An email conversation with Frankfurt artist Simone Stoll

I think of the computer as a creativity amplifier.

Simone: i have questions about your work, there are things that i find fascinating, like the b/w patterns and some of the very painterly parts, but i'm not sure what is painting and what is photography/photoshop, maybe that's what you want to achieve, still, i think i hope it's all painting.

Thomas: The sense in which this is painting is in the selection of the images and in their layering, manipulation, distortion and juxtaposition. They're digital photomontages constructed from photographic source material. But of course I'd spent 15 years drawing and painting before coming to digital work, so I already had a painterly sensibility.

Simone: also, i wonder how you work on the assimilation, some of the paintings, like the dog by the pool are just what they are and i think, don't need anything.

Thomas: Before I worked with it the dog by the pool was just a photograph — I'm hoping not to offend photographers, but, for me, straight photography just isn't enough. In this historical moment, when just about anyone has access to extraordinary cameras and near perfect exposures all the time, there is terrific photography everywhere. I am not a photographer. I use the camera as a tool for collecting elements that have qualities I want to use in the work, and then bring them together as montages on the computer. It has more to do with painting than photography.

Simone: i used to work in diptychs and liked to associate a body with an abstract space, i liked the eye jumping from one to the other, believing that they where nourishing the other.

Thomas: Yes, the two sides situate, stimulate, and activate each other — sometimes they create a dialog between them. By "situate" I mean they give each other new, sometimes surprising context. Meaning rattles back and forth between them. Sometimes they cancel each other out, somewhat ironically.

Simone: i believe some of your pieces actually worked better with less elements, more concentrated.
 
Thomas: Does that mean you think I should simplify? Use less? I admit there's a Baroque quality slipping in, but that excites me. As a graphic designer I spent years in the realm of 'Less is More'. As a painter I had a tendency to stop short. I used to fall in love with some aspect of an early stage of the work and protect it — this would hamper development of the piece. With the computer I have the luxury of saving a piece at any stage of its development, so I can experiment almost endlessly — take an idea way too far, then come back to pluck it in some ideal state. I think of the computer as a creativity amplifier.

How did you handle the "sideways" orientation in some of the images? It fascinates me...

[Turning] the images sideways, shakes their meanings loose, and allows a reading that's purely abstract.

If you look at Shadow Casting a Dog, It kinda flip-flops between two states... One in which, having turned the images sideways, shakes their meanings loose, and allows a reading that's purely abstract. Another in which I can trick my mind into seeing a shadow casting a dog. They'd probably get these in Amsterdam — but then they wouldn't remember them...

Simone: the sideways, well in the dog, it annoyed me. i know you want to make the abstract shapes stand out, but it annoys me. as much as i liked Baselitz's turning upside down, i think, you should simply trust in the images you create. saying all that, i know that this kind of work is very well liked by many, can be found in galleries and will be appreciated by buyers, so you don't have to listen to someone who doesn't relate to the market.

Thomas: Really?? I've had trouble generating gallery interest in this body of work. Digital work seems, in many peoples minds, to be lumped in with photography -- I can't believe the number of people who have referred to these as "photographs", or see me as a photographer. I need that distinction to be clearer. I AM NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER! I'm an artist constructing images on the computer.

Simone: why don't you paint anymore ? these pictures look so painterly?

Thomas: I obviously still have a love of the painterly... but why paint when I can capture and manipulate any painterly effect I want? And always have the ability to "undo", and try out so many possibilities? I love it!

Simone: sometimes i wish i were painting again.

Thomas: I often wish I were painting too. There's something visceral about it I miss. A sensual squishiness that gives me a tingle. A physical involvement. With digital you're pretty much living in your head — I miss the thrashing about! Attacking the canvas...

Simone: what are the dimensions?

Thomas: Currently there are no dimensions — they exist just as your see them, digital sketches that would be reworked and adapted for print versions. Big would be nice, but I really hate this current trend of printing photos on canvas — having them masquerade as paintings. I do like scale, so perhaps prints on some smooth substrate that could be stretched on stretcher bars, but isn't pretending to be a painting.

If I had the money, I'd love to see them as large back-lit boxes; exquisitely crafted of course. It would help preserve the monitor's glow. The alternative is projection, which could be nice, or perhaps banks of monitors.

What do you think?

–Thomas Ziorjen & Simone Stoll, November 2008