![PAINT FX (www.paintfx.biz) is a painting collective/ club/ company/ brand/ website/ blog/ party currently produced by artists residing at various locations of the internet: Jon Rafman, Parker Ito, Micah Schippa, Tabor Robak & John Transue.
For your reading pleasure, the PAINT FX crew took time out to participate in the following INNERVIEW for PAINTED, ETC.
______________________________________________________________
American Abstraction arose as artists struggled to portray a distinct cultural identity in the shadow of European painting. European Abstraction was linked to scientific, industrial and musical evolutions. Throughout the 20th century all of these tenets of painted Abstraction became a combined vehicle to measure fundamental changes against the artist, whether or not they were possible. It was said that while representational painting gave an image of how the world looked, non-representational painting displayed something of how it felt. In the wake of all this, is the history of abstract painting of importance to PAINTFX.BIZ? Are there any parallels between those histories and what is occurring online now?
American Abstraction marked a shift from Europe to NY as the center of the avant garde. We don’t believe in avant garde cause it’s fucking borking (sic), but in the coming years the Internet will become the main focus/obsession of the art world. Abstract painting is all about emotion and PaintFX explores these same emotions for a post-Two Girls One Cup culture. Sure there are classic emotions displayed in many of the works we post — life, death, whatever — but the most interesting posts explore a new unnamed emotional territory that is rising out of digital culture: (Post) Post-Irony, sexy Disney tweens, Punk-Minimalism, Defaultism, and anything else you want to make up on the spot. It is also an intentionally banal experience with software. It’s about connecting with these wares that are intended for glossy commercial image-making and doing the simplest, most natural thing with them. That is where the biggest historical connection might be made, to the Californian Finish Fetish guys. The idea that depth and meaning can be on the surface of a thing is really important. If you think of culture as a type of software, or programming, the way they were exploring default materials feels the same as the way we are exploring default materials.
Volume and output seem to be of importance to the project with over 200 works to date in a relatively short amount of time, is the focus on quantity part of a search, perhaps to turn over as much visual ground as possible? Or is it more aligned with representing the massiveness of the internets? Is this quantity a statement of ease, a self-evident reality, or subject purely to the expectations of a blog format, that it must be continuous and regular?
We don’t have to wait for paint to dry, we don’t have to woo curators and gallerists; the throw a bunch of shit at a wall and see what sticks approach works great online. The more work you make the more your voice grows. The more you blog the more your audience grows. All of these things are very present and embedded in the project and culture at large. Part of it is sport, or exploration; a quantity for quantities sake situation akin to image boards, tumblr, dump.fm etc. Part of it is communication, dialog. With every new post you get an insight into where your peers are going, it’s the subtleties that expose their working methods that get you excited to respond. Then there is, in a personal way, a deep connection to the way quickly or easily produced images can be meaningful and complex, almost sublime. Art Rage is a very fun and addicting program. One taste and you’re hooked on it’s luscious, juicy, gestures.
Is it possible to discuss the content of just one of the works displayed, or must it be considered specifically as a fraction of the whole project? Are there ‘Fillers’ & ‘Killers’ in the work produced?
Hell na. It would be possible, but not necessarily compelling. The dynamism that is born from collaboration in context to ‘performance in isolation’ (the internet) is what really creates the magic. But at the same time, we wouldn’t consider any piece a ‘filler’ because the existence of each piece is integral to the whole. The entire project is more interesting than any one of the individual pieces. The only thing that has a title is the project as a whole, although the individual pieces do get a cool string or random numbers and letters assigned to them by tumblr. [It’s] a hard time addressing Fillers and Killers in anything today because often stuff that sucks is good because it sucks.
What is the significance of ‘FX’?
The ‘fx.biz’ helps point to the projects awareness of commercial schema and methodology. A little wink that reveals the projects self-awareness. ‘Effects’ took too long to type.
Do the limitations of the various software programs employed hinder the options for the PAINTFX.BIZ artists? Or does the work seek to lay bare some of these defaults and hence exploit them?
Limitations are good, they create depth out of breadth. Traditional paint in a tube doesn’t get upgraded every two years but people keep doing new things with it. Or is PaintFX the upgrade? It’s both. It seems obvious, or perhaps of no interest, that you can’t really move beyond the capabilities of your wares. So that is what becomes important. You’re given this palette, designed by commercial engineers, and you have to choose how much you buy into them or desire them, questioning them. There’s this relation to Constant Dullaart’s work and this idea of defaultism, or the exploration of defaults. In the end, I like being trapped, I think it is important. You have to recognize how you use or relate to the architectural or infrastructural systems around you in order to change them. We are seeking to break down what could be called “software invisibility planes” (until someone else comes up with a better name), which is a term to describe using software in a way that doesn’t conceal the software’s involvement. So defaults are ideal for revealing shit.
Having four artists produce work as a single entity increases everything, perhaps displacing the idea of an aesthetic ‘style’. Or is that taken care of by the blog stylesheet? Between the blog posting producers, are four styles inevitably emerging?
Styles are over. All hail the brand. By posting anonymously we’re branding more transparently than our own projects allow. The most exciting part is watching individual styles evolve and then responding to them. PaintFX is very much an evolving conversation. We do not even know who creates what piece since everything is made anonymous by tumblr. This helps us become a homogeneous unit by eliminating competition.
Where does PAINTFX.BIZ see the project developing? Are we heading towards a broader movement of software/online painting?
The idea of digital painting gets better the more people there are doing it. People like Charles Broskoski, Harm van den Dorpel, Tobias Madison, Travess Smalley and Max Pitegoff put a lot of thoughtful time into making this conversation possible. Digital painting was something the theorist-critic institution assigned to ‘folk’ (vernacular) web art because it wasn’t understood as something performative or because they didn’t understand it as material. We are all rearranging value systems to create a healthier image of art production. It’s about leveling the playing field and getting rid of antiquated notions of the ‘other’ or the ‘non-artist. One of the many goals of this project is freeing the word painting from its traditional use because it is very functional. We are headed towards a larger movement of digital painting and digital work that reveals the hand of the artist. Everyone who has tried Art Rage has been hooked on it.
Is the reliance on software developers and technology worth considering or can we just accept it and move on?
C U L8er. Yeah, move on. [We] don’t really care that a sculptor doesn’t get his own clay from the ground. Software developers are highly creative. I think there are a lot of people who sit perfectly in between the art-engineer zones.
Although PAINTFX.BIZ exists in an online blog context, an upcoming solo show is planned at Antena Gallery in Chicago next year, while an exhibition is being staged at The Future Gallery in Berlin this month. How will the work function in the gallery space as objects?
The site is only 1 component of the project. To fully understand the project everyone will have to attend the exhibition in person or look at the pics of the exhibition online. The way they are being produced, again, acts to question production methods and values. There will be at least one painting that is outsourced to China for production. The gesture reflects the same removed but empowered relationship we have with the software.
Is it an objective that this work eventually be collected and exhibited in the manner of Contemporary Art? For example, will we be able to buy one?
People [could] just find cracks of whatever image making tools they can get a hold of to make their own paintings. Software for all. PaintFX has a dialog with art history and being collected is a part of that conversation. It is contemporary art. Everything is for sale, just send us an email - paintfxstudios@gmail.com
What do we call them, if not paintings?
Paint Effects. Drawings. Just paintings.
What artists or works inspired the PAINTFX.BIZ model?
Charles Broskoski, Harm van den Dorpel, Tobias Madison, Travess Smalley & Max Pitegoff. Josh Smith. Abstract expressionists, post-modern pop artists, and the netart tumblr/flickr/rhizome crowd.
What don’t we know about PAINTFX.BIZ yet?
Nothing! Nothing we don’t know. John Transue is the newest member.
by Ry David Bradley](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l89x5ousZM1qzeexuo1_500.jpg)
PAINT FX (www.paintfx.biz) is a painting collective/ club/ company/ brand/ website/ blog/ party currently produced by artists residing at various locations of the internet: Jon Rafman, Parker Ito, Micah Schippa, Tabor Robak & John Transue.
For your reading pleasure, the PAINT FX crew took time out to participate in the following INNERVIEW for PAINTED, ETC.
______________________________________________________________
American Abstraction arose as artists struggled to portray a distinct cultural identity in the shadow of European painting. European Abstraction was linked to scientific, industrial and musical evolutions. Throughout the 20th century all of these tenets of painted Abstraction became a combined vehicle to measure fundamental changes against the artist, whether or not they were possible. It was said that while representational painting gave an image of how the world looked, non-representational painting displayed something of how it felt. In the wake of all this, is the history of abstract painting of importance to PAINTFX.BIZ? Are there any parallels between those histories and what is occurring online now?
American Abstraction marked a shift from Europe to NY as the center of the avant garde. We don’t believe in avant garde cause it’s fucking borking (sic), but in the coming years the Internet will become the main focus/obsession of the art world. Abstract painting is all about emotion and PaintFX explores these same emotions for a post-Two Girls One Cup culture. Sure there are classic emotions displayed in many of the works we post — life, death, whatever — but the most interesting posts explore a new unnamed emotional territory that is rising out of digital culture: (Post) Post-Irony, sexy Disney tweens, Punk-Minimalism, Defaultism, and anything else you want to make up on the spot. It is also an intentionally banal experience with software. It’s about connecting with these wares that are intended for glossy commercial image-making and doing the simplest, most natural thing with them. That is where the biggest historical connection might be made, to the Californian Finish Fetish guys. The idea that depth and meaning can be on the surface of a thing is really important. If you think of culture as a type of software, or programming, the way they were exploring default materials feels the same as the way we are exploring default materials.
Volume and output seem to be of importance to the project with over 200 works to date in a relatively short amount of time, is the focus on quantity part of a search, perhaps to turn over as much visual ground as possible? Or is it more aligned with representing the massiveness of the internets? Is this quantity a statement of ease, a self-evident reality, or subject purely to the expectations of a blog format, that it must be continuous and regular?
We don’t have to wait for paint to dry, we don’t have to woo curators and gallerists; the throw a bunch of shit at a wall and see what sticks approach works great online. The more work you make the more your voice grows. The more you blog the more your audience grows. All of these things are very present and embedded in the project and culture at large. Part of it is sport, or exploration; a quantity for quantities sake situation akin to image boards, tumblr, dump.fm etc. Part of it is communication, dialog. With every new post you get an insight into where your peers are going, it’s the subtleties that expose their working methods that get you excited to respond. Then there is, in a personal way, a deep connection to the way quickly or easily produced images can be meaningful and complex, almost sublime. Art Rage is a very fun and addicting program. One taste and you’re hooked on it’s luscious, juicy, gestures.
Is it possible to discuss the content of just one of the works displayed, or must it be considered specifically as a fraction of the whole project? Are there ‘Fillers’ & ‘Killers’ in the work produced?
Hell na. It would be possible, but not necessarily compelling. The dynamism that is born from collaboration in context to ‘performance in isolation’ (the internet) is what really creates the magic. But at the same time, we wouldn’t consider any piece a ‘filler’ because the existence of each piece is integral to the whole. The entire project is more interesting than any one of the individual pieces. The only thing that has a title is the project as a whole, although the individual pieces do get a cool string or random numbers and letters assigned to them by tumblr. [It’s] a hard time addressing Fillers and Killers in anything today because often stuff that sucks is good because it sucks.
What is the significance of ‘FX’?
The ‘fx.biz’ helps point to the projects awareness of commercial schema and methodology. A little wink that reveals the projects self-awareness. ‘Effects’ took too long to type.
Do the limitations of the various software programs employed hinder the options for the PAINTFX.BIZ artists? Or does the work seek to lay bare some of these defaults and hence exploit them?
Limitations are good, they create depth out of breadth. Traditional paint in a tube doesn’t get upgraded every two years but people keep doing new things with it. Or is PaintFX the upgrade? It’s both. It seems obvious, or perhaps of no interest, that you can’t really move beyond the capabilities of your wares. So that is what becomes important. You’re given this palette, designed by commercial engineers, and you have to choose how much you buy into them or desire them, questioning them. There’s this relation to Constant Dullaart’s work and this idea of defaultism, or the exploration of defaults. In the end, I like being trapped, I think it is important. You have to recognize how you use or relate to the architectural or infrastructural systems around you in order to change them. We are seeking to break down what could be called “software invisibility planes” (until someone else comes up with a better name), which is a term to describe using software in a way that doesn’t conceal the software’s involvement. So defaults are ideal for revealing shit.
Having four artists produce work as a single entity increases everything, perhaps displacing the idea of an aesthetic ‘style’. Or is that taken care of by the blog stylesheet? Between the blog posting producers, are four styles inevitably emerging?
Styles are over. All hail the brand. By posting anonymously we’re branding more transparently than our own projects allow. The most exciting part is watching individual styles evolve and then responding to them. PaintFX is very much an evolving conversation. We do not even know who creates what piece since everything is made anonymous by tumblr. This helps us become a homogeneous unit by eliminating competition.
Where does PAINTFX.BIZ see the project developing? Are we heading towards a broader movement of software/online painting?
The idea of digital painting gets better the more people there are doing it. People like Charles Broskoski, Harm van den Dorpel, Tobias Madison, Travess Smalley and Max Pitegoff put a lot of thoughtful time into making this conversation possible. Digital painting was something the theorist-critic institution assigned to ‘folk’ (vernacular) web art because it wasn’t understood as something performative or because they didn’t understand it as material. We are all rearranging value systems to create a healthier image of art production. It’s about leveling the playing field and getting rid of antiquated notions of the ‘other’ or the ‘non-artist. One of the many goals of this project is freeing the word painting from its traditional use because it is very functional. We are headed towards a larger movement of digital painting and digital work that reveals the hand of the artist. Everyone who has tried Art Rage has been hooked on it.
Is the reliance on software developers and technology worth considering or can we just accept it and move on?
C U L8er. Yeah, move on. [We] don’t really care that a sculptor doesn’t get his own clay from the ground. Software developers are highly creative. I think there are a lot of people who sit perfectly in between the art-engineer zones.
Although PAINTFX.BIZ exists in an online blog context, an upcoming solo show is planned at Antena Gallery in Chicago next year, while an exhibition is being staged at The Future Gallery in Berlin this month. How will the work function in the gallery space as objects?
The site is only 1 component of the project. To fully understand the project everyone will have to attend the exhibition in person or look at the pics of the exhibition online. The way they are being produced, again, acts to question production methods and values. There will be at least one painting that is outsourced to China for production. The gesture reflects the same removed but empowered relationship we have with the software.
Is it an objective that this work eventually be collected and exhibited in the manner of Contemporary Art? For example, will we be able to buy one?
People [could] just find cracks of whatever image making tools they can get a hold of to make their own paintings. Software for all. PaintFX has a dialog with art history and being collected is a part of that conversation. It is contemporary art. Everything is for sale, just send us an email - paintfxstudios@gmail.com
What do we call them, if not paintings?
Paint Effects. Drawings. Just paintings.
What artists or works inspired the PAINTFX.BIZ model?
Charles Broskoski, Harm van den Dorpel, Tobias Madison, Travess Smalley & Max Pitegoff. Josh Smith. Abstract expressionists, post-modern pop artists, and the netart tumblr/flickr/rhizome crowd.
What don’t we know about PAINTFX.BIZ yet?
Nothing! Nothing we don’t know. John Transue is the newest member.
by Ry David Bradley
