Josh Peters and the Golden Gaze
Interview by Max Presneill
November 2009, Los Angeles

MP: Tell me about this exhibition...

JP: The title of the show is going to be 'Golden Gaze', after the painting in it. The subject of this particular painting was an audience member at a Doors concert in 1967. A close-up of an enraptured face, made otherworldly by the colored lights bathing it. Much like you have previous said about Alison Schulnik's paintings, I also am aiming to have a facial expression convey actual emotion, not merely be an illustration of it.

MP: There is an obvious concern in your paintings with materials and the process of painting, in particular with the effects of light on our visual perception. Why do you approach your paintings with the intent of creating the luminous dream-like moment that somewhat obscures the narrative?

JP: Perhaps so many of the pieces do have that hazy, dreamy quality because they deal with nostalgia and memory to a degree, and that's an atmosphere that seems to evoke those feelings in us. Indeed, its almost a visual shorthand at this point, seen in so many photographs and films.. soft focus, lens-flares, etc. However, I should mention that I have been making a conscious decision not to use some of these techniques too often, in particular the reflected light in the camera lens, lest it become a gimmick and a lazy way to create atmosphere in the painting. Another thing about the lens flare which I do like, however, is that it references a camera.. implying mediation between the viewer and subject... its important that all of my subjects come from film and tv, not direct experience. These paintings are about observing the act of observing. It also continues with the theme of reality experienced second-hand.

MP: Why is that mediated distance important and why is it also characterized by the loss of the narrative to some extent?

JP: It's of vital importance that all of the figures and situation in the paintings come from film and photography, and the protagonists are always actors who are merely playing roles. This is, because for me, my first exposure to so many sights and events was through tv, film, and magazines. Obviously, that's a hallmark of modern experience, and has been for many, many years. In my opinion that this has alienated all of us, to a degree, and made us less able to deal with the reality of our lives, as accustomed to and influenced by simulacra as we are.

We love it, though, and form real attachments to the fictional and the constructed. I had a teacher once who told a story about his elderly mother. Her and her best friend of over 50 years were both fans of a certain soap opera. When his mother's friend passed away, she was not able to cry or mourn properly. However, when one of the characters on the tv show 'died', she sobbed uncontrollably and was affected for days.

MP: The brushwork and staining you utilize seem to have a very diametric situation that is a composite between crude, aggressive, blunt, direct and elegant, ephemeral, liminal even – why the binary approach?

JP: Well, part of it is a simple matter of temperament. I simply don't have the patience to create slow, methodical, detailed paintings. There is too much nervous energy which comes out when I work. As an artist yourself, Im sure you'd agree that we're all victim to our limitations to a degree, the trick is to try to turn them into strengths. As spontaneous and frantic as the application of paint can be when I work, I spend many hours selecting my subject matter and composing the image. Color, as well, is something that I take a lot of time with. I'm incredibly sensitive, obsessive, even, to what is going on throughout every centimeter of the canvas, when I step back and consider my next move. Hopefully, the contrast between the violence and the mediation, between the action and the repose, between 'carelessness' and care creates a powerful tension within the paintings that gives them the quality of a coiled spring which keeps them vibrating with life.

MP: These relations to the properties of light seem ephemeral and transitory – moments that are impossible to hold unto. Is the inability to stop the changes and momentum of life part of your conscious positioning in regards to the content of the work?

JP: I hadn't thought of that but it's a great reading. So to answer your question, it was not a conscious position. Much of the entire process for me is 'intuitive' rather than conscious (if those are, in fact, separate modes of thinking); from choosing the subject to the application of paint. However, once a painting or a group of paintings has been made, I do reflect on meaning in a more intellectual, conceptual way and that informs how I go forward into the next work, so it is a melding of the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious', ultimately.

MP: I interpret some of your other paintings in relation to a literary source, as rites of passage movies and books such as Lord Of The Flies or Stand By Me, both bonding experiences set within a male dominated subtext of violence. These works have more or less isolated a character from the 'plot' as it were. They have the 1000 yard stare, from seeing too much or being overwhelmed. How does this reading sit with you?

JP: I do think that either consciously or subconsciously, I do seem to seem to choose a particular facial expression to capture. Whenever there is a face in a painting, even more specifically eyes, in a painting, that becomes the focal point.... so the emotion conveyed there will carry the painting. The emotion radiates from there throughout the rest of the paintings like rings rippling out from a stone thrown in a pond.
As far as that particular reading goes, its certainly in the ballpark. I am trying to convey intensity, drama, gravitas; to give the images back some power that might have been robbed from them by bad wigs, too much makeup, awful screenwriting, etc..

MP: And the relationship to a subliminal violence? The captured quality of these paintings seem to indicate an epic struggle for the protaganist - the seconds before action explodes in a frenzy. How do you think about them and their temporal moment?

JP: This is probably related to the goal of trying to capture the intensity that I mentioned. Again, not a conscious decision to depict them a moment before violence breaks out, but as I am trying to convey tension and drama, this may be the case. It certainly seems to be a moment pregnant with possibilities, and given their surroundings, impending violence could certainly be one of the things hinted at. Hand in hand with the tension that I try to create with the materials, is narrative tension, i suppose.

MP: The nature of both text and film are ones of movement through time while painting is somewhat static. How does this frozen moment quality work besides the sources you use to inform the painting?

JP: I think that this static quality that painting has is both its strength and a weakness, especially in today's hi-tech world. A painting has the presence of a physical object and the gravitas and stillness that goes along with that. However, it requires a very sensitive viewer who is willing to stop, look, and interact. I was recently in an exhibition with another artist who had made a video. When there is a moving image in front of them, it seems that people are willing to stay with it for a while in order to find or construct for themselves some kind of narrative.

Painting on the other hand.. it seems that if it doesn't grab someone right away, he or she will only give it a few seconds before moving on. So, in the short term, the allure of the moving image seems more rewarding. However, for those with the means and the inclination to spend some time with a painting (the ultimate would be owning and living with it), I think that paintings can slowly change and reveal themselves over time. But again, it requires the sensitive viewer. It's a small audience for painting, I think.

MP: Your source materials suggest a constructed world of illusion – film stills rather than the film itself come to mind here – does this imply the inability to manage or engage with ‘real’ world scenarios or not?

JP: It could be. As I mentioned earlier, it's of vital importance that all of the figures and situations in the paintings come from film and photography, and the protagonists are always actors who are merely playing roles. This is because, for me, my first exposure to so many sights and events was through tv, film, and magazines. Obviously, that's a hallmark of modern experience, and has been for many, many years. It is my opinion that this has alienated all of us, to a degree, and made us less able to deal with the reality of our lives, as accustomed to and influenced by simulacra as we are.

MP: I am wondering what this might mean alongside a certain strain of Utopianism that looks fondly back at a non-existent Golden Age, or even just a nostalgia for the easy answers and bold heroic stories from our childhoods. Are these the children of Rousseu, with weapons, or the survivors of a dramatic battle? In other words do they reflect your position of artist by emphasizing the value of the hardship of battling through life or the dreams of a possible perfection?

JP : I am conscious that all of the things that people project onto 'primitive' peoples... spiritual purity, a primal, exaggerated sexuality, violence, etc.. so this is more a critique of that than a reinforcing of these stereotypes. You nailed it when you referred to a 'non-existent' Golden Age. The parallels between what these figures can represent and myself as artist are non-intentional, though I suppose every painting can be considered a self-portrait of sorts, or so they say.


MP: There is this sense of shared and communal experience for the characters (and I use that term deliberately) within many of your paintings that reach for acts of togetherness. This suite of works have decimated that by isolating the individual. Does this imply an existential position in the work in that we attempt these shared moments but remain alone despite the value of these actions?

JP: I guess that would depend on the personal philosophy of the individual viewing the paintings. I'm not necessarily an existentialist, per se, and that is an existentialist position that you outlined in your question. So, no, that is not what I am trying to imply in the work specifically though I'm certainly not denying it. It's up to the viewer to decide such things.

Max Presneill is an an artist and the Curator of the Torrance Art Museum in Torrance, CA.