(the artist)
Dear Reader,
I was invited to take a look at Daniel Stuelpnagel’s art on the website: www.artquiver.com by the administrator of that website. I thought "Ok here’s another online art website. Let me see what it's like there." There is no shortage of art websites on the Internet, but I’ve met Mr. Stuelpnagel in person before and seen him around town at various art events. Most recently, I paid a visit to his studio right around the time of ArtScape this year. It is always interesting to see what he has on display.
Back to the website for a moment. I checked it out. I do not really have too much negative to say about the site. Perhaps the foregound in the virtual galleries is a bit too blurry??. ArtQuiver allows artists a virtual gallery and allows viewers to zoom-in to get a closer look at the details of any of the works in the virtual gallery. The artwork is for sale too in case you are interested. You can see Dan's ArtQuiver profilewww.artquiver.com/artist/daniel-stuelpnagel/gallery
Since I wanted to learn a little bit more about the artist and his work, I proposed an exchange of ideas. Dan was kind enough to share his thoughts.
TOM: Daniel could you tell us a bit about your work?
DAN: With the new 'Urban Legends' series, I am interested in synthesizing themes from technology, architecture, journalism and psychology. The confluence of these disciplines is evident in our daily pursuits.
Urban Legends # 19, acrylic on canvas, 38" x 38"
This is a piece that has underlying layers that have been in progress since 1987, so this represents the longest development process of working over a painting that I have done, being completed after 20 years.
Compositionally I have brought it into this recent series and completed it by developing the grid. Conceptually this is a piece that builds an architectural design out of many small components.
So perhaps this could be our starting point.
TOM: I found commentary on the painting on the ArtQuiver website. "<em>At first glance, Dan Stuelpnagel's paintings are about pronounced patterns, repetitively exerting themselves in the viewer's eye. Upon closer inspection, though, another world is discovered beyond the grid; tiny microcosms of expressive brush strokes and bold splashes of color, executed with spontaneity and energy. The fusing of these two worlds invites an exploration of the artist's intended metaphor as it applies to our individual experiences</em>."
Let me see if I agree with this. There is a pattern of sorts here. That's obvious. Squares. Or is it interwoven lines?? I do not know if "exerted" is the word I would use. I do not feel like U.L. # 19 is exerting itself upon my eyes. Looking only at the brownish squares, I start to see what looks like a rusted sheet of iron, which makes me think industrial. It makes me think structure. Perhaps there is a confrontation between myself and this mystery structure.
The grid reinforces the notion of structure and works with the dancing colors that live in and around the grid to give the viewer the idea that there are these structures around us, some visible, some not so visible. We, our energies are interacting with this grid, this set of resources and limitations. I think that is how I am going to relate this image to the term "tiny microcosms". My eyes are first confronted with the obvious grid and then my eyes are sent this way and that to see what the colors are all about. That takes focus and imagination. I like that feeling of trying to make sense of apparently random colors, whether this exercise takes place when I look at the work of an artist or whether I am simply closing my eyes and watching those shapes and colors people see when they close their eyes.
That being said, what thought do you give to the viewer's interpretation of your works in general and this work in particular?
DAN: The viewer's interpretation is a starting point, because as the artist, I am the first viewer, so I go ahead and imagine the piece as being out in the world, and expect that others will view it, and I imagine, "How will people respond to it ?"
I view the work critically, so I expect others to as well. I think the basic aesthetic criteria are important, composition, color relationships, etc., so I try to impose progressively more stringent critiques on the painting. Then over the years, as I develop, and see more pieces and experience more of life, I can come back to earlier pieces and say, "Oh, this is not actually complete, this can go further" or "Yes, this still satisfies the viewer"
With this work specifically, I think it is functional as a way of implying motion, the small differences between many similar squares in a pattern create a puzzle-like environment for the eyes and the brain, and I do think it is important that this be a pleasing or satisfying experience to a majority of viewers.
I find elements of architecture, storyboards, video frames, and object models in the pictures. Another person might see aerial views of environments, or cellular structures, or something different. It is important that the work function from any viewing distance, from far away it draws you closer and from close up there is still more detail to see. (This is why I like the Zoom feature on ArtQuiver ...)
(zooooming in for a closer look)
TOM: I like that you say you are the first viewer. There's a good chance that if you are pleased with the work then there will be others who are pleased by the image as well. It is also interesting to think about how people will respond to something. When you have a winner you just know it! I've only done a little bit of painting with acrylics and now mainly I do digital experiments. That's what I will call them. Have you had a chance to create anything digitally lately and if so how did that go?
Also, I like the term: "puzzle-like environment". With the painting Urban Legends # 19, zooming in and out on ArtQuiver was fun. I could get the big picture and then go in for a closer look to take a look at some of those smaller spaces. Cells.
DAN: Exactly. Cells.
Are they cells in a spreadsheet / database, and representing information? Are they cells in the prison of consensus reality, and if so, if we relinquish our value judgments, can that be regarded as a place of security and peace rather than just confinement?
Or cells as in organic cellular structures, boundaries clearly defined, relationships implied by visual information, as in an MRI scan, yet another pixelated environment?
Developing these pieces, I am working conceptually within the digital / electronic realm but simply choosing to work in paint media applied by hand for several reasons; there is a bridge between past and future there, and there is a viscous spontaneity in a jar of paint on canvas that transcends the requirements of electronic applications (no electricity required, and the interface resides within the physical consensus reality.
TOM: Just a thought to add to our conversation: Cells in organs have limitations upon their structures and also serve specific functions.
DAN: Regarding structural limitations and specific functions, of the components of the art work, i.e. small passages or small squares, and also of each individual painting, which in turn can be viewed as a component of a larger painting;
The paintings being continuous like that, it is a way of reinforcing specific visual boundaries and hoping that paradoxically the boundaries between the paintings dissolve and convey an inter-subjective transference within a continuous vision, an aesthetic of repetition, like music.
Then we hope that this provides at least a conversation piece, at best a common philosophical point of departure, to observe and comment on the grid-works of consensus reality, and reinforcing the theory that art provides a way of transcending these constraints by developing relationships and connections, between people.
TOM: Thank you for the interview!
--
(For this interview, pictures were borrowed from various websites without permission! No harm intended.)