Luminous Decay

What was it like growing up in Essex?

My father had a small shop in the village of Writtle, selling animal foods and garden supplies. Gardening was my parents main interest, they had two acres, one half was garden, the other half a chicken run,(the eggs were sold in the shop), so I would play in the garden and on Galleywood Common, which was just up the road.

 When I was about ten I started getting art books and science fiction out of Chelmsford library. We didn't have a TV or record player, and the radio was only tuned to the news and 'The Archers', so I spent a lot of time reading and drawing, because there were no other distractions. 

You describe yourself as an artist of the fantastic and grotesque, I look at your work and I might describe it more succinctly as sublime, you are well versed on the tradition of the grotesque, have you researched and dismissed the sublime?

When I spoke to people about art I found that very few knew about the artists that I was interested in (Kubin for example). They only knew the modern story of art that begins with Cezanne and goes via Cubism to Abstraction and Minimalism.

So in 1997, when I was asked to give a talk about my work, I made a list of the artists that had influenced me, (most of these were pre 20th century), and found that they fitted into this alternative history of the fantastic and grotesque. I read some books on the theory of the grotesque by Wolfgang Kayser, Mikhail Bakhtin and Ewa Kuryluk.

I reused this potted guide to the grotesque when I wrote the introduction to the catalogue of my drawings at Chappel Galleries in 2005. You can read it on my website and the Chappel Galleries website.

That was how I came to describe myself as an artist of the fantastic and grotesque.... but in some ways this is misleading, because people think that the subjects of my work are fantastic and grotesque, but the subjects I draw are about reality, not fantasy. In the same way that Bruegel's 'Big Fish Eat Little Fish' is a fantastic and grotesque image, but is about reality, a universal principle which can be seen in something mundane like a corner shop put out of business by a supermarket.

(Even my pictures of mythological subjects are about reality)

I wrote about the methods employed by the grotesque, hybrid forms, changes of scale, distortion, etc, but I didn't write about the meanings or subject matter of my drawings.

All my work is about reality, things I see on the news, my own experiences, how I see life, but in order to say something about the world I have to distort it, using these methods of the grotesque and fantastic. 

For example, after trying to cycle round Hyde Park Corner roundabout in rush hour traffic, I had the idea to turn this experience into a picture of people expressing their emotions via their cars.

So I drew cars mutating into people, fighting, crawling like beetles on top of each other, in an apocalyptic scene that stretched to the horizon, as if the entire world was covered in cars.

And that is the point when an image becomes sublime. The sublime is the feeling of awe we get from the experience of perspective, that we are small in relation to the vastness of time and space. There are methods to creating this nightmarish effect of the sublime, rather than drawing thousands of cars filling the landscape it is possible to create this effect by obscuring them in darkness and smoke, because then the viewer can imagine this battle of cars that covers the world.

The subjects are also often sublime, traditional subjects like The Ship of Fools, The Dance of Death and The Wheel of Fortune are sublime concepts.

A subject like The Wheel of Fortune relates to mundane events in the daily news, but also to events through history, from the small and specific to the vast and general, all over the world are the ruins of the palaces of kings and dictators.

The effect of the sublime is a natural result of the way I work. For example, I wanted to draw a wolf preaching, (this is also an old subject, there are medieval woodcarvings of Fox preaching to geese, but you can relate the image of a wolf preaching to events in the news). I drew the wolf, and was happy with that part of the picture, but when I started to draw the sheep I thought they looked stupid, I could not decide if they should wear clothes, how they should sit, etc, and suddenly realised that I didn't have to draw the sheep at all, it was much less effort to leave the sheep out, and the picture was much better without them. A wolf preaching implied a flock, I didn't need to draw them. So I dissolved that side of the picture in a glare of light, leaving a hint of some archways. And that is the sublime, because it leaves the impression that the wolf is preaching to some vast hall, but that is in the imagination of the viewer. 

That is how I work, I edit out as much unnecessary information and detail as I can by loosing it in darkness or a glare of light, and that also gives the effect of sublime.

You have said that you are influenced by dreams and I wonder where you get the quality of dream that bodies forth in your work, have you experienced sleep paralysis or lucid dreaming?

I have not had lucid dreams, I have had sleep paralysis a few times, recently my wife woke me because I was screaming in my sleep (there was a gigantic semi transparent black dog leaping about the room, my wife said that "It had probably wandered up from the river path", - meaning that it was Black Shuck)

Most of my dreams are very boring, but I have had a few that I have been able to turn into drawings, the heads made of scaffolding and the drawings of figures as buildings.

I had those dreams while I had bad colds and a touch of fever. When I woke I sketched the image of myself as a structure falling to bits because I thought it had a sort of truth to it, like my other drawings, a grotesque fantastic image that is also a reality.

The strength of your vision is evidenced by the vitality you breathe into your drawings, something you achieve through refinement, were you born with this gift of drawing from the imagination, or is it something you trained yourself to do over time?

Drawing was the only thing that I was good at as a child, and I drew a lot so I got better at it.

I can recognise my hand in drawings that I did as a teenager, I don't know how much I have improved, but I can compose pictures and edit out the mistakes with more confidence than I could 20 years ago.... so I am learning.

Drawing from imagination is drawing from memory. I do not rely on my memory, I draw from imagination, then go back and check that I have not made mistakes, I used to collect books and newspaper cuttings for information,( how do you draw the paw of a lion, etc), but now we have google images it is much quicker.

Why do you think black and white suits fantastic imagery?

Because colour is often an unnecessary complication. 

And with fantastic images it can be difficult to decide what colour to make things, for example, my Library Head pictures, if they were in colour how would I handle the transition between the building and the face? There is a point where the face stops and the library begins, if the face was face coloured and the floor wood colour the two realities would clash and it would destroy the harmony of the picture. 

You are heavily influenced by literature, I can only imagine what a Rumsey fairy tale reads like and it saddens me, do you write?

I do not write, I have never tried to.

What are your thoughts on metamorphic art?

When I was 15 I drew a large illustration for Jabberwocky, that from a distance resolved into the face of Alice. 

Images that represent two or more things at the same time, it is a pictorial language, I use it if it means something.

I drew Rock Heads, two faces shouting at each other, that were also two rocks half buried in sand, I thought of it as fossilised conflict.

Another drawing is of a tree made of figures fighting each other. That is a single thing, like a religion for example, with sects at war with each other, and the figures that fall from the tree nourish the roots and the conflict continues to grow. If it was a political cartoon it would have names written on it which would make it specific, but this is an image that could relate to many conflicts from the past to the future. 

You would not conform to what was put in front of you at art college, you were self-taught, to an extent, and yet have mastered your craft. This raises two questions: Your respect for an older tradition, which some would call outmoded, arguably makes you an enemy of progress, how do you answer that charge? You have trained yourself to draw the way you wanted to, some readers might wonder if it is worth attending art classes if they already have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish, what do you say to them?

I don't see myself as an enemy of progress, but I think the word 'progress' is meaningless in the context of art.

Oil paint has brighter colours than fresco, but fresco lasts longer on plaster. Etching is easier than woodcut or engraving, but is different, not a progress.

You can say DVD is a progress from video, or that a new camera is a progress if it is smaller and has more memory, but the idea of progress in art is meaningless.

Since Impressionism art has become more limited, from Cezanne to Cubism to Abstraction to Minimalism to Conceptual art, there are more and more things that you are not permitted to do, if you wish to be considered 'modern'.

I know that I would find it very difficult to express what I want if I was working as a Conceptual or Installation artist.... If I want to draw a horse I just draw it, but if I was doing installation I would have to find a horse, kill it, stuff it and then find somewhere to store it.

I was looking at a conceptual artwork last week, it was four TVs, each with a flat colour on the screen and a buzzing sound. Am I supposed to be interested... is anyone interested? How long am I supposed to stand there looking at it? Am I supposed to go and find a text which will explain to me why I should find it interesting? All I know is that it is somehow my fault for not finding it interesting, and because I don't find it interesting I am considered out of date, uncool and an enemy of progress.

But I am not against Installation art, some I find interesting, I have always liked the work of Edward Kienholz, I can see what his work is about and it is visually interesting and has humour.

Is it worth going to art college? Is it worth getting a debt of about thirty thousand pounds or more? 

The Old Drawing Examination was stopped in 1951, that was when they stopped teaching anatomy and perspective, so if you want to learn the old fashioned stuff you will have to teach yourself. With the internet you can find everything you need to know, draw from life as much as possible, rather than from photographs, because from life you are synthesising a 3D reality rather than a 2D image. You can buy a medical grade plastic skeleton for about £100, draw from yourself and friends, I think that you are more likely to create something unique and original by looking at the widest range of art and teaching yourself than you would by going to art college and conforming to other peoples ideas of what art should be.

Considering you slept rough to allow you longer travelling through Italy, you must have felt that the experience was valuable, looking back, how formative do you think the trip to Italy was? Is there anywhere else in the world that you would like to visit to study the art?

It was 38 years ago that I travelled through Italy, I don't think that I have much of an urge to go back, I have so many books on art and have looked at so much since then... it would be fun to go back, but I can't afford it.

It is things that are new to me that I find most exciting. I like to go to Paris, last year I saw a brilliant exhibition of African Voodoo sculpture at the Cartier Foundation, this year I saw a amazing show of the works of Marcel Storr, I spent a few hours looking at them. I also saw a show of Italian outsider art at Halle Saint Pierre which was very good. When in Paris I like to visit the Gustave Moreau museum, but apart from Paris I don't have a great urge to travel... but one day I would like to go back to Vienna and see the Bruegels.

For all your resistance to art college I am sure that you have a great deal to teach, real drawing might not get all the investment and press attention but there will always be a hunger for it, you have lectured but have you considered teaching people to draw in your style?

I have not lectured much, I have given a talk on my work three times... I don't enjoy it.

I don't think there is much I could teach, I don't really have a style, anyone could do it.

I use charcoal and compressed charcoal on thick Somerset off-white printing paper.

I sketch in the idea, fill in the tones, correct mistakes with an eraser.

When it gets too messy I give it some fixative, and from then I have to use some sandpaper to help erase.

If something looks ok I keep it, if it is wrong I change it... I just carry on till it looks ok and I am happy with it and it is finished.

There is not much more to be said... the rest is the personal taste of the artist.

I try and keep it simple, edit out as much as I can, dissolve details in light or obscure them in shadows.

But that is just my method... I draw like that because it allows me to make as many changes and alterations as I like.

I don't worry about overworking a drawing... I just keep going till I am happy with it.

Or decide that it is rubbish and tear it up.

Paul Rumsey has recently exhibited at the Salon du Dessin DRAWING NOW art fair.

See more of his work:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa5/rumsey/

http://www.chappelgalleries.co.uk/exhibitions-05/paul-rumsey/paul-rumsey.htm

http://www.outsiderart.co.uk/rumsey.html

http://www.eastwestgallery.co.uk/artists/paulrumsey.asp

What is the current trend in Mexican art?

I think there is more than one trend. Last century artists like Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco, Rufino Tamayo and Frida Kahlo, to name a few, still influence many artists in my country. Their pieces are well known at the international level and command very high prices. Furthermore, Surrealism left an important mark in my country, which is still setting a style for many artists. Similarly, in the north of the country the US-Mexico border culture has bred a very distinct art style for decades which is not only pictorial but musical as well, and the south of the country is also interesting, with an art style that blends modern and ancient elements. Good examples of this are Demián Flores, who uses wrestlers, pre-Hispanic symbols, etc., and Dr. Lakra, who is much better known at the international level.

Art in Mexico, as in any part of the world, is still immersed in difficult financial circumstances, with adrop in art collecting and a lack of adequate resources for grants, so that the artist still struggles day by day to live off his or her art. Unfortunately, there are not enough art galleries or showrooms and many artists take low-paying jobs in which their activity is of a more commercial nature. There are a significant number of art forums where artistic pieces can be shown, but there is no formal, earnest sales promotion and the artist needs to be his own promoter even though this is not easy and many lack the ability to do so. There are a few noteworthy exceptions that are fortunately being replicated, but not at the necessary pace.

The fact is that the Mexican mind has changed in regard to art. It is now much more open. There is still quite a lot of censorship, but not at all like 20 years ago when exhibits were shut down because of controversial subjects such as nudity or religion. Spencer Tunick was a positive success several years ago in the Zócalo, downtown Mexico City, there were calls for censorship, but they died down without getting a response.

I hope censorship decreases in the coming years and more spaces for art criticism open. Mexico City is an avant-garde region in this sense, and open-mindedness exists, but there is a latent risk when you go to other parts of the country. Political difficulties and discussions between different ideologies in the country have also had their consequences. The more liberal political parties have brought to the country bolder proposals and people have responded well. With more conservative governments, the difficulties have been deplorable, but public opinion – I insist – has changed.

I know many young people who are fighting for a space and it has been very interesting to see how Internet and the social networks have offered them a grand showcase. Several of them are already selling abroad at international prices. I think this is the right attitude, to keep at it rather than sitting down and deploring the situation. We must fight and come together, this is what we still need to do.

Do you consider yourself an artist of your culture?

Yes, I find social criticism exciting, particularly in regard to religion. The majority of people in Mexico are religious, predominantly Catholic. I was a Catholic up to the age of 17. The history of my country is closely tied to this religion.

To what extent do you see the artistic process as a sexual act?

I don’t see it as such. Art is addictive, exhausting, exciting, but there is a difference in that two are needed for the minimal sexual act.

Which qualities do you look for when choosing a model?

I want them to have a beautiful body, long legs and wide hips, although I usually manipulate their images digitally to achieve a final appearance that agrees with the concept of the piece. There is also a spontaneous something that emerges when I look at the position of the body and the attitude of the model.

In your drawings you celebrate the female form, but you surround it with images of decay. Are you warning us of the dangers of Woman or on the nature of desire?

I do not see the female essence as dangerous. As far as I am concerned, its capacity to provoke desire is unbelievable and inspiring. In my works I have always tried to unite two antithetical poles: decadence, many times symbolized by death, and erotic elements as a force which, through sexual instincts, produces the most unexpected and far-reaching changes in our society. Such coexistence is quite natural in fantasies, for how often have we heard the expression “I long to die in your arms” or “better to kill you than to lose you”. Society has always coexisted with this relationship, so much so that it has inspired great literary works such as Canto V in the Divine Comedy, which was itself inspired by Francesca de Rimini, a symbol of adultery, lust and love.

Freud said that the desire of children for the mother-object ceases upon the death of the father, and Baudelaire that the ultimate sense of erotism is death. Ejaculation may be a sort of foretaste of the end – la petite mort, blood, virginity, erotism and death, I believe these concepts are more complex and more profound. We are speaking of instincts that have existed for millions of years and which, now that we have created societies, we attempt to control and suppress, often more than is due, in order to achieve a “healthy coexistence”. Politicians and the Church have used such control as they like in order to suppress people through fear and ignorance. These instincts should be admitted and people should feel free to express them and to coexist responsibly with them as part of our culture. It is here that artistic expression contributes to human society, it is the channel for their expression.

In a society as hypocritical as ours, these instincts are taboo, and every taboo incites us to break it.

You claim to be an atheist but in some of your works I see the deification of women, and a penchant for altered states of consciousness, is sensuality just Nature's helping hand or do you feel the touch of something greater?

I am an atheist since the age of 17, but my life as a Catholic was intense. I still have certain fears that were bred in my childhood by the apprehension of divine punishment. It is hard to pull oneself away from this unconsciously. In my case, during the creative process, more so with traditional drawing, I usually attain altered states of consciousness in which symbols and images emerge. Many times even I myself do not find the relationship between some of these elements. After a time, at any moment and all of a sudden, this recollection emerges, other times it never does.

Some psychoanalysts use art for communication and the treatment of mental disorders. Evidently, many things can arise during this process. There are artists who purposefully self-induce insomnia in order to experience psychosis, others are bolder and use entheogens, from coffee to ayahuasca and LSD, to name a few.

In my opinion, there is no divine being from a religious viewpoint, and nothing is sacred. For years I have researched the creative process and the brain from a scientific standpoint. It is an extensive and thrilling subject. I have gone to symposiums attended by scientists, shamans, physicians and artists in which grand experiences were shared in an atmosphere of great respect, and indeed, a relationship does exist between hallucinations, the imaginative process, neurotransmitters, brain functions and so on, in a culture medium that engenders great works of art.

The Divine is present in many of my pieces, sometimes as a criticism, sometimes as a symbol of the deification of woman and of erotism.

When did you start exploring digital art?

I started in 2001, when I was 39 years old. I have loved art since I was a child and I occasionally drew and painted until I turned 30. I took me almost ten years to create art once more. Digital art attracted me and was a new beginning. A couple of years later I went back to drawing.

Your digital art, on the whole, is not so dark as your drawings, and it seems that you have explored different aspects of desire in that medium. Why do you feel you are able to express yourself differently with digital art?

Definitely, traditional drawing offers me infinite options which are limited in digital art because of my skills. I am not a Photoshop professional, I never studied, I just bought books and journals, the rest was all self-learning.

Drawing takes me deeper into my personal experiences, desires and fears. Only through drawing am I able to experience a greater depth of concentration and altered states of consciousness such as daydreaming. I have never used entheogens, perhaps the only drug was alcohol at first with digital art, but drawing while intoxicated is impossible.

Many times when I get an idea, it is born by considering first if it will be digital or traditional drawing.

Personally, I enjoy traditional drawing more, even though it is mentally more exhausting. At times I break off drawing for a few days to do something digital and relax a bit.

Describe exquisite corpse.

It is a game, it is a wonderful experience, and it is addictive.

The technique was used by Surrealists in 1925 and originated in a game called “Consequences”, during which players write by turns on a sheet of paper, covering part of what they have written and passing the sheet to the next player who looks at the last part and continues the writing of the text.

 The name originated in a phrase formed when it was first played in France: Le cadavre exquis – boira le vin nouveau (the exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine). It was used a lot in poetry by Bretón, Éluard, Tzara and Desnos who all said that creation should be anonymous, a group effort, spontaneous and even automatic.

The technique was subsequently used in drawing. At present, a group of artists – myself included – continue playing this game, quite differently from the original in the sense that only the outcome is spontaneous and the actual drawing is not automatic. Those I have made with the artists Gromyko Semper (the Philippines) and Bernd Dreilich (Germany) are elaborately complex, full of symbolisms, and were consciously worked on to achieve a unified concept of the subject as seen from different viewpoints given our own cultural diversity. I am not sure one should continue to call them exquisite corpses.

There is a sense of claustrophobia in some of your work, not just the shibari ones, do you see Shibari as an artform, is there an underlying philosophy to it?

A little bit of aggression gives sex a very different meaning. I think most of us like it but not everyone admits it, from very light things to something stronger, from dirty words to insults, from a slap on the buttocks to something much more elaborate in which function is inverted and pleasure is obtained through pain. Sadomasochism has always attracted me in theory and in practice, I have never tried it and when such scenes are combined with art work they become in my opinion visually delectable.

Shibari was initially a technique for torturing and restraining prisoners which could only be used by samurai warriors. Today it is a very popular tying technique during bondage, in which the individual is partially or fully immobilized and, unlike the original technique, the person tying the bonds also experiences sexual pleasure through domination.

My first piece was a contribution of several images from David Lawrence. I also met online some of his models as well as other women who regularly execute this sort of practices either as models or for pleasure, or both. With Clover, one of David’s models, I had a number of very interesting chats that impelled me to keep experimenting with this type of images. She became a sort of inspirational muse and perhaps a fetish.

Sadomasochistic techniques are in my opinion a means by which an individual can fully exert his or her sex life, a philosophy of pleasure, desire and arousal. Artistically, they are a way of expressing my basic ideas on the sexual instinct.

What are your ambitions for the Pandora's Box Gallery?

When I started to create art professionally five years ago, I received a lot of support from friends I met online (DeviantArt and Facebook), Gromyko Semper, Otto Rap, John Paul Thornton, Santiago Ribeiro, Exilentia Exiff, Roman Newak, Bernd Dreilich, George Teseleanu, and many others. With them, I have carried out different group projects, art forums, book editing, and thanks to them I had

my first international exhibitions. I believe it is now time for me to do my share and help other artists achieve their goals, and this is the aim of the art gallery: to show art that stirs people’s consciences, that is controversial, breeds discussion, and adds to other similar projects, outside the scope of the more conservative trends, through bolder options. This is more to my liking, I have always been a provoker. I also seek to make a sale that allows the artist to be compensated fairly and provides the gallery with income to be used basically for maintenance and publicity.

Nostalgia of the Entheo-nuclear Face resulting from an overdose of Liquid Sexual Desire(LSD)

Exquisite Corpse with Gromyko Semper

http://visionaryartgallery.weebly.com/hector-pineda.html

http://hectorpineda.daportfolio.com/

http://the-surreal-arts.deviantart.com/

Moloch - Denis Forkas Kostromitin

Burial I - Denis Forkas Kostromitin

What is the art scene like in Moscow?

Moscow fell under onslaught of the worldwide “conceptual art” crusade. What had used to be the avantgarde and stood against commercialization of art was bastardized by society into a moneymaking tool. “Pure art” graced with neither talent nor skill, demanding zero effort from its creator and aimed at momentary entertainment reigns the scene like a plague. These days everyone can (and does) claim to be an artist and/or an art lover. Galleries are hopelessly infested with “common objects in uncommon environments” and some such “relevant” nonsense.

On the other hand, there is a rather strong current of low quality surrealism and art derived from it, which – even though it clearly lacks the impact and bold experimental spirit of the movement’s first wave and has that distinct second hand flavour about it – openly opposes itself to the tyranny of “concept” I’ve already mentioned.

To my dismay things like Russian fin de siècle aesthetics, Rublev’s elegant ascetism as well as the clarity of Kandinsky’s abstract painting theory don’t seem to inspire young Russian artists at all. People are forgetting their roots and that’s never a good thing.

How old were you when you started drawing?

I was very, very young when my pencils/watercolour/gouache obsession manifested itself. One of my childhood hobbies was to draw and paint illustrations in between ones included in books thus unfolding new – sometimes strangely disturbing - horizons in favourite tales.

When did you first become interested in the occult?

My first encounter was rather dramatic. Back when I was a grader (about 8-9 years old) one of my classmates’ elder brother committed a gruesome suicide. I learned that the man had been member of a local religious sect (please, bear in mind that it was around 1985, a sect like that in a Soviet country had to be the most clandestine thing on Earth) when about a month after the incident the classmate invited me to his home and showed all those books, daggers and jewelry he had concealed from the investigation. There were also drawings of naked bodies in strange positions, charts and calculations, ink studies of animal anatomy crossed with glyphs and symbols.  Even though I couldn’t possibly hope to decipher the meaning and purpose of all those things at the time, the images stayed with me. I attempted to trade my valuables for those books and drawings several times, but to no avail: my friend cherished his deceased brother’s collection.

A few years later the iron curtain collapsed and junk occult literature of all kinds started to seep in. Those poorly translated paperbacks conveyed my passion some outline and granted bits of insight into matters like the Universal balance, energy management, will, intent, etc.

I realized soon enough that I had no way of putting my hands on any trustworthy occult research and switched to art history, theory and technique instead as there was hardly any shortage of good literature covering those subjects in Soviet libraries. It was many years later that the interest in the occult resurfaced and found its way into my drawings and paintings.

Is there a particular current of occultism that you adhere to, or is it a developed system of symbolism that appeals to you as an artist?

Chaos magic is probably the current I will have to associate myself with in order to give you some idea of my work. Yet, I neither use drugs nor “invent” gods. My techniques include sleep deprivation, meditation and self-hypnosis. I borrow vastly from different beliefs and practices of the past and I’ve found ancient mythology and traditional esoteric lore – no matter the geographical origin as all traditions conceal their share of truth, of course, - to be a solid, reliable foundation for all kinds of occult endeavors. I consider art a highly religious practice for it serves as a timeless vessel for truth itself. One cannot hope to conjure a timeless piece if he/she rejects tradition and philosophy. 

You list Austin Osman Spare as an influence and there are similarities in your work, what are your thoughts on Spare as a man and artist?

Without a doubt the man was among the most enlightened magicians of the last century. It is hard to overestimate his introduction of sentient symbols and ideas stemmed from viewing language as magic.

The persevering impact of Spare’s art is surely the result of supreme artistic vision and prowess backed up with technical skill and spiritual sacrifice – a formula worth following for artists of any school or direction.

To me Spare’s personality will always remain an example of uncompromising artistic stance and courage. Moreover, I’m profoundly moved by his never-ending quest for new means of expression (as opposed to modern artists’ doing the same perm) and gladly accept the living experimental spirit as a blessing.

Describe the automatic method.  Is it possible to produce work of artistic merit in automatic mode, or do you use it purely to instigate a trance-state?

The method itself is fairly simple. The idea is to divorce your mind from drawing/painting process, to try and become completely oblivious of your physical drawing act. This can be achieved in many ways including a chemically induced trance, but I prefer meditation. Ultimately you obtain your shape from the ever-evolving chaos of the resulting line/stroke work; and it is at this - later - stage that you put your skill and intuition to use.

An artist may, of course choose to refrain from further development of his/her automatic chaos and leave it to viewers to produce evolving shapes of their very own, so there certainly is quite a bit of merit in raw automatic material. Still, this approach technically removes artist from the process; this kind of work would have nothing to do with his particular vision and thus would bear the same artistic value as randomly arranged pebbles on a beach, autumn leaf patterns or a coffee-stained napkin.

Anxiety and panic attacks pose a major problem for me and it took a lot of energy and research to bring it down to a manageable level. I’ve found meditation and self-hypnosis to be the best tools here. Persistence works wonders.

I also keep setting up “intellectual hooks”, which help me overcome the tides of anxiety and ultimately enhance my work. Philosophy, history, religion, astronomy, biology as well as Victorian fiction and twentieth century non-American films among other things are the fields where my interest is strong enough to keep the chaos of the unconscious feedback at bay.

This subject is somewhat complex, but I’ll do my best to give as simple an answer as I can. Art and philosophy are naturally opposed to all other spheres of human activity aimed at material comfort. Both philosophy and art imply – or rather intuit - that the meaning of human life transcends empiric existence and that the truth is to be found beyond or behind the trifles of this mortal coil. The eternal search for the truth is undertaken by man and originates from his self-awareness. It is absolutely impossible to remove Man the Creator from either artistic or philosophical process as without his vision and understanding the process simply won’t exist. Yet, this vision manifests itself differently in art and philosophy. In art it is expressed in an Image (a painting, a music piece, a story, etc.) aiming at emotional response, whereas philosopher employs logic and expands the tradition by creating a personal Conception / cognitive system aiming at retrieving the ultimate truth and thus introducing the art of Understanding.

Images and Conceptions have always served as pillars of human society; no known civilization has ever been able to manage without this foundation. All known traditions have originated from work of artists and philosophers.

The artist’s role is akin to that of a priest: he uses symbols and brings divine truth to the hearts of his viewers. Emotional response is the current the viewers use to travel back to the source of the effect and thus refresh their values / priorities.

It is this delicate and beautiful process, the genuine spiritual guidance that is compromised in our age of art impostors and consumerism. By discarding tradition society plunges itself into the pits of spiritual degradation.  

Choice… I believe it is the psyche that chooses what to convey through artist. All conscious work with composition, colour, value, etc. (i.e. science) – as important as it is focus- and effect-wise, -  is ultimately defined by an idea scooped from the Unconscious. Moreover, I keep reducing the amount of physical materials (pigments, instruments, etc.) in order to clear more space for pure energy, to be able to transfer the most pristine reflection.

The Image I described earlier is not something artists choose and purchase at some sort of ethereal market. It is rather a “haunting”, an emotional disturbance that lies dormant in the darkness of unknowing until an outer, conscious impression generates an electrical charge between the two and the artist gets his chance to “reel in” the Image. The artist is the reason, the sole condition for this magickal process.

This brings us to the point of “light” and “darkness”. My work is certainly not something a common man will feel at ease with. And this is exactly what the “darkness” (as in “dark painting / photography / music / literature / culture”) is about: the majority’s discomfort. But is art supposed to bring comfort in the first place? Must it take this much talent, dedication and energy to merely entertain a viewer or make his life more comfortable? Truth has nothing to do with comfort.

Now, if my imagination can catch this kind of primal shapes and colours in its traps scattered around the Unconscious, with sincerity being the only artistic principle I’m perfectly entitled to hope my work has at least something to do with the truth.

I’m also convinced that injecting art with poison of aesthetic compromise will only result in horrible short-lived mutations, which will end up as comfortable interior decorations at best. If “light” means emotional swamp, a warm puddle of safety, then I’d rather stay in my volatile “darkness”.

A wonderful question! I believe you are coming from my life-long fascination with the art of Mikhail Aleksanrovich Vrubel. In order to give you some idea of the scale of Vrubel’s artistic possession I’ll have to touch on the origins of his mental disorder.

The darkest chapter of Vrubel's biography started with his loosing the competition for interior decoration of St.Volodymyr's Cathedral in Kiev in 1888. Apparently local authorities, priesthood and the “aesthetics committee” found his vision "unorthodox" and "disquieting". 

Rarely interrupted, ever-growing unease heralded the coming of severe mental illness. Yet, it was in the fever of the century's last decade that the image of rebel spirit, an entity of power and sadness - the Demon - manifested itself in the master's work. 

Vrubel's admiration for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's poetry lead him down the path of illustration. His paintings for the poem "Demon" (1837) by Mikhail Lermontov unleashed something primal in the painter's soul and he took the image way beyond the limits of illustration. Up from early 1890s the ghostly face would resurface in many seemingly unconnected works (e.g. "Prophet", "Azrael", "Lilacs"). The obsession culminated in the overwhelming piece "Demon Downcast" (1902), which the artist proceeded working on even when the painting was already on public display.

You see, such an obsessed, fiery art will cut short all attempts to further explore the subject matter. What can any other artist - myself included – possibly offer here? Is there really a need of new angle? One may go farther and fare worse, as they say.

Still, it might be worth mentioning that I’ve been working on a painting I refer to as “Vrubel’s Demon” for about a year now. The canvas is my homage to the master and a study of his methods. I don’t know if I should exhibit or even publish it online as I find it hard to view the piece as a work of my own. The study is rather an attempt at peculiar artistic table-turning or even necromancy, if you will. 

http://www.denisforkas.com/

http://visionaryartgallery.weebly.com/denis-forkas-kostromitin.html

How long do you spend gazing into space contemplating an idea compared with putting pen to paper?

I tend to work more in projects comprised of a number of images on a theme, rather than stand alone single pieces, so a certain amount of time is spent mulling project details, how many pieces, how I will handle them etc. Those ideas may come on the cusp of sleep or out walking or whatever. My rough sketch booking follows that stage and frequently doodle thumbnails done on scraps of paper. This stage is more to ease me into the project than to fully formulate what the actual end pieces will look like. Not all images of a project will be included in this stage. Depending upon a particular project, the final pieces may frequently dictate their own form independent of what I may initially have had in mind, though sometimes I will transfer some visual ideas directly across. Once all the subjects for a project are decided (or if it is a large project, segments of it) then it is pretty much pen to paper. With the projects there's usually a long line of image subjects bustling to get out and they can follow in quite rapid succession if the flow is there; so generally speaking, a fair bit of initial contemplation but then more time executing.

Your artistic output is very high, how do you keep motivated? Do you have a fixed routine? Do you find certain times of day more congenial for working?

There isn't a constant level of output, as with motivation and inspiration, production can come in peaks or troughs. It's very easy to get de-motivated, but the compulsive urge to create tends to override that. Also with my method of art, there is the luxury of being able to work well with other collaborators, either in visual combination as with the Stegorek project or by combining my images with the thoughts and writings of quite a variety of imaginative individuals. This has led to a number of interesting little projects, which has given me excuse to explore different roads and paths, and it keeps the journey intriguing with all the little detours and wanderings. Also should my own idea well ever run dry, there is a reserve of other minds that could help me to dig deeper. With the medium of ink on paper, which at the moment I most frequently use, there is the scope for a higher output than other methods, as it does not require the mixing, fixing, drying and cleaning of some other media. At times when drawing is not flowing or is not possible for whatever reason, I will still end up writing, researching, contemplating possible future projects or adapting older ones for book, internet and sometimes exhibition use, or taking photographs so there is rarely any real dead time. There is no overall fixed routine or work hours, but sometimes it does get late and the pen is still in hand.

What have you been working on today?

Currently I am working on a book project entitled 'Black Earth : A Field-Guide to the Slavic Otherworld'. It is quite epic, so I am interspersing bouts of research, writing, sketchbook roughing and drawing the final pieces.

Given your penchant for folklore, it might be deduced that you are intent on preserving, if not reviving certain traditions. One might even think that you are bargaining with these entities, asking favours of Oak-men in exchange for fame. Is folklore a curiosity for you, or something more?

Well, the Oak-men offer delicious-looking cakes, which are actually glamorised toxic fungi, so that sounds about right.

I do really like curiosities and anomalies in themselves, but for me there is also a deeper aspect to folklore, particularly in respect to apparent encounters with supernatural entities and creatures. It raises questions about the nature of reality, about threshold consciousness and it also sometimes reveals the human habit of trying either to order things beyond their level of knowledge or everyday experience, into a pattern or belief or gives excuse for some others to dismiss anything they don't understand as nonsensical superstition. Folklore, fairy-tales and myths can say a lot about human nature as well as a non-human supernature.

When you treat mythical themes, do you ever feel that art can be a form of spiritual practice?

I think there is an element of that. Even the practice of creation, especially when there is an uncertain material end, could be compared to religious or shamanic ceremonies or ritual. It could possibly date back to the beginning of human civilisation.

What caused man to first create art? Of course there is the practical use of diagrammatic pictures to show directions or mark good hunting grounds etc and body-decoration, jewellery and more elaborate clothing may simply have been a human variant of peacock-feathers, i.e. devices for attracting a mate ; but even in the oldest cave-paintings and non-domain structures and sculpting, there are items of mystery and apparent spirituality. To our current knowledge, such things had no practical earthly function and yet in times of hard survival, such artefacts were still created. That would seem suggestive of either a spiritual purpose or something else in the development of the early human mind that provoked and has persisted in provoking some of the species to create art.

Most of your work springs from the imagination, the astral if you prefer. Do you ever feel compelled to get the watercolours out and paint a landscape, a portrait perhaps?

Many of my images do contain landscapes and portraits of a sort. Currently though if I want to capture these subjects from life I prefer to take photos. It may be something I'd perhaps do in future but there are many other ideas to get out of the way first.

Who inspired you to want to become an artist?

It was comics that first got me drawing as a kid, initially the British funny comics particularly the artists Ken Reid and Leo Baxendale, then shortly afterwards 2000AD and Marvel comics. This in conjunction with mythology and fairy-tale books and also movies and TV shows I enjoyed such as Doctor Who, Monkey, Sinbad films etc. The first art exhibition I went to as a child was to see Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion models of monsters, but in the next gallery room was an exhibition of Gustave Dore prints. Both had a lasting effect upon me. I remember also the first art projects that the teacher set us at secondary school when I was eleven - the first was to find a poem and illustrate it, integrating the text into the picture - I chose The Tyger by William Blake. Then we had to go to the library, find a book on an artist whom we'd never heard of but whose work intrigued us, then we had to copy some of the pictures and write about the artist. For that project I chose Gustav Klimt. Again both of those artists have continued to captivate me. Many other artists and art forms have since continued to intrigue me.

What are the most important things to consider when illustrating?

I have never had any formal training as an artist or illustrator, beyond some basics on a multi-discipline foundation course, if I had maybe I would say composition or tonal value or something, but for me personally the most important consideration is the subject matter not the technique.

What are the most valuable qualities for an artist to have, regardless of style, and who has them to the highest degree?

Perhaps too much is said about artists rather than the art, but I believe sincerity is a high quality. By Sincerity I do not mean that all art should be 'deep and meaningful' but simply that it should be honest and genuine to its principal aim. If that aim is simply to be a commercial success, then it should declare itself so. It is irritating when it seems that an artist conjures some ‘deep’ insincere meaning on afterwards. Likewise to express cynicism in a work is fine, it is an emotive response as valid of expression as any other, but when it appears that an artist is being cynical towards their viewers or mocking or exploiting them, then I feel that does the artist and also art in general no favours. It is perhaps unfair for me however to name any that I feel may be guilty of this, because it may simply be just my feeling and it is possible that my perception of the artist or piece could be wrong. Likewise it may also be inappropriate for me to name any artists who possess any 'higher' qualities because again it would just be a judgement based upon my personal perception.

What is your interpretation of visionary art?

The words 'visionary art' mean totally different things to different people. There are considerable variations associating to different cultures and times and I'm not sure it is something that can be neatly defined. I don't describe my own work as being visionary, it does frequently pertain to subject matter of a fantastic and perhaps sometimes a spiritual nature, and it is frequently concerned with the peripheral, interstitial and subconscious, but does that make it visionary? I don't know and I won't lose sleep over whether it is or isn't. I understand that in the art-world there is some need for a certain level of categorisation, but labels and boxes I feel are far less important than the contents. Artists are of course free to call their art whatever they think best suits, but I simply wouldn't know how to neatly categorise what I do, even if I wanted to. For the sake of a mission statement, I may refer to the 'beautiful~grotesque' in relation to my work, but this is more about the subject matter and the contrast and intermingling of these concepts across different levels, and not to any specific movement or genre. I don't personally subscribe to any manifestos or artificial walls placed between different media and styles of expression; I just follow a compulsion to express myself through the creation of images and the manner in which this occurs seems for a great part to be beyond my choice.

See more of his work at:

http://visionaryartgallery.weebly.com/andy-paciorek.html

http://www.batcow.co.uk/strangelands/

http://beautiful-grotesque.posterous.com/

Interview on the subject of Decadence.

http://fnewsmagazine.com/wp/2007/05/art-decadence-interview-with-otto-urban/