@webegyed@

e-nterview with the artist

Lies, theft, cheating and the activity called art?

Are you asking me personally or in general? The latter I can't answer or only by using commonplaces. (Though I cannot guarantee that I can avoid this failure with the first one either.)

Well, I am guilty of all three types of sin. (Lie and cheat I will now handle together.) Though my pictures may appear to be realistic or even photo-realistic, it's only me who knows how much they are not. The way I achieve this is through a series of cheats and lies.

I am always ready to steal. Sometimes quite shamelessly, without any alterations. At best the piece made by someone else simply gives inspiration to my work.

One thing I can declare with certainty, I always look at every picture with the intention of using up something from it.

Of course I am asking about you, and we may narrow these general terms through your works as well. Can you show me any of your pieces which you or others called realistic and photo-realistic, though the subject of the picture has nothing to do with the original, live set up? Do you feel like exposing yourself through one of your drawings, or you think this question is disrespectful?

This is a charcoal drawing. I intended it to be like a photo. In reality the light conditions were different. I simply lied because I wondered (it happens quite often) how far you can go in reducing the information without generating the feeling of under-information in the audience. I pretend to ignore many details, or at least pretend I did not see them. Some of these details might look like this under certain light conditions (or not at all), but I do not believe that under any circumstances the lower arm would so suddenly and inexplicably turn to black. There are several similar examples of cheating, but let us have a look at theft.

I did not (unfortunately) invent the value contrast. Apart from photographs, it was Caravaggio who affected me most in this respect. And of course Csernus as well, who (most probably) had also observed a lot of Caravaggio. Apart from technique, it is mainly the composition that distinguishes me from them.

According to the classical rule, if the subject of the piece is located on one side without being balanced by something else on the other side, the picture will "tip over".

Therefore a classic master would probably not let me position the figure like this. Moreover, if I happened to compose my drawing in such a clumsy way, the figure should look towards the large empty area.

To my great sorrow I did not make any revolution in decomposition either. Many have dared to apply similar or even weirder ways of composition. Degas is the first who jumps to my mind, and whom I also like a bit more than I am supposed to.

How does theft - I am using this word here in a provocative sense instead of saying "quote" - enhance the meditation about the act of drawing or about pieces? What makes you start working on a piece and then redraw it?

I don't know. I have to think of it, and I'll give you the answer as soon as I find one - perhaps, when I think of a painting that I consider arrogantly original. But perhaps it's not like that, just the "exact" explanation doesn't come to my mind.

Are there any objective aspects, which can determine and describe the "quality" and "value" of an art piece? And in general, according to what parameters it is possible or worth to discuss art pieces?

This question might be too complicated for me. One thing I can declare for sure is that so far I have not managed to answer the simple question: what is the difference between trash and masterpiece.

I know, however, a lot of specific examples of the opposite, which seems to prove that our sense of quality is almost next to nothing.

If you want me to I can express this comment in detail, but I am afraid this would make the interview too lengthy.

At this point I would like to have at least one example demonstrative enough to explain what makes a certain piece good.

I could give you many examples with the restriction that the same thing can be the advantage of a given piece and a drawback to another. In order to illustrate this paradoxical and perhaps lofty statement, let me recall two phases of Rembrandt's etching called "The Three Crosses".

In the earlier picture everything is nicely drawn. It is nearly perfect, though a little bit sentimental and theatrical.

In the final version he "destroyed " the "nice" etching. The softly lined characters completely disappear from certain places, while at some other places they are roughly crossed and eradicated. The newly added figures (e.g. the man on horseback in the middle) has bad proportions. He is enormous, much bigger than the rest of the characters. His horse could not even bear his weight. The whole thing looks much rougher, and lumpier than the former version. In spite of this, (at least for me) these changes to the "bad direction" have made the piece much more dramatic. The gesture with which Rembrandt ruined his formerly beautiful drawing on purpose, is (more or less) a kind of suicidal act, which invokes the drama for me.

At the same time it is obvious, that this solution fits only this specific case. On another occasion perhaps, it would not make sense to destroy an already existing picture. (Or it is not sure that this act will improve it.) Does this make sense, or do you think it is blah blah blah?

I don't think it is blah blah blah, though it is not quite clear what dramatic in this context means to you. Does this term refer to the piece, Rembrandt or you?

Your question instantly demonstrates how superficial, how "high level" my wording is.

What I mean is that for me the two pictures make up one and drama is the act of destruction. The way Rembrandt could not find suitable "words" to describe the horror of the Saviour being crucified. To express this he needed the act of destroying a beautiful and elaborately drawn picture with mighty and rough gestures.

If this analysis is right (and I am not absolutely sure about it) the question arises if there is value to a work of art in itself. To what extent can it be understood or interpreted without background information. That is, if I did not know the earlier picture or had never heard about the Bible how would I look at this piece and how much could I understand it?

Is contemporary art a relevant term? If so, what does it mean?

What they make nowadays is contemporary. Don't you think? (Incidentally, for me it is not at all interesting. Just as I find "modernity" or "topicality" similarly uninteresting.)

Does it mean that you are not age or context dependent? Do you find an artwork itself interesting or not, and you are not interested in the background at all?

Certainly there are topics that are in the foreground today and there may be ones that will never excite any interest. But sometimes (quite often in fact) I think that a picture is not about what it describes. I would venture to say that Mona Lisa is not good just because a woman is wearing an enigmatic smile with an odd landscape in the background. (Though this is inevitably described in the picture.) Still, I have an inclination to think that even a figurative picture is abstract and inner proportions, colours and values and who knows what else are a lot more important than the subject matter.

I would like to believe that if Leonardo had not painted the above mentioned Mona Lisa, but somebody painted it these days, we would consider it just as ingenious and would not fastidiously say that it is "not topical". So - as I said - I want to believe that it would be like this. My knowledge of the art history, however, suggests that I am too naive. An excellent counter example is the so-called Van Meegeren case. (To put it briefly: after World War II Van Meegeren was accused of assisting the nazis to get wonderful Vermeer pictures. When it turned out that he had painted the pictures the original charge was dropped and he was convicted of forgery. And the pieces became worthless instantly.)

What are the terms that may sound offensive for an artist?

This is a question of conceitedness and vanity. Though I do not consider myself as exempt from anything that is bad in human nature, still, for a long time I lived under the illusion that I was impervious to disparaging remarks. Recently, however, an expert described my pieces as "strong stuff" making me semi-angry. (One myth about yourself lost!)

By the way, Degas is supposed to have said he was not going to get married for fear that his wife should call his latest painting a clever piece.

But I could cite a heap of similar anecdotes from the bottomless well of art history, but I do not want to bore you.

Who could be a landmark in universal art and why?

How the heck should I know? You are actually getting at the same question as what are the characteristics of a good piece. Similarly landmarks are not constant. Sometimes the virtuoso is the exemplary figure, other times the "deep" or the enigmatic…and the series is long. (I am sorry. I put "deep" in quotes, because I abhor deepness, which in most cases - obviously due to my limited capacities - I don't understand and consider as false and stupid after all.)

Let me ask it directly then: Is there a landmark for you? Is there an artist or a work of art that should be taught to everybody who wants to do drawing? Not as an example to be followed, of course, but as food for thought.

No, I cannot think of anybody or anything. I could list who I have had the most influence from, or whose work I look at most often, but I would not say - moreover - I deny that they (or anyone else) could be considered as universal landmarks.

If we considered for example Leonardo as such, we could certainly not call an icon painter a good artist and even Van Gogh would fail the test.

At the same time one can learn from the paintings of a "bad" artist, his work as well can be raw material.

Am I making myself clear, or just being chaotic?

This means that there are no overall standards or if we set them up, it is quite obvious that everybody would be judged accordingly, and many were excluded by this? I know that I am spinning around the same question again and again, but let me be consequent in this! Does it make sense in your opinion to set up any Rule of Art, if not, why not?

I wish not to use the word "art" in its original sense, just simply (?) consider it as profession with its specific requirements and standards. In spite of all my ambitions, I am afraid, that we can never achieve this. Furthermore, if this is true, we are not entitled to apply the terms good or bad any longer, it is sufficient to say simply "I like it" or " I don't like it".

Thank you.

Vinczeller Katalin