An Interview with Jackie Felix

Jackie Felix Interview


Some More Happiness

An interview with artist Jackie Felix
by Ellen Ryan
February 11, 2009
Video shot and edited by Tammy McGovern

The main thing was, I really wanted to be an artist

JF: People liked to brag about my drawings when I was young but then but later on they decided that – that was not a very good idea because then I would turn out to be a very bad woman which I would have preferred. But they really discouraged it to the point where – I think I might have been in high school maybe in junior high and my father took some of my drawings around the corner… we lived n the business district- around the corner there was an artist – his name was Abe, as I remember and he was an artist and he worked for his father and they made hangers in their garage – wire hangers.

ER: And where were you living at the time?

JF: This was in Pittsburgh. On the south side which was where the steel plants were. It’s now the “Allen Street” and it’s really cool now but it wasn’t then. It was an immigrant population and the parochial schools taught in Polish. This was a long time ago and I went to a public school.

At any rate, he took my drawings around to have Abe look at them. Now he didn’t respect Abe. He didn’t think he was anything but nothing. But Abe looked at them and, of course, said, “No”. And, so he came home and showed the to me. It was a really bad thing to have happen to you. Most girls were not encouraged to deal with art and I mean a lot of kids still are not encouraged.

ER: How old were you approximately then?

JF: Well, this would be in high school. And I would have really liked to have done that. But of course, I was aimed in to teaching or …and I wasn’t independent particularly at that time. So anyway, I always wanted to do it and did some drawing and things like that and always thought I wanted to do but I didn’t. I ended up being able to teach elementary ed, got married, had children, my husband was drafted and we did the usual thing that people my age did then. There were no wars at the time so we actually did some traveling. Lived on army bases for awhile. He stayed in for an extra term because we thought we would save money which we didn’t. But I did have babies in an army hospital which was actually kind of fun and fine too. And after that, I came out and I stayed home as a house wife. My husband was an optometrist and we eventually moved to Buffalo because there were jobs here. And, two years later, my husband was killed in an automobile accident. By that time I had four children and we were living in one of the suburbs. And although I had planned to go back to art school – I also had a teaching degree so that I could work. I really didn’t want to teach – I actually never wanted to teach in particular. I just wanted to be an artist. So I substitute taught for awhile and went broke slowly. Though I managed to hold onto the house. And i had the little kids – and they were nice – and then I remarried.

And when i remarried, the main thing was I really wanted to be an artist. Although when I remarried I was going to teach because he had three children – he was a widower – and I had four – and there were alot of kids. They were all at home – and they were teenagers – and coming-up teenagers – so I said, “Surely, I will teach.” But, (laughing) I decided I didn’t want to do that, after all. I said I would Sub. But then I just went back to school which was OK because my husband’s very supportive and the kids, of course, were fine.

All my kids have been artists and it turned out that my husband had three children, two of whom – one especially – loved art. And so they joined in on that. And that one is an artist and my other kids can all be artists but nobody is because it’s impossible to eat. But they’ve done some and they’re actually pretty good. So, I went back to school and I picked up a BFA because I needed a little bit more for that because i had a degree. And then picked up an MFA, and it was a long time. I mean I was really late…and picked up my MFA in the seventies. In fact a little before that. It was around the late sixties when everyone was striking and those things were going on. And ever since then, I have just been a working artist. I’ve had studios in various places.

We’re Really Happy, Letterbox, Curtains

ER: You want you to talk about the series that you’re sitting in front of right now.

JF: Over the years I’ve noticed, particularly I rode the streetcar a lot in Pittsburgh when I was a kid – and I always noticed couples there – that they would often not look at each other. Sometimes they would, sometimes they wouldn’t. And you could kind of gauge, in a way, how independent the women were and where the situation was going in by the ‘not looking”. And then sometimes they would suddenly look and that everything was OK. So, I decided to do a series about couples – and do more than one. And kind of picked a format that I wanted to work on which was a table that didn’t really have anything on it. It wasn’t to be about eating it was about the relationship between two people and in these – I set my parameters – so they would not be looking at each other. There wouldn’t be any overt violence or demonstration of alot of drama in it. But they would be people that you would wonder about and think about because you see this. This is just part of life. And so what i did was set it up so that they were tables – not really touching – but reaching for each other at times. Their clothing would be simple, nothing distracting, nothing to place them in any place – or maybe even any era. And, in order to limit it, I wanted to have them in an ambiguous space. And I wanted the limits to be so that they would be almost “trapped” in an ambiguous space – but not necessarily trapped but what life does. Where how you live your life is often determined by where you are; what culture you’re in; and also just physically – the physical space in which you live. And so I did these, by placing them across from each other – I wasn’t thinking in terms of left or right – but I did think in terms about how you read them. And I had put something to cut their access off from being wider, to keep them in, to trap them, or hold them. However you wanted to read it, so it’s either walls or involves trees. But the trees would be sparse, they weren’t meant to be nature, but they were just meant to be maybe barriers or maybe more than that. On the top and bottom, I decided that I would do something that would enclose them vertically too – excuse me, I mean across the the top and bottom. So, not only are they enclosed in the center, they’re also pressed together. But the other thing about this, is that I chose this. And, I used the paint flat but that didn’t work. So, it isn’t flat so it makes it hard to photograph.

But the other thing is it also relates to “letterbox”. i did that purposely. It was not really to do that …not to save myself trouble by just blacking it out – it was to connect it to media because that for me is a really important thing. So much of our lives now come to us – it’s constant. I mean – we’re no longer in our houses – something’s coming in all the time. Or, going out and videos – everything that we do. That was the reason to enclose them – that’s part of it. And the same for the walls and things like that. And clothing too. I done alot of women’s clothing. All those things for me are things that can be concealing. So that it also conceals. It conceals and it provides an aperture to – curtains open – to move into another space to and it conceals space. But it gives you a layering. I like layering. I like the idea of appropriation or you can think of anything as appropriation because it always gives you a layering. Because if I paint you there, sitting there, that’s one thing. But if I have a photograph of you, that’s an interpretation of you. Then that’s two layers. If I have you and a photograph of you then that’s another layer or dimension to it. And, I can take it many layers. And the curtains provide that. And also visually, it’s a soft…curtains can be soft. And so it is a metaphor, that has a great deal of dimension to it. So I do use them. Obviously, for me, they’re also connected to the stage and the artifice of that. And clothing too. I mean one of the things i’ve used in so many things – it removes a protection from people when you unclothe them to a certain extent. There are other protections that you have but it removes that so I just like that idea. I like the idea of being flexible and free to just move in ideas and in imagery. I also thought when I did these, ” Why the hell did you have to do six – one would have said everything”. That’s true. It would have been. But I found that I had to do more. That I needed to repeat it to somehow make it clear that it wasn’t one time. It was more than that. But one day it was like, “Yeah, that’s enough.”

Stages, Split Decision, …Um lust, sure, fine.

JF: In this piece over here, those were chairs behind it. Although it just looks like decoration on it. But I wanted the chairs in there – but I found them – much as I liked them as far as the design goes – I had to knock them down. And I wanted to conceal them. And this is almost – it’s sort of a a surfacy thing but it also has a lot of sexual connotations with the woman split and – I think I called this “Split Decision” – I’m not sure I don’t remember but I think I did… And so I – with her hair hanging down and probably her breasts hanging upside down…and so the curtains then concealed all the extraneous material there. And it’s…I always have sexual content. I mean for me – that’s in me. I mean….the first thing when my husband started courting me, it was a blind date. I mean I had been told about him and everything…I remember when he came to the front door and I was like…what was I forty-something years-old or something like that – I opened the door and the first thing I thought of was “I could sleep with this guy”. I was like, OK. And here we are. I mean that’s just automatic and I know that it’s pretty much automatic with men. I suspect it’s really automatic with everybody. But I do like to use it and like that, I want that there. So, the sex is always intentional for any reason you want to think of, that’s OK with me. Um, lust, sure, fine.

Comic Strips, Dick Tracey bullets, Hands have to do it

ER: Let’s talk about these pieces right now.

J: I’ve used cartoons figures – I love comic strips – and I think it’s a great form of art and I’ve used in earlier work I used Dagwood and Blondie and the relationship between them – that great couple, earlier couple – and I’ve tried to do them often in a way that relates to cartoons, more drawing. Whether this will end up that way or not I’m not sure yet where I’m going but I also use images- with the Dick Tracey thing was a reference to the fact that Dick Tracey – in Dick Tracey comics Dick Tracey or someone would shoot and the bullets always going through – and then they would go through something and leave holes and would punch through and come out on the other side with a little bit of blood on them. And I always really liked that it had such weird characters that for me it was fun and really interesting. And probably wouldn’t see that much of that anymore. At any rate, what I am trying to do is paint really flat and also trying to do this so that it incorporates drawing. I do like to incorporate drawing in my paintings. I draw with a brush more than anything although this time I am using some crayons and I’m just.. this is just in the early stages. The paintings will not look like this but I like this part – this is actually going to be a gun, this is a gun with Dick Tracey bullets in here because I like the referencing with that.

JF: Comic strips are a great part of art and they have a lot of social impact . The whole idea of Dick Tracey – was more than about just the silly people – there was good/evil in it – good won and there was sex and love, although it as very carefully done with Tess Trueheart. And the name, Tess Trueheart, and Dick Tracey with that chiseled face – the chiseled face was almost Native American kind of a look and it was…and I was just very fond of those and it’s hard to not think about them. There were other comic strips too, although I must say I did love Tarzan.

E: What’s the significance of the guns? Why would you use that kind of imagery?

J: Well because the guns are..it’s violence but also I use them because I like the idea of a connection. A basic connection. In this part I’m not using two figures but this relates to a human thing that’s happening here although it’s in a TV or some kind of a monitor – probably more a TV monitor- it is a reference to what we do. It actually has a human reference and that is the use of violence that our whole culture is involved in certainly the politically…things that have gone on over the centuries. And a gun is a good metaphor for violence and also violence- I mean they talk about guns and about them being dangerous. There’s this whole thing about who’s responsible for guns but hands have to do it. So I am making a human connection here by putting a hand in here. So that the hand is actually directing the technical thing so that it moves it into a much more human relationship.

Letting it go and letting it form

JF: I usually have a central idea that is as flexible as I can make it but I’ve been sick – I don’t want to go into that because – well things come up. But so I’ve just needed to work but I haven’t been sure what I’ve been working about. It’s just that I have been letting it go and letting it form. And I didn’t ant to find a format and I didn’t want to repeat and i didn’t want to do the things I know i can make work. So I’ve just been working and this especially I haven’t worked like this for a long time. This is a big mess at the moment which will be fine. But I’d like to keep some of that in it – alot of it. I don’t want it to be as controlled. I need to not have that kind of control.

JF: I mean of all the things I do in my life, this painting is great. I find it hard and I find it really work but it’s the most satisfying thing I do. And this is nice to have a sampling.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Bruce Adams &
Richard Huntington

Bruce Adam & Richard Huntington Interview (pt. 1)


Bruce Adam Interview (pt. 2)


Richard Huntington Interview (pt. 3)


begin transcript

When did you meet?

Richard: I don’t even really remember. Do you?

Bruce: No. I don’t really know. It was probably at some kind of party. I don’t know, maybe the second maybe the third time it may have been at Hallwalls but I think I know the third time was ..I think was at Elizabeth Licata’s wedding. That was the first time I talked to him for any extended period of time.

Richard: He was nervous because he was talking to a famous guy.

Bruce: Well, I mean you know I mean I told him this being the critic of the Buffalo News – the guy that can make or break you in this town – I, I sort of resisted talking to him because I thought he was pestered constantly by the people, you know, that wanted to suck up to him.

Richard: I was just waiting for someone to talk to.

Richard: I’d go to an art opening and everyone would (spreads his arms denoting people moving away from him).

Ellen: I think that is what everyone felt though. Most people felt that – if they didn’t know you a little…

Bruce: Yeah, and I remember saying to my wife. “You know I think he wants to talk to me because every time I talk he keeps going and I just walk away so I said okay next time I’m going to keep talking.”

Richard: Desperate for company…..

Bruce: And, we had a long conversation.

Richard: He’d walk away in the middle of a sentence, that was the amazing… I mean when I was talking!

Bruce: Well, your sentences go on (laughs) so…

Ellen: …So when did you start sharing a studio space? How did that happen?

Richard: 1994

Sharing space, making art, dog biscuits and sugar plums

Ellen: So, I mean, you guys have been sharing a studio for almost fifteen years…fourteen years?

Richard: That’s my arithmetic

Ellen: But you’ve become friends over the years sharing the space…did you ever get a chance to even talk to each other while you were here?

Richard: We ruined many a painting night by talking, yeah….I’d say some innocent thing and Bruce would take off on a dissertation for twelve hours or something along that line.

Bruce: Yeah, that’s so true, I’m sure…Yeah, you had nothing to say.

Richard: Yeah (Both laugh)

Ellen:
So, what kind of things would you talk about?

Bruce: Well, the ongoing thing. Well, I would describe the ongoing thing as our differing views of the nature of making art, I guess in a way…I tend to approach it from sort of an intellectual, rational point of view. (to Richard) And you can describe your….

Richard: Me, not being rational. As I said yesterday at my talk at the Castellani, that you know those diagrams of dogs’ brains where they have the huge amounts devoted to dog biscuits? So, that’s like my brain, that much is devoted to art making. But then there’s a little tiny sliver, a little pie slice, for rational stuff…Yeah, my writing, it’s all squeezed into that space. Conversation, rational conversation like this is only in that little spot. And, like the simple recognition that human life is made up of hours and minutes and not some vague eternity where I can have coffee for three hours in the morning and waste my time. So, my approach is much more emotionally based.

Bruce: Here’s the difference and kind of illustrates the difference between us. One of the reasons why I get a lot accomplished , and I would say I would actually have over the period of time we’ve been here – well, you have a lot of small pieces – but in terms of larger pieces, I have quite a few. And, I can think about what I want to do – I have so many, as you know, so many irons in the fire and I’m doing so many things – so when I get here, I’ve thought it through and I’m ready to get to work. And I will crank…I will say this is the painting I want to do and I will do it. Now, I’ll watch Richard paint something and there under every painting – there’s ten other good paintings that he’s painted over. I’ll watch him paint over and over because….he’s never satisfied. I go, “That looks great.” “Yeah, no I don’t like it I’m going to do it over.” And, there’s layer over layer of what I think is… ten times what I think is a good painting. I say I like that and he’s says it’s not time yet.

Richard: See, I call that the “sugar plum” stage where you think you’re going to do it the first time through. You know you have these visions of a great painting dancing in your head and then the reality, at least for me, cuts in at a certain point and I have to start making stabs in the dark, trial and error, endless revisions…

Ellen: Doesn’t live up to the vision

Richard: Yeah, so these things keep…pretty soon rationality is thrown out the window.

Bruce:
And, I’ll just do it the first time through.

Art History, mutual influence and Never share a studio with an artist who knows what he’s doing

Richard: My motto is “Never trust an artist who knows what he’s doing.” (All laugh.)

Bruce:
My motto is “Never share a studio with an artist who knows what he’s doing.” Just kidding. It’s a little joke. (All laugh.)

Richard: I’m really…it’s an age difference too because I came out of de Kooning and Pollack and all the Abstract Expressionists and grew up with that and basically (to Bruce) you were still a little kid. And you didn’t hit your stride until Pop Art which is…

Bruce: I didn’t even hit my stride then…It was considerably later, yeah, that I actually got active …well, as a person interested in art, you know, Pop Art would be about right. Just about right, but as a person actively participating, it was somewhat later.

Richard: Yeah, people like Warhol would use a pretty direct conceptual approach but he was always a painter…..But he would know pretty much what he was going to try to do and then he’d let his materials screw it up in some interesting way, you know like letting the silk screen fall off register or some other kind of thing. So, that’s a good example of someone who sort of follows the way you (to Bruce) work.

Bruce: Yeah, Warhol follows my way of working.

Richard: Nice of you to help him out.

Ellen: So when you guys meet here and occasionally have conversations, is it always about your approach to stuff because you’re so different that way?

Richard: It does lead to big arguments…Because of approach. Like one time I mentioned Giotto and he said, “Oh well, he’s just a thing of the past.”

Bruce: He’s paraphrasing heavily…

Richard: “He has no relevance to today” but that’s what you said.

Bruce: That’s what you remember I said.

Richard:
That’s what you said.

Bruce: Here’s what I had to say. We do have these extended conversations and they’re totally civil and we have, you know, we really seriously disagree about things but they’re entirely civil. We go back and forth and back and forth and there’s never a raised voice or anything it’s all very, you know, calm and collected.

Ellen: Does it ever result in you looking at your work and going “Oh, okay, maybe I’ll do this instead because of the conversation I just had?”

Richard: No, I don’t think so.

Bruce: I knew he would say “no”. And, see my belief is you can’t really interact with another person and not somehow be affected. Everything you interact with, you know all day, you interact with a TV show… may in some way give you a thought. Certainly another person avidly discussing art could conceivably give you a thought. But I knew you would say “no”.

Art criticism and writing reviews

Bruce: There came a point that, Richard, we’d have these discussions and he’d say, you know you should write a review. And, I would just say, what a ridiculous thought, I can’t write. And he would say that periodically and, you know, maybe every six months to a year he would just… and it was a toss off comment and I actually didn’t even know if he meant it, you know.

Richard: So now he does it.

Bruce: Then he finally talked me into it and giving it a try which I did sort of conditionally.

Ellen:
And this was for the Buffalo News?

Bruce:
Yeah, but this is great, this is great when I used to submit things if he had concerns about it he would call me and we would talk it over line by line. And, he would explain why he thought I should write it differently and that was really a learning experience for me. Really helpful. And to this day, I hear his incessant comments in my head while I’m writing. I get to the end of a paragraph – I just can’t start out with that paragraph, I have to refer to the previous thing, you know.

Whereabouts Unknown works by Richard Huntington

Ellen: So, let’s talk about the series that you’re going to be exhibiting at the Carnegie for this exhibition. Give us the title and the whole concept behind why you did it

Richard: Sure. It’s called Whereabouts Unknown and it deals with paintings that were destroyed during World War II by the Nazis. So, these paintings don’t exist anymore other than a little black and white reproduction. So what I’ve done is taken these paintings and redone them re-interpreted them in my way and then used them in some cases with letters signifying the artist and the title. So, it’s a recreation of a painting that no longer exists. For example, this is a painting by Max Hechstein called De Rauscher, which means the smoker, and you can see him depicted in this painting. The painting itself, as it once existed, was quite different than this painting. So this is kind of an expressionistic combination that I went back to the past – this painting was painted in the earlier part of the twentieth century- and I combined it with things that happened since then. So, there’s a merger of styles going on here. And usually, these have other paintings or drawings that lead up to them. In some cases many variations on the same theme. So here you have the same theme done as a drawing so you can see the different treatment here, an entirely new treatment….So here I incorporated the letters showing more obviously this painting that no longer exists. 1911 is the date there.

Ellen: And when you said they were – the only things that existed in terms of some kind of black and white print…

Richard: Yeah, usually thanks to the Nazis because they carefully documented all these paintings that they confiscated and showed them in the Degenerate show in 1937. And then subsequently, usually destroyed them or sold them or they were lost for one reason or another. So, I thought of these as kind of metaphors for the loss in World War II. You know, the paintings compared to human life were minor things but they can represent now a metaphor for all the horrors of World War II…There are so many lost. I mean they were seriously going after all this contemporary art of the day. So this is Karl Hoffer. He’s not a name you hear too much but he was a big name in the early part of the twentieth century. So, again this is a take-off on the original image done…but it’s quite different from the original, could have been because it has strokes and treatments and distortions that happened much later. I’ll show you one more here. This one is Max Beckman, Der Strand, which means “The Beach” as you can see it’s the beach.

Title First Series works by Bruce Adams

Ellen: So, we were talking about how you came about putting this series together.

Bruce: Right, so it was actually around the time that I was working on The Pictures of People Looking at Paintings and that was very tedious work, very slow and deliberate work. And honestly, that’s a good example of me sort of subjugating my own desire to the concept. Ah, it was…you get satisfaction out of it but it’s difficult work and I really like to just paint and have a good time when I paint. So I wanted to give myself a vacation from that series. I wanted to do something else and I really didn’t have an idea so I was scrounging around here – probably borrowing a gum eraser from Richard or something – and I found these little three by five cards with all these little phrases on it and they seemed to be cards that were about a lecture of some sort. Little notes to remind Richard what to say. And, I looked at them and I thought that they would work like titles like The body is public like the lives of animals. Some of these may have been quotes, they really…some of them sound like they really could have been quotes from, you know, famous people. And others were just like non-sequitors.

Ellen: So these were just cards Richard was working on for some writing assignment or public speaking assignment he had.

Bruce:
Well, not just working on – and that’s the interesting thing. I found them and then I later said, “So what are these cards.” And he looked at them and he said, “I don’t know. I made them for something. I have no idea what they mean.” So, they had things like Unmediated Expression is Like a Philosophical Impossibility and No Original Self back in There; Unconscious has its Language. And, I thought this is what I would do. It’s like what you were saying. It’s kind of like an assignment for myself . I tend to collect images because I use a lot of images in my work. And, so I thought what I would do would be to start out with the titles and then work backwards to the paintings. And, I would find images that somehow evoked the right spirit in my head and somehow make some kind of sense in my head knowing that people would see them and would create their own meaning and would have a different way of responding to it. But for myself there’s always some kind of –no matter how obscure – some kind of logic to the pieces. So, for instance, Unmediated Expression is Like a Philosophical Impossibility, that’s one of the little phrases. And, this is one that really didn’t take. Many times I would piece together images. But in this case I really didn’t have to piece together any images and found that image and took it out of context by creating the background. The background gave me an opportunity to just paint and play around with paint. But the figures were in a moment of expression. And it’s ambiguous what’s going on, it’s maybe somebody’s birthday or it’s a retirement party or it’s an office situation. These are often vintage images so they’re older and back when people typically wore suits for important occasions -and even not so important occasions. And, you know they were reacting to one another. I just thought of the idea of …here’s this form of expression in the form of laughter and applause but it’s, ah, some kind of mediation going on. There is always some kind of mediation going on between people. You know sometimes you see people sort of over-laughing or over-clapping. You know I always used to look at the Dean Martin Roasts. And people would make jokes about somebody and they were mediocre jokes and people would be falling over laughing. And I thought, that’s a good example of mediated expression, you know. But it’s all around us so that’s what that kind of evoked for me. But, by me telling you that, kind of demystifies it in a way. I like the fact that most people would look at it and they would create their own explanation for that. So a lot of these really are intended to have multiple potential answers, you know.

Ellen:
I also want you to talk about the lettering that’s on here.

Bruce: (Laughs) Well, my original plan was that these were going to be on raw wood and they were going to be finished, polished looking wood. But it was not going to be painted. And I was going to have the phrases laser-burnt in. But I had trouble finding somebody who could do laser burning. And maybe today I would have more success but at the time I couldn’t find it in the phone book and I asked people. Somebody knew someone but that person turned out to be not that reliable. So, I finally gave up and actually time past and I would continue to pull these out every now and then and continue to work on them a little bit more. So, they were actually done over a period of time. And then it was finally time to actually frame and present them. And, I just made this decision to change direction and you’d pull a color out and use the color as the frame. And then have it hand lettered like you would, like you know, a sign. And, so I happened to know somebody who had previously been a sign letterer and we shared a studio. So I said, “Richard, would you be willing to do these letters?” What I find is …that lettering is incredibly tedious and difficult to do. And he just sits there and goes through it, does it ‘cause he had that experience and had that facility for doing it. So, he said sure and you know I know probably bought some paints and he kept the paints so that was a little trade off.

Studio Secrets Revealed

Bruce: …But anyway, so you know if you were going to get reviewed, Richard was going to review you. And I said to him, “You know if I join you in the studio, can you still review me?” He said, “Yeah, I think I can. It shouldn’t be any problem.” We agreed, and this was the big agreement, that he would never discuss my art. So, he would see me working on stuff but he would never say anything about it. The first time I would hear what he thought about it would be when he wrote about it. Then eventually I started to notice that he was farming-out the reviews a little bit, you know. If I was mentioned in a group show, okay. But if it was a solo show he’d get someone else… So he really kind of stopped reviewing me. But we still kept up to that rule until the day he quit at the Buffalo News. He never talked about my work. Of course, then after he did, he would have no problem. He would come in and he would say things like, “That neck looks like there’s a squid around it.”

Richard: I didn’t say that.

Bruce:
You did too. He said that, “It looks like she’s got an octopus around her neck.”

Richard: I said that?

Bruce: Yeah. Tentacle.

Richard: I said that?

Bruce: You said, “Correct that, fix that, just a little too much in the division there. It’s got this big rubber thing around her neck.” Or…he’ll give a backhanded compliment like, “Yeah, you almost got the illusion there.”…. Well, he either likes to paraphrase what I say in the worst possible light or he just makes it up. He takes things out of context. And, also sometimes I say things to be glib and then he quotes them like they were sincere. Even when you’re glib there’s an element of truth but you’re saying it in a way that you don’t want repeated somehow to be considered literal. But that’s all. Let me tell you about some other things. Richard is very sensitive to fumes and I understand that and you have to be polite….But painting makes fumes sometimes. So sometimes he’ll come in and he’ll say, “I can’t stand the fumes. Your water is too old.” “My water’s too old?” “Yeah, the water’s just not starting to smell right.” I’ll get rid of it, no problem.

Richard: That’s because you put oily rags in the water.

Bruce: No, but I mean it’s true. You can’t throw a bunch of oily rags in the corner and pile them up. They’ll eventually generate heat and explode. But Richard is convinced that even laid flat out they will potentially burst into flames. And he makes me a thing of water where I throw my old rags in. I was thinking like, if I was Jackson Pollack , I would come back and find my paintings in a bucket of water. ‘Cause he would say, “You had the oil on the canvas there and it was going to explode.” So, I can’t have a single rag laid out flat with some oil paint on it. Even though we paint on canvas with oil paint. But that’s Richard’s idiosyncracy and you’ve got to respect each other’s feelings about those kinds of things. So, I do my best to make sure my rags go in the water.

Richard: Well, I actually had a shared studio – I think I told you this, Bruce – in Peoria, Illinois…. you know, we shared a big studio and this guy would just throw the rags all over the place. Heaps, flat out on the easel, anywhere. And I said, “You know they’re going to burn. The whole studio will go up.” And, so I would pick up his rags every day and throw them out and he would get furious because those were his rags. But he continued to do it and continued to do it. But when I left Peoria and left that studio, six months later the studio burned down….So that’s my point.

Bruce: See, the rationalist in me says, that’s very circumstantial. However, that kind of experience certainly would put you off rags for life.

Ellen: I think this is a great place to stop.

Bruce: You thought it was a great place to stop a half an hour ago. (All laugh)

Ellen: No it’s great. Thanks so much. I think people will enjoy this.

Richard:
Betty (the dog) didn’t say a word.


Special thanks to Tammy McGovern and Jax DeLuca at Squeaky Wheel for shooting and editing this video piece.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)