Paint object (refrigerator), 2005, 90x60x70cm, fridge, wood acrylic painting.
Leila Simon: What is the origin of your "Paintings-Objects?
Bertrand Derel: The origin of my "Paintings-Objects" is fairly simple. When I started at the School of Fine Arts, I worked mainly painting ; Was an abstract painting made of drippings, burrs. This fascination has informed gradually disintegrated because this practice was focused on an aesthetic and not a real question. Depletion of this painting, probably owing to the ease of movement that produced it has ended up turning in circles to no longer produce anything interesting. So he quickly took me to rewrite in my practice and its databases to extract a real questioning. And thus gradually some elements of my paintings began to become more important. The relationship between painting and what it represents as an object began to rise in my mind what I liked in the paint, it was not so much what I was painting but the notion of painting as object and the relationship that occurs between the idea of representation and it can convey the perception of its components (that is to say how the chassis, binders, pigments, canvas can be synonymous or echo of a thought then that the use of abstraction levels take several readings and sensibilities.)
From there, I divided my work into two lanes. I started from one side to treat the painting, with the desire to represent my understanding of what surrounds me and not imagined, and therefore also show how the painting was influenced by all things around him who did. So this painting became for me a kind of mirror of reality or not converging shapes, colors, etc.. but the tensions and energies involved between the objects around me and myself. I had to come up with something that makes this sensation and the idea of object is taken head on in the mental space of painting. It and this series on Paints items arrived. I wanted to highlight the relationship between painting, the subject and one that is in the middle, the mental and physical that could be the object became more complex and reflexive. The work became the subject and object, the work.
For that, I had no aesthetic value of real objects but rather objects imbued with a utilitarian value. So I chose objects almost necessary in the normal operation of a home such as a Western way fridge, heater etc..
From there, I started to create blocks that were supposed to be frames from and which repeated the exact same dimensions as the subject matter. The block and the object being faced opposite one another to emphasize that the frame should be the object and vice versa. Thus, a sort of game is created between the two that would manifest the object-side of the painting.
and yet on the other hand, my work resulted in a completely opposite result and recessed flat with the wall
LS: Is that Intara, Duchamp, your "Paintings-Objects" are a challenge to the
painting?
BD: It does not seem to me that this is frankly a challenge because it was finally getting back to painting itself. I had a painting that was beyond me and then the only thing I was to master the construction of the chassis, struts, etc.. I felt I had no control over the paint that I deposited on the canvas. What makes at one point I wanted to reclaim the painting through the object. For me, this work became a kind of trompe-l'oeil mental, between the paint on one side, the object of another. At first I really wanted to make a pictorial work, the order of the image, but this painting and this object are united into a whole, which became sculptural, so I did not like this idea in mind. Then, these "Paintings-Objects", which initially were placed on the ground, were gradually handed over to the wall. In the hanging wall, I feel like appropriating more
the object as such in the field of painting. Finally this verticality was a fairly simple answer. The object + block marry better in this situation although for me the field of painting is not restricted only to the wall.
LS: Exactly you speak of painting, while in the traditional sense, it is absent in this series "Re-Paint?
BD: As I mentioned earlier, my work has deviated in two ways, at first I
realized paintings on chassis and then I come to this series.
The first is the fact of having set aside the subject-painting, that is to say the frame, the canvas to achieve the murals, they were species large geometric shapes
completely flat, lifeless totally disembodied. And beside that, I do not know why I wanted to create a work that would allow me to create something more in line with the body, taking in the real common things to the body and facilitates the existence such as a radiator by example and give something totally mental, pictorial. I came to wonder what was the best way for me to be a pictorial object was to represent it in 3D. Because I know because I am blind plan was the best way for me to represent the object. My objects are born from that moment. It was important for me whether it's paintings, because they were born under the name of painting, I've thought of as a painting and not as a sculpture. To me, they were first pictorial images. So what about the painting in the traditional sense of the word? No I do not paint in this direction but it was she who led me to have this type of practice and also to open myself to new practices which I did not rub me.
Pergolat , 2007, 300x850 cm, wood, acrylic paint.
LS: What exactly is the origin of your murals?
BD: I realized the wall to extract myself completely, remove my hand. At first it was quite formal and quite physical. I needed to represent large areas of color that put me uncomfortable in the space in which I showed. It was pretty important for me they are very large and when the same time, they generate space when everything is flat. It was a kind of counterpart to 3D painting-objects; An almost binary response to the fact that these objects were seen by many as sculpture. I wanted a way to make 3D with 2D.
I used it for building technology. I felt that my plane image must have depth. And besides now that the murals are accompanied by a relief that alters the architecture of the place where they are made precisely to emphasize the idea that the plan is not necessarily plan and that the painting itself "classic" as a body . Although frontal plane, they are not transversely, and when you look at the course of their long this relief emphasizes that a painting can be browsed in a space that is mental or not.
Green- Orange Fluo , 2004, 400x140 cm, fluorescent tube, wood, acrylic paint
LS: Why are you included in your neon wall?
BD: It was very beginning, I did not know exactly where to place myself, this addition is really the bridge between these two works (paintings, murals and objects). The murals that use neon lie between these two works, it can be a sprite painting but also murals. It is the object (neon) and painting. The lamps are also involved to give also this notion of trompe l'oeil which I referred earlier to the "Paintings-Objects." But I was not completely satisfied, I wanted to create a patch of light, short things were not very clear on this point, so that gradually the lights disappeared and the goods become blocks, ground objects and paintings are emptied of purpose, only to be murals. There was also this idea after all trivial that the painting was also made of light. It was a kind of manifestation of this preconception.
LS: In a wall you insert a frame, then it disappears in the following. Is what you had trouble separating worry in you'd need?
BD: Yes indeed, it was the very beginning was the second, it was like a kind of booster shots. In fact even now that my relationship with the chassis is ambivalent; my practice has spread yet I continue to buy and treasure. Maybe it's a kind of fetish ...
LS: When you realize Pergola in 2007, do you feel close to the work of Felice Varini or Georges Rousse?
BD: Not really. Their work seeks to show, to impose a certain way point of view, the arrhythmia can be created when the view is not good in their works, but if one wants to see their pieces in their entirety, should one place. In my case, I prefer to believe that there is no single viewpoint. Approaching a piece through the lens of a single viewpoint is interesting but simplistic and I think this can lead to some abuses that I can not afford.
LS: Te would call you "an architect of an interior space" when you realize Pergola (Creation a universe, a new space for painting)?
BD: Not really what interested me was to create a kind of disorder in the perception of space, not necessarily to create a universe. I wanted to use this architecture as a medium for my paintings to highlight the fact that it (the architecture) can be seen as anything other than architecture. For me, the reality of architecture is that it is the support that we live, it is our way of life and relieves us of external constraints. In fact, it becomes for me the equivalent of a white sheet on which creates new spaces. A drawing can enlarge the physical format of a film by the way we plan the features in another place. Obviously, we are talking thus universe but they are created by painting the beholder. As I said, I do not wish to establish a point of view, because I think everything has to see any point of view and all eyes.
This reminds me of a play I made a sculpture that is an angle, two triangles placed in a corner, coated and painted the same color as the wall, so it's a piece we hardly notice, unless we look at ground level. Something just so disturbing reading space, it seems to be constitutive of architecture yet it is an added element that distorts the architecture and allows a new relationship to it. Similarly, the wall with fluorescent (I think "green-fluorescent-gold" in particular) shifts the limits of space. The frame is covered in the 45 ° angle, the light illuminating the opposite side of the frame draws a shadow on the wall, this gives the impression that the location of the corner of the room is not behind the frame but on its edge. There has something like-it disturbs the reading of space, most of the time, my paintings are related to the idea, create something not normal, a reading space that challenges the limits troubled place, shifts the angle and shoot the walls ...
X Portrait, 2008, 120x50x60cm, wood, plaster.
LS: And as regards the portraits ...
BD: My series of portraits came shortly after the "Paintings-Objects." In fact my "Paintings-Objects" led me to create frames of increasingly sophisticated and they have become almost against my sculptures. That's why my "Paintings-Objects" are returned to the wall and I have a carving next to it now. What is rather funny is that at that time I had a big problem with my murals asked me a lot of problems. My paintings were totally disembodied, they were cold, I wanted to start but I do found myself more in it. I would have been able to achieve these paintings by anyone and this idea does not appeal to me. The idea of the hand, his gesture was absent. However, the idea of embodying a part or rather there to trace my hand over stimulated.
I worked with the cons-plated to make my "Paintings-Listed" and compulsively I had the need or desire to press against the plywood block to give me new material. Hoping thereby to get something new which could lead to new tracks. Gradually, I began to identify these blocks as to compensate for the lack of my carnal wall without necessarily doing anything; stratification PC, the living side of the wood, almost skin color of the wood, just me back in those blocks to slices of epidermis. Moreover, this idea of me tarrodait portrait, the portrait treat for me was probably inevitable. I felt that I had to transpose my line of work painting-objects of life. Ensure that this relationship that I was dealing between objects and painting can be transposed with the people and painting. Therefore, I established a rule: The board of CP could be somebody, so they should have the same width and height. This mother board was then divided into a rectangle whose dimensions depended on the face of the person concerned. Once I got this series of small rectangles, I have glued and pressed together. I sanded all the edges and I had a plaster on the front of the block on the wall. The block in question was hooked up to the face of the person I thought. This coating, the same color as the wall melted into the wall and vice versa. The depth of this object is seen depending on where one is placed. The impression that emerged was quite indefinable, because blocks were made up of flat faces but none are parallel. They were not paved rights or cubes ... Initially I called them "indefinable portraits" because I wanted to indicate that the frontal portrait (shown in surface coating) suggested also by the side of the massive block of CP all the complexity that exists between artist and his model that this questioning is not nerdy at the moment.
LS: Where your choice for a coating of the same color as the wall where the portrait will
hooked.
BD: A person is imperceptible and perceptible, only one has an idea
LS: How did you choose the volumes, the shape of these portraits ?
BD: As a totally subjective, is the idea that I am that person. The shape is gradually without being subject to a system. It is empirically and depends on factors that I do not necessarily control, the way which the block is pressed, the capabilities of cutting tools and grinding but I stop to work when it seems that the form is consistent with the person I think.
LS: Did you have any projects currently?
BD: Yes, perhaps to make a series of portraits, a group portrait of the city. I do not know yet what form it will take, perhaps a kind of micro-architecture. I do not know too well what it's going to give, but mostly I want to ensure that this rule database is not a prison.
There also paints objects that evolve quickly right now because of this new vertical but also by the choice of objects that becomes clearer gradually. The murals and also new series of sculptures stemming portraits. Finally all that will be visible very soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment