About Christofer Charles
Born 1979, Denver, Colorado
Lives and works in Juneau, Alaska
EDUCATION
2007 Academy of Art University San Francisco - Masters of Fine Arts
2002 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth- Bachelor of Fine Arts
2001 Studio Arts Center International, Florence, Italy
EXHIBITIONS (Selected)
2011 Solo Show, Art Museum of Los Gatos, Los Gatos, CA
2010 Solo Show, ATC Art Gallery, Montrose, CO
2009 "Inherent Vice", Business of Arts Center, Colorado Springs, CO
"Collective Nouns", Center for Visual Arts, Denver, CO
Santa Fe Art District's Monthly Gallery Walk, 770 Studios, Denver, CO (Jan-Jun)
2008 Santa Fe Art District's Monthly Gallery Walk, 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"15th Annual Luminaries Art Walk", 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"Holiday Exhibition", 770 Studios, Denver CO
"Denver's Art Week", 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"Art Experience", 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"Gay on Santa Fe", 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"Democratic National Convention Exhibition", 770 Studios, Denver, CO
"770 Studios' Opening Exhibition", Denver, CO
2007 Issa Galleria, Opening Exhibit, Houma, LA
AAU Gallery 625, Humanity & Nature, San Francisco, CA
HONORS AND PUBLICATIONS
- San Francisco Museum of Modern Art nominee for the 2007 SECA Award
- Review in "IN DENVER TIME" article, Teaching and Doing Work Together in Collective Nouns, April 14, 2009.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
- College Art Association Member
- Santa Fe Art District Member, Denver, CO (2007-09)
An interview with the artist
Q: How do you begin a new series?
CC: I begin at the end. I look at my last series and ask myself what's missing? What do I want to see that's not present in the previous round of art making? I listen to that gut feeling that I have when I look at any piece of art. I take the gut responses to this question and let them run wild, and usually begin to set visual parameters within which to work for my next series, parameters that will hopefully lead me to include elements that were lacking or typically not focused on in the last body of work. The idea is to rediscover, not just repeat.
My art stems from a longing, closely related to my personal longings to be a better person, to reach my maximum potential. Each series is a new birth, a continuation of the last series. I'm not throwing out all that has previously happened in past bodies of work, but looking to enhance them, experience them differently. Simply put, I long to be a better painter, and each series is a new chance to do it better. I long to make each series more visually interesting than the last. My own form of visual reincarnation I guess.
Q: In this "reincarnation" are there any reoccurring themes?
CC: There are a lot of reoccurring themes, without them I would be worried. Worried that I am not remembering what I learned in previous go arounds. Worried that my voice isn't honest, highlighted by a lack of consistency, stemming from a lack of authenticity to myself. I try to hold on to the positive or interesting reoccurring themes the best I can.
Q: This process of reincarnation, growth from previous series being visually linked the next, seems to work well for you. Are there any reoccurring pitfalls in this process?
CC: Concept. It gets me every time. The beginning of a series always starts visual and application oriented. At this stage the ideas and possibilities are endless and extremely exciting. All of this comes to a halt when I ask why? Why am I painting what I am painting? What are my figures actually doing? At the onset of every series I have this main pitfall come up.
Q: So would you say your art is devoid of concept then, and just purely a visual experience?
CC: There is some truth in that statement. I like to perceive the human eye as an organism that hungers for stimulation. To relegate the eye to solely a decoder of text is depressing. In my opinion the fewer texts accompanying a piece of art the better. If the viewer walks away from a painting thinking "Awe that felt good to look at. My eyes are stuffed." Then I consider that painting to be a success.
Q: Is that your approach in the studio then, when you are actually making the art? Are you searching solely for the visual stimulation? Would this then be your concept?
CC: I am without a doubt searching for visual stimulation, but I think most artists are, or at least the ones that I respect. That's where esthetics come into play, each artist and viewer for that matter, has their own desires in regards to visual stimulation, or what kind of "optical meal" that satisfies them. That's what makes art so great.
Q: I understand the visual stimulation aspect, but what about concept; your pitfall? Is your work devoid of this?
CC: Concept in art is a tricky topic. I have my own spiritual bent relating to application and the creation of art paralleling the creation of our lives on a daily basis. I have attempted to write many artists statements to explain this and always feel as though I missed the mark. I often come back to a quote I read by Robert Rauschenberg, when he stated that talking about art is like talking about love. I think what he meant is that it's a personal, individual experience. You can never do it justice, or explain it, especially in two hundred words or less. Attempts often do it a great disservice, making it seem generic, obvious, trite, pretentious etc, and we all know love is anything but these things. Why do you need to write about something when you can just experience it? That's what it's meant for, to be experienced.
Q: Art or Love?
CC: Both. Unless of course your name is Hafiz, Neruda, or O'Hara, then you should definitely write about it.
Q: I understand not writing about concept or having to explaining it, but what about having it visually apparent in your art?
CC: I have tried to paint about important topics such as death, sex, religion, gender roles, etc. These paintings always sit in my studio, with all their loaded meanings and ideas, photo reference ready to go. But that's as far as they make it. They sit blank and untouched. Maybe, it's just not me to paint with these concepts in mind. With these concepts, important as they may be, I feel like I am trying to put a thought before the visual. As if I am trying to prove my thoughts or ideas are of importance, when it's the visual that's important and the way it's made that has any value, and in a long shot how these two things affect the viewers ideas or thoughts.
Q: You mentioned "application" a few times now. Is this part of your "non-concept" concept?
CC: Application and how a piece is created has a great deal of depth to it, and in many ways parallels my life and how it is created. In doing so application can become about sex, death, religion, humanity, but in a physical way or in hind-end- sight. Give me a few drinks and the right audience and I can get going on this topic, but adding more to my work conceptually hurts my work. Taking it away from application and visual stimulation is nothing but death for my art. I do my best art when I am present and focused on the creation process. Life is much the same way for me. Too much of, "who am I," "Why am I here," "What am I supposed to be doing," can be deteriorating. This way of thinking can make me feel like a kid without wheels in a soapbox race, grinding my way down a massive hill on axels alone, a horrible feeling, and no fun at all.
Q: That leaves a lot up to chance, in how your viewer might interpret your art?
CC: Once I make the piece and release it into the world, it doesn't matter what I thought or what I was trying to convey. That's up to the viewer. Time and History will determine what I painted about. Not me.