Jerome Interviews Andrew McLeod.
Andrew McLeod has a retrospective show at Ivan Anthony. Last week I interviewed him, where he
spoke of the dynamism of modern ‘fine art’ and what it means to be a
fine art practitioner in the twenty-first century. He articulates the
importance of context in his work and how part of his subject matter
seeks to encompass the immensity of our contemporary visual culture.
You
obviously have both formal and metaphorical/narrative concerns in your
painting. Not just evident in the distinction you make between your
interiors and your abstractions, but also in the way that you draw upon
geometric abstraction in your more figurative interiors.
It’s called
composition. All painting has composition, whether it’s abstract or
not. And that’s like where things are inside the rectangle, square or
circle. Formal concerns are composition. Figurative and formal elements
can mean things when they work together. That’s all part of it.
So you don’t necessarily make a distinction?
No you can make a
distinction. You just make a judgement whether this painting is going
to be abstract or figurative. Formalism is traditional and culturally
specific rather than something innate about making visual work. It’s
composition. If you’re talking about twentieth century abstraction,
then I like lots of twentieth century abstraction: Mondrian, El
Lissitzky, Josef Albers.
When you paint your abstractions, is that you making a distinction between abstraction and representation?
It’s me working with
the tradition and with a type of abstraction that has relevance to our
visualculture. The Bauhaus and the Constructivists and particularly
Lissitzky, all designers love him. He’s a great painter. And it’s still
current and a part of our visual culture. I wanted to show people how
to do it properly – what proper abstraction is like.
And that’s what you do in your figurative works. You accentuate the formal relevance of the living space.
Well you know if it’s
a bad artist it will have really shit composition, or the absence of
composition. They don’t even know where to put things. They just do
whatever. They’re not even using it at all. Composition is especially
fine art, culturally. It’s really important. It has nothing to do with
the literal things that are happening in the figurative painting. Fine
art is focused on composition, as
opposed to illustration and the comic tradition, which has more to do
with narrative. It’s just a different culture.
It seems that people
who have an art history background and know who you are aligning
yourself with – to an extent – in the geometric abstractions,
understand them.
Visually they do.
Whereas your average person relates more to the interiors.
And the design I think. Design is a massive part of our contemporary visual culture.
So why do you paint both?
I don’t know. Because
I’m really good and need to show people how to do it properly. Can’t
leave it to the idiots. And there are a lot of idiots doing
abstraction. And figurative stuff.
People think abstraction is easy to get away with.
I don’t know. It’s
true. It is easier to do. Well it’s not easy to do well. I do lots of
things. It’s all part of the culture of Andrew McLeod. There is a
thread of logic. It’s all completely logical to me.
Geometric art has traditionally been opposed to expression and imagery.
That’s just what they
said. That has nothing to do with the visual side of things. I’m a fine
art practitioner rather than a theorist or a teacher or writer. I look
at it from the visual side of things. A lot of artists get a long way
because they are great talkers. Like Luc Tuymans has got so far by
being a good talker and being able to spin the bullshit that the
academics and the curators like. And he has also been able to make a
bunch of half decent paintings and he has a good dealer. But if you’ve
ever read an interview with him, it has nothing to do with the work.
He’s just a bullshit spinner… he’s a good one though. His paintings
probably don’t take as long, so he’s probably got more time to do that. Spin the bullshit.
Your abstractions seem to retain some form of personal expression and operate as imagery. You aren’t just feeding the academics.
No. I don’t think
abstraction just feeds the academics. Academics like writing. They like
theory and political statements, which is only natural because they are
writers. I’m a more visual culture person rather than a writing culture
person. I’m not part of that system. I mean ill keep my mouth shut if
someone is going to give me some public resources or get my work out
there. Or I’ll get someone to write a funding proposal for me and that
will be full of bullshit. It’s what you have to do. But I am part of
some of the academic and so called intellectual debates, in the subject
of my work. The paintings deal with
things in the academic world. Part of the fine art culture is the
academic scene. I do actually engage with that, but not by writing. I
do it with my work.
What is your interest in interiors and furniture?
I don’t know, it’s
probably just untapped. An untapped vein. If there is a lot being done
of something, then you’re going to avoid it. Well if its being done
badly you might not.
I mean is it because it has relevance to your subject matter?
It’s got a lot to do
with what I make my work for: gallery spaces, people’s houses. It’s not
like design where it might go on a t-shirt or comic or something.
So you’re addressing your market and its context.
I’m part of a culture.
It’s called fine art and I’m part of it. And I like it… when it’s done
well. And I want to see it done better, because I wonder whether it’s
in a very healthy shape or not. I’m part of a culture.
Your works
seem to shift between rigidity (in the way you accentuate the formal
relevance of the architecture) and naivety (in the rough
anti-anatomical figures you juxtapose with this).
What straight lines and wriggly lines?
Yeah.
It’s all something you
are allowed to do. You’re allowed to use straight lines and you’re
allowed to use wriggly lines. If you can throw it all together then its
great. These days, from what I hear, it has got better in some ways.
Better than say fifty years ago, when there was a whole Greenbergian
abstract fundamentalism, which everyone had to pay a lot of respect to.
There are things like that now and crazy theories that tell people what
to do when they go to art school or not to do. But no one cares what
painters do now.
To what extent do you draw upon your own life in your work?
Its only natural I
think. You could say I’m drawing upon my own culture. Of course I draw
on my own culture a lot. I look at all kinds of visual culture.
But is it visual culture more than your own life?
Well visual culture
can talk about anything. All cultures are human things that we use to
communicate. Culture is just something that humans do a lot of compared
to other species. Being a visual artist I draw upon a visual culture;
the world of visual culture, rather than the world of say literary
culture. I draw more from the world of graphic design, fashion and
movies – the visual aspects of those things. A good answer would be:
it’s only natural.
Why do you work on computers sometimes?
Well for computers I
always looked to advertising and thought that people that do those
graphics and advertising and do all that amazing stuff … you know great
big signs on the bus stop – and they are really interesting and
literate in what they do – and I thought that they had a lot of power
being able to do that and I wanted some. I want to get me some of that.
But does it enable you to make your art more so how you want it to be?
I just wanted the
power to use photographic stuff and text and fonts and Vector
Information. I wanted the power to do all that stuff. Because you can
see it, the whole font thing and vector data is so precise and
infinite. And yea just doing different things. It’s just like you do a
water-colour and then an oil painting. Very tempting.
Are there any methods that you consistently employ when working?
I do a lot of drawings. And I compose things on the computer sometimes. Some will start from nothing just on the canvas and some will start from drawings. All different ways. It’s not that consistent. Visual research, y
ou can do a lot of that these days. It’s great.
Do you align yourself with a group? Any major influences?
I don’t think anyone does these days really.
Some people do.
Some people invent there own personal one for laughs. Which is great.
Do you look at other art in a way that is relevant to your own practice?
Um I can tell if something is good even if it is different to my own
work. You know when they say that ‘great readers make great writers’.
Great artists are often very picky too. That’s alright.
And do you study imagery? It feels as though you do.
Like other artists?
Not even other artists, just anything that surrounds you?
Sometimes I do
conscious things. Like with the show I had at the Adam Art Gallery,
year before last, I was asked to do a show with Piranesi and I thought
an interesting thing to do would be to do a large drawing on the wall
that was a post-modern interior, like post modern interior decoration
and architecture from the eighties, because Piranesi was really big in
the eighties. It was just a really interesting link. To help explain
how Piranesi fits into the world and our visual culture.
How do you feel about your most recent show?
Yeah my show at Ivan’s is awesome.
Ivan Anthony - Watchtower / Prints 2001-2008
Georgie Hill / Andrew McLeod
12 November - 6 December 2008
Cnr. East St & K Rd
Level 1, ANZ Building
Dizengoff – Mural
256 Ponsonby Road, upstairs
See Andrew’s side projects and body of work:
Artist books for sale:
Parsons
26 Wellesley Street East
Jerome William Lee Webby