Thank you for agreeing to stop work on your artist statement, and granting us this interview.
Not a problem, the statement is what it is. I welcome the interruption.
First off, why do you paint animals?
I paint animals because with animals I can communicate a whole range of feelings and activities independent of class, gender, age, time etc. I can use animals as timeless actors without any guilt of exploitation. They are individuals, but soulless individuals. There is a lot of freedom in that, it is almost like using slightly ambiguous words that (hopefully) a lot of people can understand and relate to.
Is relating to an audience important to you?
I hope so. Usually if I think a painting turns out ok it is because it helps me understand something I feel, or wish I could feel, or wish I could not feel. When a painting is finished I move quickly from artist to audience member.
So, would you say you are an objective viewer of your work?
No.
Would you elaborate?
Well, I wish I was. I think I am pretty fair to myself if a piece really isn’t working. However, I secretly like and dislike almost everything I paint. I guess some of this comes from hoping things are getting better.
Well, I for one see progress.
You’re just saying that.
If we could get back to the animals for a bit. Looking over your work it looks like you have used animals, and animal forms, for a long time. Even back to your undergraduate days. Do you ever see this as a hindrance or crutch?
Constantly. Sometimes I look at my work an think; Animals? am I that emotionally/developmentally stunted? How is this different from playing with action figures in my backyard.
Ouch.
Ouch is right. Trust me I know. Sometimes I look around and see people writing A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and I am over here writing alternate endings to the Redwall series. Sometimes I try and prop myself up with the extensive roll animals have played in art history. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t.
Stay tuned for part II.
