Select a number to view video excerpt and read transcript


Question 7: Did you develop a personal technique in the use of these media? If so, how would you describe it?

Transcription


No, I haven’t really developed specific approaches. I proceed by using themes. For each of my exhibitions… this may be something that comes from literature: When I write I also try to start out with an operational idea. So it’s the same with an exhibition: I choose a theme and work around that. This is one way of forcing myself to work on a specific problem. But otherwise I haven’t developed a particular technique. There’s one thing I find, that people make a fetish out of a medium. For example, they’ll say: this was done with a computer. You look at it and say, So what, how does it improve the piece? It’s no more interesting than if you did this by hand. It’s just that computers connotes that it’s modern, contemporary. I find that there are pieces that are done with computers that could not be created otherwise. But when the computer is taken as a kind of gadget, I find that it bugs me. This often happens in the arts. If I throw some canon powder onto my painting, it doesn’t change anything. I can always call it a statement against violence, nothing is changed. Things have to be apparent. That’s what I feel about works of art, they have to work out at the first level. And when it doesn’t work at the first level, there is a tendency to add stuff, gadgets, to it to make it work. But I’ve always thought that you should keep things plain and simple to make it accessible. That’s why I’ve come back… My pieces have changed from abstraction to figuration mostly. Because figuration is still a challenge in our times. We’ve been making abstract works for maybe a hundred years, but that won’t wipe out 4,000 years of figuration that came beforehand. That’s why I find that the simpler things are, the more touching, the more moving they can be. That is why I tend to keep things a bit more genuine.