for me. And I have several artist zine, ideas that I’d like see happen. As well I am looking for more opportunities to do design work, the collaboration with Gibbon Group and TWFineArt has been amazing.
[caption id="attachment_14783" align="alignleft" width="480"]
THEY ARE WEARISOME - GICLEE PRINT EDITION OF 50[/caption]
Q: I think one major thing I missed out is how the element of improvisation & chance enters your work. I think the other questions seem all about formula…
A: That is a great follow up, because I create work with computer code I think that some people might have the misconception that what I do is very calculated and formulaic. The reality though is that improvisation and chance are core parts of process. As to improvisation, the process of writing a program to draw something starts with observation. The way organic shapes found a way into the work is much the way everything has come into it. I look for algorithmic descriptions of patterns, shapes and colors in the world around me. I am looking for things that I can improvise on, then I throw together a program, normally in a flurry of activity, that creates variations on it. Now to chance--chance comes down to how the programs are written and used, if I want a pattern what I do is use my program to cycle through a bunch of randomly generated patterns until I find one that is doing something interesting.
