| 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.
|
