.Why work on the wall or on big paper and not stretched canvas? Why draw and not paint?
I think there is a big difference between the way a drawing and a painting read. I have a feeling that the distinction is purely historical, but a painting has an unquestionable quality that a drawing does not. I was never interested in these pieces saying something definitive - I'm more interested in suggestions - and drawings do that in a way that painting just can't. It's as if the drawing is only a suggestion of what the image could be.
.Seems you've got sexual aggression dominating the penetration of space; is it horror vaccuii?
For me aggression is sexual by definition. I think the moment I started demarcating spatial relationships is when aggression entered the picture. Space and distance are the real reason we have created the awful boundaries that make up the 'social' connection between sex and aggression. That allows for the relation of 'us' and 'them,' the basic structure of a power relationship. Once you get issues of power on the table it becomes impossible to suppress the sexual content that exists between any two or more objects in a visual frame. As for horror vaccuii, I guess the trend toward visual multiplicity reflects an urge to show how much more there is between a subject and object.
.How were you introduced to B.Ö.C, why the focus, and what are some of the things in their music which sustained your year long project?
I had known about the Blue Öyster Cult since childhood, but I never knew any of the music beyond the two radio hits. About two years ago I started trying to find the 'origin' of the heavy metal genre, something deeply connected to my teen years. The B.Ö.C. came up early on, and I had a really hard time with them. They are so weird - possibly one of the strangest bands of all time. That to me made them extremely attractive from the outset. As I learned more and more about them (and got completely sucked in) I found all of these points of convergence with other ideas I had been thinking about. The most fascinating aspect of the band for me is the cosmology that they fashioned for themselves, a cosmology mapped out most clearly in their album "Imaginos". It's trans-historical and non-linear, and deals with many of the thought-worlds I've been working with. It seemed for awhile that every interest I have is referenced somewhere by the Öyster boys, a fact that honestly sort of frightens me.
Those interested in further info on the B.Ö.C. I would direct to the B.Ö.C. FAQ at: http://www.hotrails.co.uk/bocfaq/index.htm
Why such a limited and specific palette?
Color was an extremely difficult transition to make from black and white. I had to have a reason for it that was not purely visual. Experiment after experiment led me to the realization that color could be used as another graphic element, that it could carry information the same way the images themselves are. I've also been using it as a way of distinguishing objects that are on top of one another and making the idea of layering visually important.
.Has your conception of time, especially linear time, been eroding as to what happens in your art making?
The more I work, the more blurred distinctions become, particularly temporal ones. This was the root of the problem that let me stumble into the B.Ö.C. as a subject matter in the first place. At the point I started these I had thoroughly contaminated the subjects I was pulling the imagery from (Star Trek, Heaven's Gate, etc.). I was totally paranoid in my thinking and I had lost my bearings as to how these images related to one another (a holistic meltdown, where everything means everything...). I was no longer separating the imagery by subject or historical context. The images were perilously close to becoming empty, purely visual. Ultimately the problem was a productive one in that I had to tear everything back down before I could begin again.