to physics for its ability to explain the big
questions and started undergrad with the
intention of getting a physics degree, but
found myself immersed in making paintings
and occasionally selling them out of my dorm
room. Ultimately, the pull to the visual arts was
too strong. But I have always been a voracious
reader and keep up on cutting edge ideas in
physics and science in general. It wasn’t until
later that I consciously tried to combine my
interests in art and science.
I had to change my methodology. So, being
interested in the methodology of science, as
well as the mechanics of sound (I also make
sound environments and music) and the science
of the observing mind, I thought about how
to combine these elements into a strategy for
working that would fill a lifetime and never
get boring. I imagined a practice that would
be efficient and effective and perhaps, if only
for myself, a practice where I could discover
something of interest in the laboratory of
my own mind; the laboratory of paint, that
Untitled 12 (2012). 21 3/4” x 29 1/2”. Acrylic polymer emulsion on paper mounted on panel. Courtesy McKenzie Fine Art.
Q: In your work you have developed what you
call a “system” for painting, based on physical
properties you have studied. Can you describe
the character and formation of your method?
A: Fifteen years ago, I was painting in a way
that would require 1-3 years to finish a painting.
The end result was satisfying, but I knew tha t
if my art practice was to be a life-long endeavor,
16
I had not known before and perhaps have
verified through the hard sciences. I wanted
to create a personal exploration using an
intellectual, logical, thought-out methodology
in balance with the intuitional, experiential
knowledge gleaned from decades of making
abstract paintings and develop a semi-self
generating system for making work that I
could orchestrate like a conductor. So, quite
SciArt in America August 2013