Art Space Talk: Xiaoqing Ding

Xiaoqing Ding has been working with Egg Tempera and Silverpoint for over five years now. Currently she is working with a series of Egg Tempera paintings mixed with traditional Asian techniques and modern subject matter. Ding's images come to her when she is day dreaming or falling asleep. Her work explores the delicate nature of identity, sexuality and personal politics.

Ding's work incorporates ideas from ancient Chinese and Greek mythologies as well as European fairytales. The dark and mysterious stories from different countries and cultures all share similar formal devices and motifs in her work. These works focus on timeless decadent sentiments and the personal struggle of good and evil that people endure.

Xiaoqing Ding has had steady success in the artworld since 2000. She has been involved in major exhibits in New York and was a recipient of The Joan Mitchell Foundation Grant in 2001.


Brian Sherwin: Ding, your images often evoke childhood memories of fairy-tales upon being viewed. However, your fairy-tales often have not so happily-ever-after endings. Why have you chosen this theme in your work?

Xiaoqing Ding: I grew up with fairy-tales and I still read fairy-tales before bedtime. I watched a movie called "The Tin Drum" years a ago, I share the same feeling with the boy in that movie. I wished that time could have stopped at the last day of my childhood so that I would not have to face the ugliness of adulthood. I felt that ages 30 and 40 something are the worst in this world as far as adulthood is concerned. Adults lie, they cheat, they are greedy, they fart loudly at home while pretending to be polite in front of a group. Too bad I am one of them now, a complicated 30 something, but with an innocent child inside of me. My work is very personal, it’s about fantasy meeting reality.

BS: Your work often places females in the position of power. These women lure men and animals with ease. This is a total break from traditional fairy-tales that often portray women as weak- fragile. Is it one of your goals to show the strength of women with your art?

XD: We have a well-known old fairy-tale book in China called " Liaozhai , stories about a fox that can enchant and lure men into a chase through the woods and who, upon being caught, transform into sly and willful girls. They hunt for blood to keep their beauty and youth and only the blood of young men can do this. Not all of those foxes are bad, like vampires, some of them can be good when they fall in love. In China we call a very attractive and aggressive woman a " fox girl". This has both good and bad meanings. Secretly, lots of Chinese girls wanna be a fox, because a man won’t be able to resist a 'fox girl', he would die for her no matter what. That’s the power of a beautiful and smart woman.

I have big respect for American women. I admire those women who can drive a big truck, who can lead a group of men to fight, who can carry a big fat baby and the baby cart plus a big bag with milk and diapers and transfer from R train to F train( 100 stairs walk up at 9Av stop). These women are tigers. American women have taught me to be strong and independent. But I’m still weak, I prefer that men drive for me, it is as if I lose my eye sight when there is a piece of wind shield in front of me. The strength of women depicted in my painting are a part of my personal fantasy, of what I want to be.

BS: Ding, you recently moved to NYC. It is my understanding that you have been there for about 13 months. What do you think of the New York art scene? I assume that you enjoy the diversity of art?

XD: I enjoy NYC a lot. The art shows are great. I had an English name before when I lived in other states. Living in New York allows me to be myself. I just try to be friendly. Usually it takes a non-NewYorker 3 times a day for close to 2 weeks practicing to get my name close to what it should sound. I changed back to my real name immediately after the first night I went to a Chelsea opening. I can’t get anybody’s name right in NYC, why let them get my name right away? It is so nice to meet all the great artists with weird names from all over the world in this city.

BS: You were recently involved with the Venus exhibit at the Roq la Rue Gallery. You are showing with Lori Earley, Travis Louie, and several other artists of note. How has the exhibit been so far? Did you meet any of the other artists during the opening?

XD: I missed the Venus show’s opening. They put me in the show at the last minute. It’s a great show, I like everybody’s work there. Kirsten, Roq La Rue’s owner, has done a great job with that show. It’s a big honor to show with wonderful artist like Lori Earley and Travis. I have met them before and they are my myspace friends. Travis is such a great artist and a very nice person. Lori Earley is as beautiful as her paintings. The interesting thing is, most pop surrealism artists are kind of nice looking, I believe that makes their work even more attractive.

BS: Ding, you have been involved with several group exhibits since being in the States- including an group exhibit at the Jonathan LeVine Gallery. Based on your experience... which exhibit has had the most impact on you so far?

XD: It’s hard to say which one has the most impact on me, because they are all important to me. The nice thing about group shows is that you get to meet other artists through the show and understand galleries and gallery owners. Jonathan LeVine is a cool guy, he gave me lots of good advice and support. The same goes for Kirsten from Roq La Rue.

BS: Speaking of exhibiting... I understand that you are a loner by nature. Do you enjoy exhibiting your work or does it ever make you nervous?

XD: Exhibiting does makes me nervous, but opening night is always exciting. It is kind of like a big harvest after a long time of hard work.

BS: What artists have influenced your work?

XD: Everybody I can find from Medieval times, everybody from the Renaissance, Ingres, Boucher, George Grosz, Franz von Bayros, Hans Bellmer, Erotic art from ancient China, Japan and India, Kiki Smith, Henry Darger, George Tooker, Cindy Sherman, Lucien Freud, Balthus, Jan Saudek, Tom of Finland, Pierre & Gilles….

BS: You paint with egg tempera. Why did you decide to use that method instead of say... oils or acrylics?

XD: In 2000, I saw a piece done with Egg Tempera in someone’s home and it was love at first sight. I have tried everything else and nothing works for me. Painting is actually my weak link, I’m much better at drawing. Egg Tempera might be the only painting medium that works like drawing, so it fits me well.

BS: Can you go into detail about the process of using egg tempera? What other methods or techniques do you utilize within the context of your work?

XD: Egg tempera painting is recognized as the second oldest medium after encaustic. It was used by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and perfected by the icon painters during the last 100 years of the old Byzantine Empire (400 AD-1202 AD). After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, egg tempera flourished for about 200 years in the hands of the early Renaissance artists.

Egg tempera painting consists of three simple ingredients: powdered pigments, egg yolk and water. The pigments are ground with water to form a paste, then mixed with the separated yolk of an egg. The yolk, like the oil in oil painting or the gum arabic in watercolor, is what binds the pigments to a surface. The surface used in egg tempera is generally a panel made of wood or hardboard that has been coated with several layers of traditional, homemade gesso (rabbit skin glue and whiting) that has been sanded to an ivory smooth finish.

Egg tempera paint is generally applied in diluted, very thin, often transparent layers of pure color. It dries to the touch within seconds; however for a painting to fully cure takes 6-12 months. Many, many layers are applied in order to build up an image. The ultimate effect of dozens of layers of interacting colors set upon the white, highly reflective, true gesso ground is rich and luminous. ( I have copied all above from www.eggtempera.com, my friend Michael Bergt is the founder, a great tempera artist.)

I use silverpoint, watercolor and pastel also.

BS: Ding, where did you study art? Who were your mentors?

XD: I studied Graphic Design at Art schools in Beijing for 8 years. Not because I liked design that much, it’s very hard to get into any fine art schools in China, I couldn’t pass their test at the time, because my work was too" flat". Maybe I still won’t be able to get into any fine art school in China right at this time, my work is definitely too" Dirty" for them.

I got my MFA from Maryland Institute in 2001, Grace Hartigan was my director. She is a wonderful painter and great teacher. She helped me a lot.

I had a Mentor when I was 14. Mr. Zhang Ken, a high school art teacher at the time. He taught me all the basic drawing and painting stuff for free. My life would have been very different without him. I grew up in a jail-like university campus, with high walls and cold teachers. At school, if you are not good at math, you suck. I was very unhappy and depressed before I stepped into the art world. I’ll appreciate Mr. Zhang forever, his studio was my heaven.

BS: Finally, are you working on any projects at this time? Can you give our readers any details?

XD: I’ve been working hard for a two person show at Roq La Rue that will open on August 10th. You can find out more at www.roqlarue.com. I will be showing with Jason D’Aquino, wonderful work.

I have finished some large size pastel work. I’m kind of new to this medium, it is a lot of fun to work with. I’ll have those new works on myspace by the end of this month. They look different than my old work, brighter colors and bigger heads. In China we believe that a smart person has a bigger head then the average person.

I’ll be in another group show called "deep pop" in Jan 2008. It will be curated by Andrew Michael Ford, www.andrewmichaelford.com. A lot of good artists will be in that show as well.

I hope that you have enjoyed my interview with Xiaoqing Ding. Feel free to leave a comment about her work.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Jennifer Caviola

I discovered the art of Jennifer Caviola while viewing art on myartspace.com. Jennifer obtained an MFA from the Parsons School of Design in New York. Jennifer lives and works in NYC. You can learn more about Jennifer by visiting her site: www.jennifercaviola.com

Brian Sherwin: Jennifer, do you have any 'studio rituals'? As in, do you listen to certain types of music while working? What helps to get you in the mood for working?

Jennifer Caviola: I usually prefer a quiet studio setting, however, I do enjoy listening to music at times. Some of the musicians I have favored as studio music as of late are : Albert Hammond Jr., Joan Biaz, Tool, Bob Dylan's "Desire" album, Coheed and Cambria, and of course, any Guns N' Roses album. I also seem to paint extremely well to the following bands: Slaughter, Skid Row, Poison, Motley Crue, and Bon Jovi circa 1980's (1986 to be exact). Who knows why.

BS: Jennifer, you obtained your BFA in Painting from Pratt Institute and your MFA from Parsons School of Design. Who were your mentors? Can you tell our readers about the art departments you attended?

JC: I had a few teachers at Pratt who I really learned alot from. Churchill Davenport for foundation/painting, Anne Gilman for drawing, and Thomas Bosket for Painting. These three stand out among my favorite undergrad professors from my time at Pratt. I was lucky to have studied under them. Actually, Davenport taught me how to use colors in a structure that I still use to this day in my paintings.

That was almost 10 years ago. They helped create a strong base for my practice as well. I took Professor Gilman's Drawing classes for three years straight practically, she was that instrumental in my drawing process. Bosket just rules in general.

I couldn't get enough of art school. I would still be there if it were possible.

BS: When did you first discover that art would be an important part of your adult life? Can you recall any childhood memories of wanting to pursue painting?

JC: My Grandma Olga is a painter and started giving me watercolor lessons at age 9. I was always around paintings and art in her house and it sort of seemed like a natural ambition from then on. There wasn't much of a fight there.

BS: What about world events? Does the triumph and tragedy of society inspire you to create? Have certain events struck a cord with you, so to speak?

JC: I am not directly inspired by "world events", however I am part of the human race experiencing the world just like everyone else-artist or not. As a maker, this automatically feeds into my work, whether I try or not. The "triumph and tragedy" of society is what defines it and they simply become one in the same at some point for me.

Real tragedy for me involves romance and beauty, or more specifically, the destruction of it in any form. A broken heart and a broken country are the same thing.

BS: Are you represented by a gallery at this time? If not, are you seeking representation?

JC: I am not with a gallery at the moment.

BS: Jennifer, can you share some of your philosophy about art and artistic creation?

JC: I am not old enough or smart enough to have my own philosophy regarding art and artistic creation. All I know is I respond to and value beauty in Art.

BS: Finally, where do you see your work going in the next decade?

JC: That's a strange question to try to answer. All I hope is that I am still actually making paintings. That's the most I can hope for.

I hope that you have enjoyed my interview with Jennifer Caviola. You may view on of her myartspace.com galleries below:

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Danger of Defining Art

(The text in the above image reads: This Is Not Art. I suggest that it is art... though it may not be a good example of art.)

First, I want to say that the definition of art that I'm discussing is not the definition of art that can be found in a dictionary. As we all know, the dictionary does not always give the best definition of a word and its meaning. Find an older dictionary and read the definitions of certain aspects of society and you will know what I'm talking about.

The dictionary is not a Bible of Language, so to speak. It can be just as flawed as any other text. I'm discussing the definition of art that we use when discussing the validity of certain forms of art in contemporary society. A definition that is often backed by artspeak and enforced by art from the past. This definition tends to exclude certain details- such as the fact that a lot of the art that is accepted today was often not accepted in the past.

With the above text in mind- I keep going back to this issue of defining art. This is important an important issue. It is my opinion that a solid definition of art is restrictive in that it instills a degree of fear as far as artistic exploration and growth is concerned. Art is supposed to be free, free from what I'm not exactly sure, but it is often referred to as free and I think that is the best definition- Art = free.

My view is that art should suggest that people are free to explore surfaces and materials with their work, free to manipulate, free to ponder... free to create in a manner that is desired by the individual- and those desires should be accepted as art upon their creation. This freedom is attacked when only certain forms of expression- certain forms or styles- are accepted as art. That form of intolerance tends to lock artists in a bubble of security. It is a dangerous view and will only serve to hold people back.

The view that only certain forms of art can be accepted as art is amusing when you consider that the majority of people creating today work in a manner that was not accepted 100 years ago. Thus, to deny a contemporary artist- to say that his art is not art- is to reveal a lack of knowledge in regards to art history and the struggle of those who came before. It suggests that certain living artists utilize a selective history of art in order to back what they do... while degrading the works of others.

So many contemporary artists seem to have a set definition of what art is and what art can be. This is often based on selective aspects of recent art history (recent meaning one to two hundred years ago). This view shelters the artist in the security (the bubble) that others before him or her have established through their own struggle for acceptance in the past.

Contemporary artists who use this charge often do not consider the struggle that those past artists had for acceptance. They just take the face-value of the fact that it is now accepted- so their art should be accepted as well. Thus, some contemporary artists deny that their form of art was once questioned- yet they question the creations of others openly. This either reveals ignorance or cowardly behavior... and I will never tolerate it.

Those hard fought struggles over 'can this be art?" from the past are now an accepted norm. The majority of people living today will not question if Van Gogh's paintings are art nor will they question the validity of Monet's art. However, both artists were questioned in their time. So many of us seem to forget that when we tell another artist that his or her art is not art.

People embrace the art of the past because it is easy to embrace something that has already been established. It is easy to be selective in what you choose from art history in order to back your own work. This does not leave room for growth, especially when so many people deny artists who go beyond the norm of what has already been deemed acceptable.

Thus, to define art on the norm- the already accepted - the selective history- is to halt the growth of the individual artist and the future of art as a whole. That is why I say that art should simply be defined as visual freedom. We should accept all art as art... this does not mean that all art is good- some art is obviously bad. However, the bad art is still art and should be accepted.

To define art- to decide what is and what is not art- in any other way is to foster an environment that leads only to stagnation- both cultural and visual. The end result of this often has the same result. There will eventually be a huge shift in opinions about what art can be. It is at that time that art that is not considered art now will be stamped with approval by future generation. I say... why wait? Why can't we accept all art now so that art continues to advance in our generation? Do we want to be remembered as another generation that oppressed the vision of others?

We do not need to define art by the norms of expressivity- art should be open... free. We need to have a definition that goes beyond the sheltered box of specific rules, social grace, and the already accepted. To do otherwise is to reveal a fear of change, of exploration, and a clear denial of those who struggled before us so that the majority of art we create today is acceptable.

How can a contemporary artist claim that another contemporary artist is not creating art? This is a charge that has long puzzled me. Especially since the majority of artists living today create art that would have been judged harshly 100 years ago. How can Artist A say that Artist B is not creating art when most likely Artist A's form of expression, the mediums used, and form were once degraded in the same manner? To me that is like standing on the bones of the artists who came before- stomping on everything that they had fought for.

How easy it is to say that your own art is art when those who came before were the ones who had to endure the suffering of hard criticism. In that respect, some contemporary artists become like the 'spoiled child' in that they accept the claim of 'this is art' that they have been 'born' into, but deny the roots of those creative endeavors. They deny the wealth of knowledge and experience that past artists had when they shaped the principles that contemporary artists now embrace in order to define their own art as art. They are not aware of their roots.

In that respect, a contemporary artist who questions the art of others also questions the validity of his or her own art based on the history of art in general. He or she accepts the attitude that certain art is not art. In that darkness, he or she unknowingly accepts that the art of the recent past is not art- which in turn means the art that he or she creates is not art.

In other words, a hard definition of what art can be only leads to people back-tracking. These artists degrade their own work by questioning the validity of the work of others. Is it so hard to judge art as good or bad? Why must some artists boldy state that certain art is not art? I think it is time for us to go beyond this. We should step forward instead of stepping back.

Again, it is my opinion that defining art on set terms only serves to halt the growth of individual artists and the artworld as a whole. The more perfectly it is defined, the less active artists become and the less likely that new forms of expression will be accepted as art.Thus, for art to have an impact and to allow exploration and growth- it must never have a definition that is set in stone. Defining art is dangerous. For good or bad... art should be free to define itself.

(Side Note: It is clear that my view is that all art should be accepted as art... good or bad... it is art. To think otherwise is to accept that groups like the Art Renewal Center (ARC) are correct. In their opinion hardly anything is art unless it is a traditional oil painting that embraces classical themes.

ARC supporters have stated that 99% of the art created today is not art at all. The 1% that is art is only art because it holds to the academic traditional of classical realism and refuses any suggestion of surreal influence. Thus, if you deny that certain forms of contemporary art is art you are unknowingly upholding their views. That is dangerous. That is why it is important to accept all art... that does not mean you have to say that all art is good.

A few months ago I contacted Brian Yoder from ARC for an interview. He accepted, read my questions, and gave several excuses for why he had not yet answered my questions. He has not responded from that point on. That is why I feel that people like Mr. Yoder are dangerous to the artworld and to the acceptance of all art in general. You can learn more about ARC by visiting their site: http://www.artrenewal.org/)

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Tristan Schane

(Wolverine- an example of Tristan's work for Marvel Comics)

Tristan Schane jump-started his career in art during his teens as a comic book illustrator- eventually working for major labels, such as DC Comics and Marvel Comics. During those years he illustrated popular characters: Wolverine, Ghost Rider, The Midnight Sons... just to name a few. Since that time Tristan has worked to develop his own imaginative art in both sculpture and oil painting.

As a sculptor he draws a lot of technical and visual cues from the sculptural work being done in cinema special effects. It is that industry’s trailblazing use of new techniques and materials, and its exploration of radical new imagery, that has helped to fuel the direction of his own sculpture.

The painting style that he has been developing over the past few years has gone through a metamorphosis. When Tristan began working as a fine artist he was very influenced by Surrealism. From that starting point, he began to develop a language of imagery and a technique that he calls Subversive Realism. However, his work continues to grow as he searches for an art that is true to his own design.

Tristan's work was recently included in 'Metamorphosis'- a book containing the work of 50 surreal and fantastic artists- including Carrie Ann Baade, Chet Zar, and Alex Grey.


Brian Sherwin: Tristan, you have been a professional artist since you were 18 years old. You started out in your teens doing professional comic book illustration. You worked for DC Comics, Marvel Comics, First Comics, and Continuity Comics. You've even done work for Clive Barker. How did those early illustration experiences prepare you in your pursuit of creating fine art? Also, why did you decide to make the jump from your former professional to creating personal works of art?

Tristan Schane: Actually my first professional gig was when I was 15. I did a back up feature for a DC comic book.Well for one thing, I learned how to paint as a comic book artist, painting super heroes and monsters and what not for covers, posters and other comics related products. I don't know that my professional experiences prepared me specifically for the fine arts industry -- it certainly works very differently than the comics or book cover business, but it did give me some very specific strengths as an artist.

For one, the ability to make quick artistic decisions and follow them to completion. I am not an artist with many (or any) unfinished works in my studio. Comics have very tight deadlines and a lot of art goes in to each page so you have to have a very workman like attitude towards the creative process. That's a skill set that has followed me in to every medium I work in. Being creative under pressure is another constant factor in illustration of all sorts and another skill set that's useful I think in any creative industry.

Really, it was around 1993 that I started doing fully painted work for the comics industry. Up to that point, I never had any ambition to be anything other than a comic book artist. Once I started painting, though, the world of comics art started to seem very constraining and I became more and more drawn to fine arts as an environment I'd prefer.

BS: It is my understanding that you've used practically every medium under the sun. You now paint exclusively in oils. Why is oil paint your favored medium?

TS: In comics I'd often have to do a painting and hand it in inside of a few days, so acrylics or gouache were the obvious choice. There are some artists who can really get these paint mediums to express what they're after. For me with water mediums and acrylics it was always a wrestling match ending in a compromise between what I was after and what the paints would allow me to do. Oils work very naturally for me. For me, they perform as if they actually want to come out of the tubes and infuse the paintings. It's a wonderful medium.

BS: You also create life-size sculptures. Can you tell our readers about the process you use?

TS: The piece begins with an armature made out of aluminum armature wire and hardware cloth. The general contours of the piece is drawn three dimensionally with the armature wire, which is grounded in to some plumbing secured to a stand. Then I build it out the armature with the hardware cloth, creating the rough forms of the sculpture. A support structure of steel rod is designed and bent to contour invisibly to the inside of the sculpture, to carry the weight were it will be needed. This is attached at some point to a main support structure made from plumbing pipes and fittings. This whole process is an art in itself -- sculpting with wire and hardware cloth. Occasionally secondary supports will be attached if the pose of the sculpture requires it.

When the armature is all built out and secured, I cover the hardware cloth with aluminum foil. Over this I build the sculpture. I work in oil clays. After this i make a mold, either a rigid mold or a silicone rubber mold and then cast out the piece in various materials. Lately it's been polyester but I will be doing some silicone sculptures this year.

BS: You have stated that you draw inspiration from influences that are considered unorthodox for a fine artist. Can you go into detail about this?

TS: As a sculptor, I have been influenced more by the film SPFX industry than any other source. It is from reading about and talking with the those artists that I learned my sculptural technique. Generally I feel very disappointed in the technical abilities of fine arts sculptors and am always looking to the sculpts done for animatronic film effects characters as an inspirational resource for my work.

Lately as a painter, my influences are more traditional, though in my development as a painter I must confess that I have been influenced a great deal by conceptual design arts and Science fiction/fantasy book cover illustration. There are some masterful artists in those fields, and it's the amazingly imaginative way some of these artists can create realistic, but other worldly or future worldly scenes that look so comprehensive. There was a long period when this was by far the majority of the sort of art I looked to to inspire me in my fine arts paintings.

BS: Tristan, you call your painting style Subversive Realism. You have went on to say that Subversive Realism represents a fusion of the skills and sensibilities which you have acquired over the years working as an illustrator and as a fine artist. Can you go into further detail about Subversive Realism?

TS: Subversive realism was a term I came up with to try to describe the sort of visual language I am trying to develop. I am definitely an adherent of hyper realist technique, as a painter and a sculptor, but I am not a representational artist when it comes to subject matter. Neither do I consider my work surreal or visionary.

Sometimes in a painting I feel what I am trying to do with a concept is to use the image to dissect the perception of something without removing that perception so the perception and the object of the perception are both present. I don't often succeed, but that is something I wrestle with. I'm working on a new work right now which I feel may be the closest to this yet.

BS: Are you ever concerned that your art will not be taken seriously by the artworld elite due to your former profession? Or do you see the skills you learned during that time as tool to utilize in order to breathe new life into what is considered traditional methods?

TS: Yes and no. I don't know that people are less inclined to take me seriously because of my illustration background. I think my work is often dismissed for being hard to categorize as specifically this or that. Not surreal. Not hyper real. I hear the word "disturbing" a lot and I think that often signals someone's knee-jerk reaction of not really looking at the work beyond an instant and superficial response.

I have a bigger concern that not being a "trained" artist with an MA, it's very hard for me to crack in to established gallery venues. However, all I can do is pursue my artistic sensibilities where they take me and focus very hard on trying to develop the imagery and concepts that I'm after.

Beyond that I work very hard trying to establish myself as an artist in the industry. If I succeed, great. If not, well it won't be for lack of trying.

BS: So... would you say that working as an illustrator is a good stepping stone in regards of learning various skills? Does the industry teach artists more than what they may learn in school?

TS: I can't say one learns more in illustration. One learns the business of illustration and the artistic requirements of commercial, illustrative arts. There are certainly some skills there worth having. I think one has to be much more able to pursue the learning of different mediums and techniques when one learns as a professional. Anything you don't teach yourself or go out of your way to learn is just not there for you. No one shows you how to do anything.

It seems people are exposed to a greater variety of art mediums, art industries and and art styles in school. There is also a greater opportunity to network with other artists and arts professionals in the schools, which translates to having those networks after graduation. I think starting out as a professional freelancer can be a little isolating, especially from the avenues of fine arts.

Lastly, I have found that the fine arts business is very much like any other, and having gone to this or that school, studied with this or that professor and having a degree in fine arts helps open doors regardless of one's abilities which aren't nearly as accessible otherwise. Had I known way back when that I'd ultimately be a fine artist, I would have chosen to go to school rather than to work.

BS: You have stated that you started fine art painting as a surrealist (sample image above and below)... but you quickly felt that the visual language of surrealism was to atavistic for the modern world, too reliant on visual structures and styles that while beautiful were out of touch with the flavor and sensibilities of today's world. With that said, what is your opinion of Pop Surrealism and the lowbrow movement in general?

TS: Definitely. Early on it was all Dali and Magritte. When I was talking about surrealism being atavistic, I was referring largely as it applied to my own sensibilities. When I worked in surrealistic imagery, I felt I was borrowing from someone else's native millieu. An era when those sensibilities sprang from the world around them and belonged to it as a natural native. It was authentic for those artists, but it just didn't feel personal and genuine for me. It didn't resonate with my sensibilities and mindset. It didn't feel like it belonged to me or my world.

I still constantly get ideas for pieces that would make great surreal works, but I have no interest in producing them. What is called pop surrealism or low brow art are vague encapsulates that hold within those very broad band widths some very talented artists. I think the terms are very general and often not descriptive. I don't think to much in terms of this or that art movement. More in terms of this or that artist.

BS: So is it safe to say that you are searching for an art that is new... fresh... an art that does not have to hold on to old traditions even if those traditions and methods are relatively young in the span of art history?

TS: All life is progressive. I couldn't come up with an art form that owes nothing to the past. Nothing can exist in a vacuum like that. What I am looking for is within myself -- a visual language that is purely of me, my world and my time. As my world was inherited from the earlier generations and eras, so will my art, but it must be of my world and my time. It must feel to me to be genuinely personal and authentic. I am trying to find this language within myself and my relationship to my world, and I am constantly trying to avoid sensibilities that seem obviously inspired by earlier aesthetics. I have a long way to go. It's definitely a work in progress that is constantly stretching and reforming.

BS: Tristan, are you represented by a gallery or are you seeking gallery representation? Also, do you have any upcoming exhibitions of your work?

TS: No, unfortunately at present I don't have a gallery. It's been very hard for me to connect with a gallery that both appreciates my work and can sell it to their clients. Usually the galleries I have shown at do great shows, but make no money.

An artist who can't earn with his work winds up with very little time to create that work, having to work other jobs to pay the bills. It's very expensive for an artist to frame and ship work to and from a show with no sales. I have been represented by two different NY galleries in the past few years, both were in Chelsea, both very enthusiastic, but neither could promote me successfully. I am currently seeking for proper representation.

I have a collaborative show in the works -- several sculptures, but it is still in the planning/talking phase so until it's definite, it's more prudent for me to keep mum.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the artworld at this time?

TS: I could give a fifteen page diatribe about how I wish there was something like the WPA still in existence with public funds going towards commissioning all sorts of artwork, but....

You can learn more about Tristan Schane by visiting his website-- www.tristanschane.com. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews. Tristan is involved with the beinArt International Surreal Art Collective.

Surreal Visionary Fantastic Art & Metamorphosis Art Book

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Art Market is Burning: All Art is HOT... Can it go Out?

It has been said that the current art market is on fire- that current art sells can be decided by the strike of a match. I've expressed my opinion about the dangers of this hot art market in the recent past (a crash could send younger artists who are selling for high prices into total obscurity and could chip away at the careers of more established artists). However, in regards to the hodge-podge of art that is selling at this time, I must say that it is not really a bad thing... or is it?

The fact that so much art is selling for high prices has me concerned, but the fact that all types of art can thrive in the current market is a nice change from a market that often seems extremely selective. The galleries of today seem to be taking more of a risk with emerging artists in that they are opening their doors- doors that would have been slammed shut just a few years ago when the market was cold.

Emerging artists have been able to get their 'foot in the door'. This has lead to a variety in art styles and forms. Need proof? Attend any major art fair throughout the world and you will observe what I'm talking about. The fires are burning bright for young talent! ...How long will it continue?

This shift in the art market has allowed a wide range of art to be displayed and purchased. Young collectors, which are increasing in number, have embraced this diversity. These aspects of the current art market come together in order to offer artists a more balanced foundation to work from as far as success is concerned. However, the foundation is a rocky one. I don't believe it is stable.

'Rags to riches' stories are plentiful- the overall acceptance of art as a whole has increased sharply. Though I believe it is wise to be cautious of this market I must say that I enjoy the diversity. I hope the diversity continues no matter what happens with the buying market. The art market of today has increased the acceptance of all artistic forms. That is one positive aspect of the current hot market.

At the heart of the market there is a sense that no art is better than another form of art. In 2007 we have seen traditional and conceptual works sell for millions. Photographs and installations have sold for high sums of money alongside traditional oil paintings. Collectors, dealers, and curators are all switching to a form of diversification as far as their collections are concerned. All art is hot at the moment... every artist has a chance to ignite his or her career.

People are embracing a wide variety of art instead of focusing on one area or notion of art. This is great for the acceptance of artists and their work as a whole as it tends to trickle down to the rest of the populace. However, it is wise to keep a wary eye on the market as far as high pricing is concerned. A match can be extinguished by a simple gust of wind, true?

I view the current market as a box of matches- a box of matches that has been thrown upon the floor. People are grabbing every match up and each match happens to be unique from the other in shape and design. Each has a different colored flame when lit- all are accepted as equal. Thus, there is something for everyone.

With that said, what happens when the match sticks no longer fall? When the floor is piled with them and people no longer care to pick them up? When eyes no longer gaze at the lure of the flame? What happens when the box is empty? The flames will die out. That is something to think about... right?

I'm concerned that the acceptance of art in general will be 'put out' if indeed the currents art market 'burns out' at some point. Are any of you concerned about this? Or do you feel that the high interest in art at this time will continue to burn for many years to come? I want your opinions and concerns.

As for me... I'm attracted to the fire... but I fear the flame.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Christopher Reiger

Growing up on the rural Delmarva Peninsula, Christopher Reiger spent much of his time in pastoral settings, becoming familiar with the local flora and fauna. Whether working alongside his father at field chores, hunting, fishing, or simply playing, he found many of his experiences in the "natural" world similar to those of Lewis Carroll's Alice; Carroll's premise, that "things get curiouser and curiouser," guided Reiger through many an adventure. As an adult, Reiger's love of the outdoors has evolved into a fascination with biology, conservation and behavioral science.

Reiger's current work is informed by the conflict between fact and fiction in natural history and its impact on our species' ever-changing relationship to the biosphere. You can learn about Christopher and his art by visiting his site: www.christopherreiger.com

Brian Sherwin: Christopher, you earned an MFA from the School of Visual Arts in New York City. Who were your mentors? Can you tell our readers about their art department?
Christopher Reiger: I had a great time at SVA, in part because the program was relatively unstructured. This is a plus for those of us who supply our own demands, but I know some fellow students felt more formal guidelines would help.

The most valuable aspects of the SVA program are the location and the community, and I was fortunate to have terrific peers. We often hear that something like 95% of graduate students stop producing artwork within five years of obtaining the degree. With the staggering cost of grad school, and the ensuing debt, that's a scary figure. So connecting to the community is that much more important.

It's true that the friendships and professional relationships formed in graduate school can sustain you through the highs and lows of a life in art. I turn to fellow artists when I really find myself down-and-out in the studio, and the bulk of my close artist friends I met at SVA.

My favorite professors/artists at SVA were David Shirey, Jake Berthot, Jerry Saltz and Jackie Winsor. David is the chair/founder of the program, and he speaks in essays, something I appreciate. As our general vocabularies continue to shrink, folks like David stand out for his elocution and wit.

He's also something of a provocateur, poking us until we challenge our assumptions. I've always loved a good debate, so his class, where we basically sat in a circle and shot the shit, sometimes with a lot of feeling, was enjoyable. Jake gave the best feedback of any artist I've worked with. He called things like he saw them, with no dressing, and although this often made for harsh critique, his insights were invaluable and he radiated a core kindness.

Jackie was also excellent, but she really seemed to enjoy pulling back the protective veneer and exposing the fraud inside, something I think all young artists are terrified of. Her class shook me up for a long while and that's meant as a compliment.

Jerry Saltz is a writer I admire but more importantly his enthusiasm for looking at and contemplating art is almost tangible. It was a treat to spend time with him. Finally, I'm a fan of Gregory Amenoff's paintings, but I never landed in his class, something which still bums me out a bit today.


BS:Your work often deals with the conflict between contemporary humankind and nature. Why has this become a major theme for you?

CR: For years, centuries really, we first-worlders have willfully denied our own Nature, our animal antecedence. We don't seem willing to accept the fact that we are part of the rest of it, all products of star dust, whether you're talking individuals, species, or the solar system. Humans came up through the ranks of evolution like all of our animal brethren, but we don't much like to acknowledge that.

This is a problem the world over, one worsening as globalization carries capitalism to all corners of the world. We're a sadder people for it. As my father often says, the only thing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity for denial. The conflict between Nature and contemporary man is one of our own making, an intellectual, defensive construction that we must tear down if we're to sustain our species (and some semblance of biodiversity on the planet).

I was in the grocery store this morning and an older gentleman was talking with a companion about his being incontinent. Several other shoppers looked at the pair with disgust. One woman even tsk-tsked the old guy. If we can't talk openly about our bodily functions, it's no surprise that we edit out most scenes of predation in our wildlife television programs, refuse to accept the history of the pork chop we buy at the supermarket, and cover our ears when reports of genocide come over the wire. We're petrified of ourselves, and no bloody good can come of it.



BS: So it is safe to say that your current work is informed by the conflict between fact and fiction in natural history and its impact on our species' ever-changing relationship to the biosphere?

CR: Yes, that is an element of it. So you have the conflict mentioned before, between the reality of being human and our hubris, and then there is the question of the validity of our constructs. I'm very much torn on this count, as I embrace biology. I wear t-shirts with Darwin's picture and I frequent blogs devoted to the sciences. I even work in a neuroscience laboratory for my day job, not as a scientist, mind you, but I enjoy being around the scientists and their experiments. Yet the sciences themselves seem tremendously narrow to me, if only because we've neglected so much sensuous, as in sensed, input in favor of a very particular program of proofs and disproofs.

As a child, the world outside was a playground of the imagination. I grew up on the rural Delmarva Peninsula, and spent a great deal of time outdoors, planting, hunting, fishing, or just playing in the woods, fields and marshes. I anthropomorphized animals and trees and created my own explanations for why this or that event happened. It was a Wonderland, full of magic, truly.

As I aged I was introduced to natural history. Learning facts about wildlife became every bit as exciting as my created stories. I abandoned, in large part, the Wonderland approach in favor of "hard" science. This evolution from enchantment to analysis parallels the history of modern science, the transition out of the Dark Ages, a time of faith, magic, and superstition, into the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.

But today I look around and see a little bit of the magic and the myth creeping back in. I reacted against it initially, but now I embrace as many fantastic beliefs as I do hard facts. This might sound like a conscious irrational choice, and perhaps it is, but it's central to my work.

There's a John Ruskin quote I always defer to. He describes the "broken harmonies of fact and fancy, thought and feeling, truth and faith." In my painting, I'm trying to bridge that divide. The beautiful thing about Ruskin's quote is that it so neatly and poetically describes not just my own search for balance and integrity, but also the contemporary, global dilemma as we move from a period of illusory certitude and universal truth into the labyrinth of post-modern relativism.


BS: Can you tell our readers about your Fractured Eulogies series? What were your motives behind this collection of work? How does it reflect your concern over our mutable conception of nature?

CR: Conceptually, the "Fractured Eulogies" paintings were borne of the fact-fiction divide mentioned before.

BS: Would you say that nature offers a form of spirituality?

CR: Yes, but I also view Nature as the Everything. We're Nature, the meteoroid in the asteroid belt is Nature, this keyboard is Nature. I find spirit in the interconnectivity. Given the the division and the parcelling off of contemporary life, it's easy for me to forget this, but I try to remind myself regularly what a miraculous experience I'm a part of. Painting is part of that meditation.

Having said that, I would also argue that untrammeled Nature, or the Nature Transcendentalists like Thoreau spoke of, allows us to more easily tap into the wonder and awe, or the Sublime. So, yes, a hike in Yellowstone is more "spiritual" in my opinion than my sitting here typing. But, again, that's really a superficial way to divide experience. Which is why I'm a big fan of contradiction. I have to be; I contradict myself all the time. Again, this is something you're not allowed to do in the arenas of politics or science.


BS: Christopher, can you discuss some of the philosophy behind your work... specifically your view 'hysterical transcendentalism'?

CR: We're seeing a lot of changes these days, and at an accelerated pace. Borders seem less and less relevant and, as we homogenize, cultural identities will become indistinct, perhaps for the greater good. But whatever the long term results for civilization or the species, in the short term we'll have heightened anxiety and outright fear. We're trending back into a period of relativism, of superstition and of economic extremes. I think of this moment as the dawn of hysterical transcendentalism.

We're all increasingly uncertain and insecure, and we grab onto hybrid, rickety cosmologies for support. In the so-called First World, for example, we see a lot of science, mysticism and religion being blended with consumerism. We're advancing beyond the culture of celebrity and distraction.

Distraction has become just one more idol in a cabinet of coping mechanisms. Even if the world could use a dose of healthy, moral magic, slippage into a renewed Dark Age is undesirable. Nobody wants warlordism and feudal politics to become the global norm and I worry we're trending that way.

Anyway, this all sounds rather vague and foreboding, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm a doomsayer. The landscapes in the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" series are as much about hope as they are anxiety. On the one hand they depict a melting world, a Nature torn apart and dissolving. But that dissolving is also an opening of the senses, the seepage of magic and mystery back into the picture.

One construct may be deformed, in this case the rational one, but that very deformation is natural and even exciting, wonderful. In a nutshell, these works are about cherishing and celebrating the universality of life in the face of growing uncertainty. In this regard they are reactionary, though not necessarily in the placard-protest sense of the word.

BS: Your biomorphic landscape paintings are often very colorful, reactionary works. These works have been considered to be both foreboding and joyous by viewers. Is it one of your goals to have people question their perceptions by viewing these paintings?

CR: Yes, definitely. And to question where those perceptions came from.
It's always interesting to hear what various viewers have to say about paintings in this series. For example, one person might be made uncomfortable by a painting while another finds the same picture somber and moving. Good. Nature is ambivalent. I try to make these paintings reflect that. That's why they vacillate between foreboding and joyous. How the works are read greatly depends on the mood or spirit of the viewer.

BS: You have been known to work on soaked and stretched Arches paper. You use many media on one surface- preferring watercolor, sumi inks, acrylic and graphite. From that point you stack images much as one would do when doodling in the margins of notebook. Can you go further into detail about your artistic practice?

CR: The "Hysterical Transcendentalism" and "Fractured Eulogies" series are both on soaked and stretched Arches paper, although the more recent works - most of the "H.T." body - I remove from the support when they are completed. They're framed, displayed under UV-resistant plexi. I think the mode of display should be dictated by the piece or series and the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" works, with all that saturated color and the riffs on traditional landscape, do better with a frame. The "Fractured Eulogies," on the other hand, are often so open that they should breathe at the edge, and a frame isn't needed.

As for the image stacking, I don't really do that anymore. The "Fractured Eulogies" certainly involved a lot of it, though. In fact, a curator at The Drawing Center in SoHo dismissed the work as the scribblings of a high school stoner. Those works were very much about unconscious connection, trying to marry the rational, scientific world of quantifying and measuring - hence all the rulers, slash marks, graphs and the like - to the world of magic and wonder, particularly with respect to scale and natural processes like sedimentation, decomposition and erosion.

I liked juxtaposing those ideas with "pop" colors and a graphic line.

Those works made themselves, and I was along for the ride. The process just lost its appeal for me over time. Perhaps I'll revisit it, but I'm not feeling it right now. For now, the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" approach is more exciting and, although the materials are the same, the process is very different, much more involved and thought out.

BS: Finally, where do you see your work going in the near future?

CR: I like to have at least one side experiment going at all times, and although I'm eagerly continuing with the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" paintings, I'm also playing around with map collages and other ways of approaching the same concepts. I've no idea where these will go or if they'll come to fruition at all. Most of the side-projects are abandoned or destroyed, but what matters is the playing itself.

The artwork aside, I'll continue with the writing for Hungry Hyaena and other spots online. I'd like to start inviting guest writers to contribute to HH. Perhaps that conversation could lead to the formation of a collective? I'm very interested in finding a core group of thoughtful, intellectually engaged artists, not necessarily like-minded, but exploring similar territory, with which to have regular dialogue.

The Internet makes that easy, which is another reason why MyArtSpace is a helpful resource, and I have my eye on several artists scattered around the globe. An international collective seems particularly interesting to me, especially if I could find artists in developing countries to participate. We'll see what happens. Thanks again, Brian.

I hope that you have enjoyed my interview with Christopher Reiger. You can observe his myartspace.com gallery below.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Comparing Internet Art to Art Since 1960

Now that I’m in school mode again I’ve been studying up on my art history. I’ve gone back to basics, returning to the Thames & Hudson “World of Art” series to try and get a broader understanding of recent art practices. I really like the no nonsense format of these Thames & Hudson books; the short length and survey style tends to reel in the art theory hyperbole and get to the point. For example, Michael Archer’s one paragraph sum-up (no diagrams!) of Rosalind Krauss’s “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” on pgs. 96 - 97 of Art Since 1960 is breathtaking. Way to go, dude!

In Art Since 1960 this brevity keeps things moving and gives the reader a real sense of progression through a period of art history usually viewed as hopelessly complicated. Personally, I found it really refreshing to get a linear narrative of recent art, without all the “end of history/postmodernism” talk that usually muddies the waters of contemporary art history. I mean, a pretty convincing linear narrative can be constructed from the past 40 years of art making. For instance, although Sherrie Levine’s photos might signal the theoretical “death of originality,” her work wouldn’t have been possible without the photo/text conceptualism of the 70’s. Like, although history or our experience of reality isn’t objective, the (North American/European) art world’s characterizations of “art” have unfolded in a well-documented and somewhat coherent manner, right? Blasphemy!!!

Anyways, in my reading I also went through Rachel Greene’s Internet Art, a survey of the past 15 years of online creativity. It’s pretty good, although kinda pretentious. Like where Art Since 1960 covered 40 years of massive change in 200 or so pages, Internet Art covers its 15 years in the same space. This creates some awkward equivalencies between the two texts, like when you compare (the excellent) Alighiero e Boetti’s name check in Art Since 1960 to the pages upon pages devoted to net artist Heath Bunting or the similar amounts of space devoted to Michael Fried’s brilliant “Art and Objecthood” and Wayne Bremser’s jokey essay on the similarities between Cremaster 3 and the video game Donkey Kong. These discrepancies might point towards a lack of critical perspective in Greene’s text, the “emerging” nature of internet art and its short list of quality work and criticism, and/or a need to fill out this Thames & Hudson book to the standard length. Whatever the reason, the brevity and clear trajectory achieved by Archer in Art Since 1960 is not present in Internet Art.

Nevertheless, Internet Art is an interesting read and made me see my usual concerns (What’s art? What’s innovative?) in a new light. Like, although there is no question that many of the projects in Internet Art are innovative, I took issue with people classifying some of these works as art. For example, in the last chapter entitled “Art for Networks” Greene outlines several works which are freely distributed visual maps documenting relationships between powerful institutions (financial, religious, political, etc.). Greene (via Brian Holmes) classifies the projects as art because they anticipate the eventual dismantling of these relationships through activism and “tactical media” (181-182). In this case, Greene assumes viewers will use the maps for the “good” (i.e. the destruction of capitalism) even though this information is also now available to more conservative concerns including the target institutions themselves (who are, no doubt, also online). I don’t want to get into an argument about the paradoxes of political activism here, but I do think that when work is classified as art its form better live up to its stated intentions.

And why do we have drag “art” into this argument anyway? I have no problem calling this work interesting and exciting activism, “tactical media,” whatever, but it doesn’t seem like art to me. Maybe it’s a readymade, but that’s the best I’ve got. I mean, why don’t the "artists" call this stuff political activism? Why consign it to the nebulous and politically neutered realm of “energy potential[s]” and “signs pointing to a territory that cannot yet be fully signified” (182)?

I’d track this misunderstanding back to online art’s (mis)reading of artists like Hans Haake and Marcel Duchamp, but whatever. I suspect it also has something to do with the money and institutionalized separation the art world bestows (“I can be pretty abnormal without having to isolatedly receive society’s contempt or punishments.” – Lucas Samaras), but whatever. In the end, I think my rejection of “art” works like these is due to my hesitation to jettison names like Picasso, DeKooning, and Nauman (all absent from Internet Art’s index) from our understanding of contemporary art. But, let’s face it, when Thames & Hudson says it’s art, it’s art. So, face your destiny and read these books. Like I said, they’re pretty good.

Art Space News: Controversial Sculpture of Pope is Pulled From Exhibit

Organizers of an exhibition on the relationship between homosexuality and art said Wednesday they were removing a controversial sculpture depicting Pope Benedict in drag. The sculpture has caused public outcry. However, the censorship of the piece has also caused a stir.

The sculpture, titled "Miss Kitty" by Paolo Schmidlin, portrays the Pope wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings, a pair of panties and a stole.The sculpture, which is adorned with a blonde bob wig, offended the Catholic Anti-Defamation League, which threatened to seek charges against the organizers and exhibit promoters for defaming a head of state.

The exhibit in Milan, Italy, drew harsh protest from the Catholic Anti-Defamation League and others who found the sculpture of the Pope in drag to be unacceptable. In an official statement, the Catholic Anti-Defamation League declared that the controversial sculpture is a "vulgar offence against Christ's vicar and the feelings of Roman Catholics,". However, others have stated the censorship of the sculpture is another example of "Organized religion dictating the role of art." and that "This type of censorship should not be happening in 2007!".

Eugenio Viola, the curator of the exhibit, has postponed the opening by three days and is in the process of reprinting exhibit catalogues in order to remove "Miss Kitty" and another controversial piece that depicted Premier Roman Prodi's spokesman talking to a transvestite, whose face is superimposed with an image of Jesus Christ.

Viola has stated that the exhibit was intended to be provocative and to question the perceptions of viewers in regards to religion within the context of secular culture. Viola charged that "The value of art from the period of the avant-garde onward has been to free oneself from the dogmatic and ecclesiastic censors,".

In an interesting twist the sculpture has been purchased by Milan's top culture official, Vittorio Sgarbi for an undisclosed price. The exhibition, which is backed by Sgarbi, opens Thursday in the Palazzo della Ragione and runs through Sept. 16. Organizers have been asked to ban children under 18 years of age from observing the exhibit.

What do you think about this censorship? Should artists and curators be free to exhibit art that displays a controversial stance against political and religious leaders? Is some art not meant to be seen by the general public? What is your opinion?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: William T. Wiley

From the very beginning of his career, William T. Wiley has been a maverick. He came on the scene in the early 1960s, developing his inimitable figurative style when virtually every artist in the United States who wanted to be taken seriously was painting in the Abstract Expressionist mode. As he was gaining substantial recognition in the late '60s. Minimalism and Conceptualism were becoming the vogue. Over the ensuing decades, Wiley has remained steadfast in his pursuit of truth and humor.

Brian Sherwin: Mr. Wiley, I observed your work at Art Chicago. How did the exhibit go for you? I understand that many people felt that the influence Chicago has on the 'art world' would be determined by the success of Art Chicago and the Bridge Art Fair. Do you think Chicago is still in the game, so to speak?

William T. Wiley: Game? You bet!

BS: You have been described as the "Michelangelo of Funk", a "dude ranch Dadaist" and as a "kinder, gentler Ted Kaczynski." What do you think of these labels?

WW: OK, my answer to all three labels... Lay Bull... but can be helpful. They might help you from drinking poison... just don't let them get in the way of comprehension and understanding.

BS: The art critic John Perreault stated that you are 'impossible to classify'. He went on to say that you are "one of the most important artists to challenge the very notion of "Mainstream art". Can you go into detail about his statement and how it defines you as an artist? How would you describe yourself and your art?

WW: J.P.'s statement sounds good to me. Does classification establish hierarchy? Lower Arky? As an artist hoping to make art... the doing and making describes me.

BS: Based on Mr. Perreault's statement about your work, do you think that certain schools hold young artists back from taking the creative direction they need in order to create unique works? How is your educational practice different than instructors who are restrictive in their teaching practice?

WW: I don't know. Only you can hold yourself back... a really good or humble student could learn and grow regardless if you're letting your spirit, heart, and soul lead your search or quest!

BS: Mr. Wiley, how has instructing art influenced your own artistic process? Do students even open your eyes to new directions?

WW: All the time... examples... I worked with graduate students Bruce Nauman, John Buck, Debbie Butterfield and many you never heard of. It's just an exchange of gifts if one is open to it.

BS: In what other ways has teaching art inspired you?

WW: Amazing human beings... working and playing with them. Exchanging ideas, possibilities, passions... obsessions.

BS: I'd like to ask you about the Tower. From 1985 to 1991 you worked with Lippincott, Inc. in order to fabricate an extraordinary 75-foot bronze sculpture. The interior spiral staircase leads past figures informed by the myths and mysticism of the middle ages to a star-shaped viewing area overlooking the surrounding woods. What inspired you to take part in this project?

WW: Don Lippincott helping me to do it... supporting me and making it possible. That was my inspiration.

BS: Did you have any doubts about the Tower and its construction?

WW: Not me. Do you?

BS: What about doubting your ability? Have you ever had doubt in your talent and skill as an artist?

WW: All the time...

BS: The majority of your work seems to be influenced by past eras. Why does the past influence your work in this manner?

WW: Like Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past."

BS: Do you feel that you 'breathe new life' into the past by using symbolic imagery from these past eras?

WW: It is more like I breath in the present. The imagery and symbols... era's... etc... where I'm drawn to them... for me holds power, mystery, instruction...

BS: Mr. Wiley, you have been involved with several major exhibits. Your art has been exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art, The Museum of Modern Art and several other prestigious venues. Can you recall any exhibitions that had a profound impact on you personally? Does one stand out over the others?

WW: They all have their impact and instruction. The first organized showing of my work- by Brenda Richardson- at the Berkeley Museum titled 'Wizdumb' stands out because of Ms. R... and it was the first.

BS: Having exhibited widely does it ever feel like on exhibit is no different than the next? Or does each new exhibit give you a park of energy, so to speak?

WW: No. There are ups and downs... sparks come from many sources. Failure... success... do not be fooled by either.

BS: What advice do you have for younger artists? It is no secret that young talent can be exploited for personal gain. What should a young artist focus on and look out for?

WW: You exploiting you... and going against your inner voice... your gut feeling, your instinct. No matter what is being denied or offered, the true you knows better. You have to learn to heart it.

BS: Looking back on the years that you have created art- what do you think your legacy will be?

WW: I don't know. I don't have to worry about that.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art, the art market, or anything else about the 'art world'?

WW: No, not really. Most of it has been said over and over again and 'art' doesn't care. Art will not be deceived or confined by the likes of us.

I hope that you have enjoyed learning about William T. Wiley and his art. You can find out more about William by visiting his site: www.williamtwiley.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin