THRUSH HOLMES - TORONTO.CANADA

30 NOVEMBER 2009

Interviewed by ALEXANDER CONNER

NOT YET TITLED [2009]               

Most of the paintings I saw while visiting Thrush Holmes Empire [further referred to as T.H.E.] seemed to be of Portraiture, Landscapes, and Still Lifes. Why do you focus on such elementary subjects in the history of painting for your current work?

Like many artists, I started to recognize lulls in the productive flow of my work as a result of my contemplation of subject matter. I wanted to escape temporarily from the torment of conceptual painting and resign myself to rudimentary subject matter that would allow for discovery of permutations within that which is familiar, redundant, and in need of resuscitation. It's good to loosen up now and again, to work within confines. It makes for good training. I don't think I have the disposition for a committed focus on a single subject. I have an agile mind and need to navigate from one to the next or I feel dead inside.

NOT YET TITLED [2009]               

Why do you chose to focus your practice on painting at this moment in time, instead of sculpture, printmaking, etc.?

It is increasingly difficult to understand my allegiance to painting. there is momentum and while at times I find the act repugnant and vow to quit, it remains my greatest seducer. I am forever trying to invest time and effort in sculpture, photography, film, and music, but the diversification always seems futile when painting for me has become so palpable. I have an obsessive personality - there's that too. there are always waves in relevancy, but I think it is an exciting time for painting again as the shift toward realness and authenticity strengthens.        

UNTITLED IN DISMAL ABYSS [2009]               

When you use the terms "realness" and "authenticity", are you using them to describe the object of a work of art (wherein it's physical 'beingness' is real and authentic), the conceptual prowess embedded within the creation of a work (wherein it's real and authentic as it relates to the viewer your subjective sense of a reality that exists outside of itself), the subject matter (offering a real and authentically represented subject that the viewer may identify as "a penny" or "an elk"), all of these, none of these, or some of these?

I don't think any of these suggestions communicate what I was implying, though all are perfectly valid and true. I was referring to the act of making a work of art that doesn't rely on mechanical intervention. I think painting can be more readily trusted by viewers because it is so primordial. photography, for example, has been irrevocably compromised by technological innovation. I have a voracious appetite for photography, but at times find it difficult to trust with certainty. same can be said about audio recordings or graphic design. Painting still has face value. I am not knocking progression or its communicative qualities. negotiating expression with a machine is at times more challenging, interesting, or relevant and should have merit. I think that a lot of people are now reacquainting with that which is fundamental, at least in some comfortable capacity; where it is possible or practical. It is for this reason that painting is triumphing again. this suits me just fine. I like to labour.        

SECRET MAN-RAVEN [2009]               

Are you the kind of painter who likes to work on multiple paintings at one time, carrying colors and familiar forms between them, or do you prefer to concentrate on one work, giving your time and attention to it before moving to the next?

I am indeed the kind of painter who likes to work on multiple paintings at one time. I am constantly learning from painting and like to carry these realizations from piece to piece so that a body of work can be informed uniformly. there is also a great deal of failure in painting and if I am developing 6 or 8 pieces concurrently, it is likely that I will have some success with at least one piece at any given time. painting can be a wretched and lonely career. I've realized that an artist needs to be able to manage his own encouragement through uniquely developed devices. spreading myself out over a number of paintings so that there is perpetual gratification is something that works for me. It also makes practical sense as I work in layers and I would otherwise be waiting long periods without productivity as things cure.

NOT YET TITLED [2009]               

Traditionally, painting is a game of working in layers in order to get a desired visual result. The paintings I saw when visiting T.H.E. used a thick and extremely tactile looking application of layers, akin to the work of Frank Auerbach, Allison Schulnik, and (a little less similarly) Karel Appel. What do you think your use of paint in this way adds conceptually to your work?

I don't know how much conceptual weight the thickness of paint adds to the work. there is a looseness in applying paint without much restraint that nourishes the work. I haven't always applied paint so gratuitously. there is a real imposing quality about the heavy application, though in some cases it makes the work more digestible as it has childish implications and reconciles some of the inherent darkness. I tend to have very light, sometimes translucent areas of paint that graduate into excess. I like my paintings to perform like sculptures. i think the work might be more akin to the sculptures of Franz West than the paintings of Auerbach, Schulnik, or Appel.
 

NIGHTLY HARLOT FOREVER EXEMPTED FROM THE JOYS OF LOVE [2009]               

I was told frequently by other younger artists while visiting Toronto that the government subsidies given to artists in Ontario encourages (at least) the Visual Arts to sometimes become stagnant. This was because - in their words - the artists don't have to "work for it". Do you agree with this position? Do you have any final thoughts on how the governmental funding of the arts in Canada is either an impediment or positive force when applied to the art community's creative dexterity?

I think this is a young opinion and one that doesn't consider the larger picture. the commercial art market in Canada is insignificant and without government subsidies we would have almost no presence of art. Canadians don't like to "put out" and are instinctively conservative with money. Several of our most celebrated artists (and greatest exports) have received grants and have been very prolific. We also have several vital museums that can't solely rely on private funding (again, we suck at parting with our dough). Of course, there are always those who don't take advantage of the opportunity and blow the money on cocaine. As with anything, you get out what you put in.

http://www.thrushholmes.com/