Ulf Verner Carlsson
Relationship to tradition?
There is no one particular tradition, but various ones - or aspects of them - which interest me. In the tradition of abstract art, I relate especially to the relational aspects of the works. To me, the fact that the work takes place at the same level as the viewer, that the viewer's presence is included in the work and in the space where the work is presented means an opening up to the world. Traits of this can also be seen in some Minimalist strategies and with the Russian constructivists. Another personal point of connection is to the book Me and You by the German philosopher Martin Buber. I consider the knowledge of traditions as important, it is necessary to be able to differentiate between what was done before and what is done now.
Possibilities of painting?
I think it is easier to paint now than it was in the beginning of the 1990's. As we all know, there was a lot of angry reaction against the big money and even bigger egos of the 1980's. It seems that artists today have an increasingly relaxed attitude towards their work. There is less of that egomaniac stuff around, something I think connects to the fact that there is more openness towards media and contexts from the side of the artists.
In my own work, I see the possibilities in using different approaches. Not by mixing them together, but by doing different things at the same time. For example, I make these sort of ‘hard core’ abstract paintings, but in other works I use very different strategies. During a few years, a friend of mine and I collaborated. We made cartoon-like sculptures and a lot of drawings. It was catchy and blurry with a lot humour. The pluralism of going to different extreme poles, which end up supporting one another is something I miss. Sometimes, I tend to feel this as an almost personal conflict. I seem to be forcing myself into different boxes, not being able to have this coexisting in a good way. I can’t work with different medias simultaneously.
I have a strong feel for art as a practice I don't consider any forced cross-overs very interesting. I see no need to tear down the wall between art and other areas of life. They should interact, sure, but on their own terms and with their own means.
Actuality of painting?
I often work slowly. My process involves a great deal of thinking, wondering and looking, and not a lot of mechanical activity. However, even if it takes me a long time to finish a work, I do not want the results to look heavy and belaboured. They ought to have a certain lightness in them. In a year, I produce six to seven paintings. I believe that even if I were free to focus solely on my artistic practice, my speed of production would not increase that much. I consider myself lucky not to be under pressure regarding the quantity of my output. I go with the natural personal flow and that is just very slow.
What do you read?
Mainly articles, compilations of texts on art, like what has been published in the Swedish Kairos series. I do not read that much theory. I find the discourses interesting, but I do not participate in them. At the moment, I am also a keen reader of the writings of Halldor Laxness (especially Brekkukotsannáll) - which I try to read in the original version in Icelandic.
Artist’s morality?
I do not think artists should maintain a higher moral standard than other people. However, these questions are vital. It is about being aware of the present. I am kind of a romantic, maybe, in that I am convinced that one can see the ethical attitude of artists in their works. I agree with the claim that all art is political. To me, political refers here to the awareness of being and the awareness of the direction that this being is heading. I would like this ethos to be visible in my works.
However, it is quite hard to pinpoint what exactly is political. In my work, for example, it also has to do with the way my work is installed. That is the contextually related, political aspect of my paintings. The question is whether materiality works as an object of surplus value in any situation, or if it only functions and gets its credibility in its chosen context.
Relationship to the chosen subject?
My works are not about me in particular, but about various, given attitudes. If I want to leave a trace, I have to use myself as a starting point but that is all. I am not sure if I am a site-specific painter. For example, some of the works to be exhibited in Gävle Konstcentrum do not begin with this specific space. The installation of my work will point to the space. But then again, I make neither sketches nor series. All of my works are very much single entities.
Question of modernism and its role?
So many things have changed since then. However, I think there are many interesting routes which one can extrapolate from modernism. It is not only about getting a clear distance but about seeing what makes sense and what doesn't. Modernism contains many different artistic attitudes which are interesting; from Dada to Ad Reinhardt. I can appreciate Ad Reinhardt for being so extreme and clear, and the rigidity in his refusal to allow anything from the real world to stream through his work. At present, very few artists would want to take such a stand, and it seems that artistic attitudes today operate with reduced barriers between art and life, or none at all, sometimes similar to a Constructivist approach. I don't think the idea of aesthetic purity makes so much sense anymore, but on the other hand, I believe that the idea of the creative and creating subject is still
important.
Mika Hannula
|
|
