Professionally Cool
- 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
I agree. “Good art” is everywhere. What about the commercial
art – fine art disconnect? As someone who has experience with both
the printed page and the gallery wall, does dealing with the rules and
idiosyncrasies of two art worlds get annoying?
)
Not
really. I mean, we’re not living in the Stone Age days where one
must obey their kings and queens or be hanged. I, as the artist, can also
choose the projects I think fit my persona (and offer my point of view
to designs). The ones that I don’t see eye to eye with, well, they
sorta iron out themselves. My work is wide-ranged, as you said, so I enjoy
the challenges that the corporate world throws at me. It's sorta like
you don’t always care or know what you want for dinner. So you select
any item on the menu and you order. And then on some nights, there is
your usual, personal favorite dish that you crave and must have.
Annoying? Maybe these "idiosyncrasies" get annoying when directors or editors get cocky and take issues personally, which has been rare in most cases (knock-on-wood). But when a corporation pays you generously for a gig, you don't get annoyed.
Well you’ve got your feet wet in everything from comics and advertising to fine art and fashion. Your work is reason enough to add the word “unboxable” to the dictionary. Aside from “free” and “visually orgasmic,” how would you describe your style?
Dunno. There isn't a "style" that I am following, nor is it something I want to describe. It just comes to me. And to have to "describe" my own style, well, it sorta diminishes the very thought of it. I'll let someone else describe my work. It's what the critics do anyway. [Smiles]
Not wanting to describe your own style certainly makes sense. So how do you feel about writing about art and the “artist’s statement?”
It depends on what you are looking at. Sometimes a pretty picture is just a pretty picture – like a photo of a supermodel at a swimming pool, all sexed up and sultry in wet-wear. A photo of a supermodel/actress/artist dolled up as a politician, in a middle of a riot and making a statement, is different. It's all up to the viewer really. I personally like to see a painting or image for what it is. It should be obvious. Good art shouldn't need a statement, description, or an analysis. I guess a lot of my work reflects how I feel about myself. At least it's what I’ve been told… bold, free and sometimes a little warped. [Smiles]
I love how both the organic (people, dogs) and inorganic (cars, bikes, guns, buildings) are equally bold, free, and warped in your work. low rider is a perfect example of this. Do you approach these two very different subjects in the same way? Is one easier to draw than the other?
)
No,
nothing is ever that much harder. I am very fluid and confident
when it comes to drawing leading characters, both male and female. As
for cars, background buildings, and other hardware, it just falls in place
with some guidance from real life.
I find drawing "normalcy" difficult.
Your characters possess abnormal height. Do you actively follow the fashion illustration convention of drawing people nine heads tall?
Subconsciously, I suppose so.
Some people in your work are more physically exaggerated than others (smaller waists, longer legs, etc.). Any reason?
No reason. To be quite honest, I can't tell them apart at times (who’s
more physically exaggerated). If you’re referring to the illustrations
from some of my editorial and commercial work, then, yeah, it's because
the Art Director told me to tone it down or make it less exaggerated.