The Art of Chad Robertson

By: Chase Whitman | December 18, 2009 | Art

Do you find yourself relating to the art iconoclasts from L.A.’s past?
Well, the art world here has changed so much through the decades. I spend more time thinking about what it was like back in the day here when it all just started being international, and right before with the Ferus Gallery, Andy Warhol’s first show here, just when the world first started taking notice of this city and its artists. It must have been such an exciting time.

How does your work reflect your setting in Los Angeles?
I’m not sure it does, literally. So much of what I do has outside influences, like where I get my imagery, which is traveling and the Internet. But just by osmosis I think L.A. definitely is reflected in my work somewhere. I have a European friend and painter who says I paint very American because it is precise and tight. He feels that is an American thing. I say, “OK, cool.”

A bit off topic, but … growing up near the shadow of Disneyland, what is your take on the future of theme parks?
Disneyland was a constant in my background, but also Vegas and Hollywood. These are the places I grew up in, the trifecta of facade and fantasy. We never traveled when I was young; I used to go to Disneyland almost every weekend in the summer and Universal Studios a lot as well. So when I had the means and started seeing the world, it’s as if almost everything looked like a Disney ride or a set on Universal’s back lot. Cruising through the canals of Venice, I had the curious sensation of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride. Walking through streets and alleys in European cities, I felt as if everything was just a facade with nothing behind it. It was a fun little game being played inside my head growing up with all that manufactured fiction. Of course, that has all worn off now. The future of theme parks? Well it looks like Disney just keeps making more. They are about to build the [sixth] park in Shanghai.

The term “syncretism” means to attempt to combine elements from different systems of philosophical or religious belief or practice. I feel like your work syncretizes different visual elements that are extremely emotive, yet distant.  Are the source images you’ve chosen from a specific lexicon?
Not at all. They come from all over my experiences, others’ experiences, random things that come together to tell a larger story.

The new work depicts its subjects in such a cinematic way, and the older pieces were so extremely intimate. The portrait work you did a few years ago penetrated the surface appearance of your subjects to reveal a much more multifaceted individual while obscuring an actual identity. How did the transformation or focus shift begin? Explain the narrative.
Any narrative that I am trying to depict is mostly implied. Going back to music, that is really what I am trying to create with these newer works — a visual piece of music. The imagery in my paintings can come from an old photograph, a memory, something dear to me or a picture from the news that caught my attention, a catalog. The images become the words of a lyric or the sentence. It sets the scenario for the viewer to put together a story, but it’s important that it is their story.

I think it all comes down to the physical layering of the painting and also what the layering suggests conceptually. I never wanted to set out and paint a static image; I didn’t want to freeze a moment. The whole world is constantly moving in one way or another. And we, as human beings, as conscious thinkers, are always changing and growing inside as well. Society is changing, moving along in time and space — history evolving. As a starting point, I have always wanted to paint the depiction of movement and multiple events, and not just the physical but a representation of the psychological as well. I think I just reached an end with figurative work. I wanted to tell a bigger story. And formally, the new work is a reaction to all the space I gave the older pieces. I wanted to fill up all that white space I used to float my subjects in.

Technique seems like such a focal point when considering your work. How do you feel about this? What lies beyond the obvious? What concepts should we consider while being moved by your images. Also, color has taken on a new presence in the current collection. Why such a shift from the monotone works of a few years ago to this new psychedelic palette?
I love paint. I love the way it slides across a slick panel. I love the way abstract marks can form conscious or unconscious images, almost like clouds. Technique is very important, it’s a means to an end. I’m a painter, so technique will have a relevance to the work. I would like the viewer to come to his or her own conclusions but maybe walk away with a shared feeling. I think much of the color in the new work is a direct reaction to the older work. The first mash-ups were black-and-white or duotone, but that was just out of practicality. I wasn’t sure how I was going to put these things together in a cohesive way; taking color out and not having to worry about that helped me address the nuts and bolts of other problems. Once I worked through those, more color seemed to make more sense.

Bookmarks: Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >