The Art Assassin

a nonfiction novel by Albert Wang

Chapter 19: REVERSE ASSASSINATION: Jon Coffelt Meets qi peng, Artist

leave a comment »


Purported photograph before death of qi peng sporting shades in the manner of William Powhida. Courtesy of qi peng.

Manhattan artist and curator Jon Coffelt had a chance to win a beautiful assassination on the faux reporter qi peng recently. Coffelt is known for his innovative use of miniature clothing as a series of conceptual art portraits as well as his beautiful circuit paintings using duct tape and vellum. He also has curated many shows during his lifetime.

Anyways, on to the show and here are Coffelt’s latest details of this “assassination” of THE ART ASSASSIN:

Jon Coffelt: What informed you to make the work you do at the moment? Was it the idea of fuzzy logic or blurring the lines between the actual and the idea of artifice that inform your work the most?

qi peng: The interview portrait series was derived from a dilemma that I was confronting recently. After seeing that one of the artists represented by Roebling Hall (now defunct) had executed some traditional paintings based on random Facebook photographs. One could say that it was a “mindless exercise” in some ways because unlike the Gerhard Richter, there isn’t that layering of historical meaning and personal deconstruction that would have infected the underpinnings. As a conceptual artist who had some training in traditional paintings which I still do, I decided to focus on wanting to look at how the art world functions. For me, Facebook and Twitter would become the tools that would help me to interface with various art professionals ranging from gallerists to artists, both established such as April Gornik and emerging such as Angela Knowles, to art critics to even a guy who is working on the catalogue raisonne for John Baldessari, who is one of my favorite artists of all time and a huge influence on my own work. Ironically, a lot of people levy criticism that these social networking tools tend to destroy the essence of human relationships in that the internet is a rather depersonalized way of keeping in touch with friends. The effect, as I found out rather quickly, tended to have the opposite effect: I ended up forging good relationships with people within the art world whom I had never met before and even developed some friendships beyond the acquaintance level that most online relationships tend to have.

The formalist structure of the interview was chosen because the nature of any type of conversation, even though with the interview the power structure tends to shift towards the person doing the questioning, is inherently collaborative in its execution. The questions cannot exist without the answers and vice versa. I didn’t really think that doing a traditional oil or acrylic portrait of the people within the art world because the solution would have been way too easy and effortless as previous examples of this have already existed in examples such as the work of William Powhida. Plus I wasn’t really into the institutional critique type of thing because that would have become too cliched there. Also I wanted to be more “objective” as artists, with their personae of rebellion, tended to work against the system and attack the capitalist structure of the contemporary art world. Instead, I wanted to UNDERSTAND the art world and not tear it down, which meant leaving a lot of my personal and political beliefs at home. Even though I am more of a mixed economic type of old school Marxist, I truly don’t have any desire to impose my belief system on others but attempt to look and perhaps deconstruct the way that power shifts occur within the exchange system. Also there is the overtone with the art world functioning like a game in the sense of the later decades of Wittgenstein’s research where humans have to create a scientific network of common terminology (or art speak or lingo) where art professionals could communicate with each other effectively. Surely with these interview portraits, I could offer a voice to the people who don’t have a normal chance of expressing their desires or frustrations to the general public. That is why I try to ask a few rather personal questions… to probe the essence of their humanity underneath that label they get from others such as “art critic” or “artist” that we impose within this formal game that everyone from art critics to gallery owners have to learn how to play by its rules. Artificial, yes, but rather necessary. Plus I couldn’t function without the structure to begin with.

Also the email-conducted interview with the side dish of the social networking methodology and then the output with the offset enlarged prints in the manner of Mel Bochner or the ink on paper drawings help to bridge together the two worlds of new media conceptual art and traditional drawing. This goes rather well with my bipolar nature and my indecision of how to head in opposite directions of respecting the historical methods of draftsmanship with the radical examination of our undermined expectations of how art professionals relate to each other. And the combined visual, at least with photographic documentation, and verbal text descriptions including both their and my testimonies seem to work well with the three-dimensional portrait of the male or female of interest. To offer the counterpoint of their voice lends a sense of Proustian time to the whole affair, honestly. They seem to be more fleshed out than if I were to take a straightforward snapshot of them… way too much a shortcut.

About the boundaries being destroyed between reality and fiction with my interview portraits, I think that I will be extending this if I convert these verbal scripts into an actual drama or cinema or performance art piece where I hire assistants to play the roles of the art professionals from the skits. For me, my life has been one extended performance art piece where I have had to assume various hats. Not exactly an easy task living out the life of a postmodern novel like that of John Barth where storytelling is at the heart of the profound moments that we intersect with. Aren’t both fiction and reality, the stuff that we derive from philosophical axiom, constructs of the human imagination and interpretation? The art world is definitely a lovely work of fiction by which one has to play the cards close to the heart. Yes, we can impose some spiritual value on the visual cues but in the end, there is the financial exchange value of the piece and its derived value from the people who traditionally hold the power, in this case, the art critics and museum curators. I see the whole art world as a stage where the unspeakable can be translated into a common, everyday language. That is what the artist aspires to, without the high culture that accompanies the cultish gallery scene, especially in the New York City or Los Angeles venues. After all, my series of interviews can offer only the simulated university of these characters which have real-life counterparts. I can only reconstruct this complicated art world with the simple building blocks of LEGO-like words and documentary photographs slapped together. Documentary work is the greatest artifice because it has to play to the reader’s or viewer’s expectation of its inherent veracity when at most, it could only be the nexus of some particles of the truth we conceive.

Jon Coffelt: One of the things I like about your work is your sense of urgency. I feel that when I see your work I want to do something right then and there. Is the impetus that you have in mind when creating?

qi peng: Ironically, I don’t really see that this series of interview portraits to be a form of art world journalism in the sense of mere reportage. I do enjoy playing within the constraints of having to work within the limitations of the format of the online column, just like there are genres of landscape or portrait painting. Typically I stick in a profile picture of the subject being examined as well as an example of their artwork or the website they maintain, etc. Then there are the questions which I tend to reinvent from a set of interests that I have in art professionals such as studio habits to curating styles. It’s like playing the two-part or three-part inventions of Bach with all of the variants of the interview questionnaires similar to that of a protocol of a scientific experiment.

And there is this deadline aspect as my project has gotten much more exposure within the few months that I have been embarking on this difficult piece of artwork. I see this as being an extended version of the portrait painting that infused the courts of the Golden Age Spain days except that the words are the brushstrokes within the world of conceptual art. I tend to drum out one or two interview questions everyday and then three or four interviews to publish online and also convert into pdf and tiff digital file formats so that I can create the artist’s book from the results. It’s going to be like a one-man Parkett’s sort of like a refined zine that examines the professional networks like some huge flowchart drawing. There is the urgency too within the hasty mistakes that I retain within the incorrect spelling that I retain within the subject’s answers as well as the one time that I ended up asking the same question twice to the subject. For me, those markers are the signs of humanity and that failure is a form of triumph which has its counterpart in the rejection letter drawings that complement the artist’s book.

About these interviews inspiring other artists to execute work, that is a possibility that I haven’t really looked at much. Yes, each piece is a form of collaboration but what is ingenious is that it’s artwork that contain the seed of how to create artwork, whether it be a gallery space or an abstract painting. No one is certain what people make of it but I know that people have been rather receptive to these portraits. I am glad because the resulting works on paper will make a terrific installation where I attempt to capture the galaxy of personalities that comprise the contemporary art world. Hopefully, the viewer will be willing to check this Milky Way through the telescope as metaphor for the interview. Lenses that direct the artists’ eyes to the others’ souls.

Jon Coffelt: Do you find it harder these days for people to understand what you are talking about or do you think the tide has turned?

qi peng: I hope that I can provide a good explanation of what I am trying to do with these interview portraits. Honestly, I find it rather amusing that I am being called a journalist when I am not one or that people tend to express their happiness of reading these articles like some online newspaper. However, this is not documentary filmmaking but works of art that I intend. Only the art critic James Wagner and a select few caught on early what I have been trying to do. For me, playfulness trumps understanding of artistic intentions. I have my own personal meaning that I read these interview portraits and I let others have their interpretation of these works regardless of whether their explanation conflicts with mine. In fact, don’t novels have wrong turns too? To mis-read a book is an art form of itself.

About understanding these interview portraits, I think that people tend to catch on during this day and age. Viewers are much richer in their ability to discern the intentions of an artist in this era of the iPod and internet which are postmodern devices that have taken over the world. I don’t know much about how commercially viable these portraits will be but I am sure that my goal of gaining empathy for each “character” is much more evident. It’s like the verbal + visual equivalent of Chuck Close where I can latch onto the inner spirit of the person beyond the lineaments. I could execute inkjet prints of these portraits if I wanted to get the epic scale of these “characters” but I really do think, at this moment, that the artist’s book will echo more of what I am trying to grasp.

So I really don’t care too much about whether they understand what I am trying to do. I feel much relaxed if they enjoy connecting with a person they never met, just like some vicarious relationship, which is what every interview really is.

Jon Coffelt: I see we both create from ideas of chaos and order. How would you sum up your most recent work?

qi peng: My interview portraits is about using a formalist structure of the interview questions, which correspond to order, against the ultimate failure of capturing “objectively” the human personality of the art professional, which corresponds to chaos. I think that perhaps the unexpected response of whether or not the person I email the interview questions has tend to be the most chaotic! (laughs) Seriously, I really do believe that the artist must be a playful alchemist who can transform chaos with order into a more hilarious version of chaos. I think that Al Held once said that all conceptual art is a form of pointing (perhaps at objects?) and I agree. Perhaps we may be pointing out virtues or character flaws but the interview as a form of conceptual art is a pointing out of the fact that these art professionals aren’t just labels or stereotypes, damn it, but HUMANS. After all, we wouldn’t be throwing in Anna Kustera in the same category of Edward Winkleman… would we? They have their own personality, or in the cases of some, cult of personality, indeed.

Within a Don Delillo novel, there is always a sense of dread that pervades the way that we interact with each other as the empty shells of Homo sapiens. Why is that? Because the media tends to depersonalize the person using this same old script and thank goodness for Jon Stewart as the master deconstruction expert. Instead, I want to use the standard form that the media uses which is the interview question and answer format, with a throwback to the game of 20 questions, to subvert the deliberate classification of art professionals into these meaningless categories. I want to use the interview tool as a humanizing force, which tends to be rather unusual in conceptual art unless you count the hilarious Commissioned Paintings series that Baldessari. That’s maybe the only time that outsourcing is actually a wonderful blessing! (laughs)

Jon Coffelt: Would you ever consider yourself an intellectual whose work may be beyond the reach of many people in the art world?

qi peng: Ha! I consider myself to be an art prankster, thus rendering me worthless as an intellectual. I think that being the Falstaff of the contemporary art world is a more apt term… maybe more like a cross between Brad Pitt, bad Chinese dimsum, and William Powhida on acid. I think that my interviews portraits aren’t beyond the reach of the people in the art world actually. The printouts, or at least the pdf versions, are pretty slick looking and if anyone wanted to upgrade their portrait from paper to canvas, I’m pretty game for that too. I just want to make these supposedly esoteric, hard-to-reach art professionals more human and touching to the general public who generally could care less about artists. I think that there are times when I behaved more like Perez Hilton in a few portraits, especially when I battled with William Powhida, who is not a nemesis.

Whether I can sell these portraits is another story. When I get gallery representation, I think that I will leave that up to the wonderful gallery owner who is willing to place his or her bets on on a silly conceptual artist like me.

Jon Coffelt: I like the idea of portability within the structure of your work. Do you like the idea that your work can be at many different places at once?

qi peng: Hell yeah. It’s nice to have my work remixed for different situations ranging from the online columns in some obscure HTML code to regular, inexpensive laser printouts to fancier drawings. For me, the method is sort of important but certainly not compared to the wondrous primacy of the driving CONCEPT! Plus, with the economy being lousy as it is, I need to be able to reduce the shipping costs honestly. Paintings and works on paper and sculptures are getting too pricey to flip around the country. Anyways I’m getting so tired of seeing so many huge artworks during the past decade. I would like sometime more intimate, more like an Elizabeth Peyton or Tomma Abts. I want to be able to feel the aura of the artwork at six inches, not six feet.

And it would be awesome to have these interview portraits displayed in the different places at the same time. Maybe even a few non-gallery settings or the local gas station. I really believe that the most profound thing is to have people to connect to the work on a primal level. Actually, I think this summer will be cool that I will convert some of these interviews into sticker art and slap them on other gallery windows. Kind of like a hex on so-and-so gallery with the portrait of Edward Winkleman. Who wouldn’t want such a great guy on their front window? A cup of Gagosian, anybody?

Jon Coffelt: Stickers and people collecting them has been around for a while and I like how you have used that in a contemporary way to express your artwork? How do you feel about pre-empting something as common as a sticker and putting your brand on it only to create a very unique gesture within your work?

qi peng: I am not really a street artist in terms of tagging and doing graffiti in fact. I just use sticker art to get my paintings out to the average Joe and Jane on the streets which I convert into a vast museum space of the public area. Yes, I guess that there has to be a “qi peng” branding despite the fact that I battle with capitalists like some crazy antisuperhero. Seriously. I think that contemporary artwork can have various repackaging standards as long as the artists doesn’t over-reach in their boundaries of selling out. I like the uniqueness of a certain piece but it’s more important that art is the basis of communication, not the worship of a cult of the single object.

The unique things about my stickers is that I am not interested in doing the typical subjects but just converting my rather ambigious paintings into a laser-printed label that gets slapped on some random sculpture such as a streetlight pole or a well-worn wall of an office building. Context is not everything here. I just like having the artwork being “read” in various places and people relating to the work, either positively or negatively.

Jon Coffelt: Do you feel that other artists using stickers within their work, namely Banksy, have the same feelings about society and contemporary thought as you do?

qi peng: There are times when I want to rebel against the system just like Banksy but I think that we differ on our views on contemporary society. I do want to critique the injustices of humanity but there are many artists who can achieve that much better than I could ever do in the political arena. Banksy’s artwork sometimes tend to fall on the one-liner approach which is the subversion of the cultural norm. I tend to be way more ambigious in that respect with my psychological portraits.

Of course, my stint as a sticker artist is more of a performance artist trying to get some street cred. I doubt that I want to make street art my main focus because I am still very much into the conceptual art and the “high society” of the contemporary art world. I am very much into the joys of donning the mask of a “street artist” as a conceptual artist who uses technique of the sticker to speak to everyday citizens. I am a character, one of many, within my own fictions. I have the heart of a failed man whose success would be the celebration of his own failure like a Samuel Beckett “me.” Banksy can pride himself on his success but my success is more dependent on whether I can flirt more strongly with my willingness to become the bigger featured failure.

Jon Coffelt: Does it give you a sense of accomplishment when you realize that you continually cause people to take a second look at your work?

qi peng: Actually, I would be happy if the people even looked at the work the first time. A second look wouldn’t be bad as my artwork is a form of buffet. I believe strongly in second helpings for the masses. A total blast for sure. Accomplishment is for Damien Hirst. I’m just interested in the basic level of communication to others as a conceptual artist and for me, that’s a sufficient form of happiness indeed.

Jon Coffelt: You literally turn the art world inside out with the types of things you choose to deal with as an artist. Did this come about in a natural way or was it something that was preconceived for your work?

qi peng: That would be topsy-turvy I guess. I assume that I could become much more focused if I did try to subvert the system but for me, it’s all about transparency within the contemporary art world. No more Madoff schemes in the art world, please. In fact, I plan to execute some traditional oil paintings of the Salander case where this guy nearly got away with selling the same piece to three different clients. Thus the painting has become less of an object to market but more of an idea to sell. It means that we are too caught with our virtual systems, whether it be credit cards of just an inventory of paintings that we can rattle off that list to a phone bidder.

This is a natural extension of my interest in humanity, not just the contemporary art players. I think that we are too caught up within the masks that we create for ourselves and thus for others. I’m pretty tired of that seriously. It infuriates me that the game of the art market is fine but that too many people try to fix the system like a terrible horse race. I wish that the art world were more transparent, that more galleries cooperated with each other, that art fairs were more geared to the experimental rather than eye candy-like, and that artists didn’t act like divas. I like to stay in the background and kick back and watch the action unfurl. It has a lot to do with my childhood and my willingness to play and fiddle around like an engineer. After all, I wasn’t scared to mix up the My Little Ponies with the G.I. Joes just to balance out the sex ratio with this closed universe I made up. I don’t think that kids think much of bestality anyways.

So be it. If people aren’t happy that these interview questions are out there in the public, I will keep pressing on with these series. One of my favorite comments recently through Facebook was “I’m so sick of you” from a fellow artist whom I leave anonymous. I thought that was rather touching. She didn’t know who the hell I was or know that “qi peng” is only one of many characters within the whole art scheme of things. Maybe she was mad that I didn’t ask to interview her. But I will interview her someday when my backlog is down.

Jon Coffelt: Once people become accustomed to your work, do you feel that they are communicating with the work or or they aware that your work is about their awareness or lack of awareness?

qi peng: If the work they enter into helps them to realize their sense of humanity… that these art professionals aren’t mere labels to be trifled, then I think that I have done my job. Communication, both clear and ambiguous, are the winning points here honestly. I am sure that I can remain playful and to show different sides of this public persona. For example, who could have guessed that gallerist Edward Winkleman enjoyed dive bars? Or that Lori Field enjoyed reading lots of books? I am just grateful for these episodes and the fact that I have done well to connect within this virtual reality world. Sort of like “Second Life” with a more offbeat approach and structured framework. A good interview is like a prefabricated house that’s just too sexy to resist.

Jon Coffelt: I love your interviewing as a way to express ideas as an artists but also to use these very ideas as artwork itself. What is your biggest accomplishment so far with this body of work?

qi peng: Wow, yes, the point isn’t that anything is art. Anarchy isn’t my primary goal for the use of the “interview” format as a form of artwork. In fact, there are roots in Hans Haacke’s work “MOMA Poll” from 1970. Haacke is incredible in that he creates these passionate works that an art dealer would find impossible to sell since the collectors with money tend to support the very system that would support what the artist is attacking, in fact. Actually, his 1990 painting “Cowboy with Cigarette” is a sweet remix of the conspiracy between the cigarette industry and the art world with the idea of sponsorship. I do hate smoking by the way so for me, I think that only Richard Prince and Hans Haacke have manage to satirize the underpinnings of the Marlboro man to great effect.

With my interview portraits, I intend to satirize nothing unless the questions are pointed in that direction. I truly do believe that I can capture the essence of a single person using a set number of questions. It’s the kindest form of the inquisition in many ways. Who could argue against being painted by words too? Of course, Haacke had a very strong connection between politics and conceptual art whereas Baldessari and Bochner tended to make this connection less transparent and more subtle with their visual implications. I, as an artist, am hoping to become literally more scientific in my verbal/visual portraiture in that I can be pointing out the networks between people’s souls like Mark Lombardi without the conspiracy theory overtones. I don’t like to point fingers at the gallery owners (as much as I try to look into their personal lives, I hate gossip and rumors) or even auction workers. For me, it’s an attempt to take a strong and hard look into the lives of these workers of the art world system like August Sander’s straight dead-on photo portraits. To mirror a society without pretense can be a horribly difficult task in many respects since it allows us a certain slice into the daily workings of the individual cogs that create the complete machine.

Sol LeWitt said that the idea becomes the machine that makes the art. For me, the art is the machine that creates the idea or the primeval sign in the sense of Saussure. I tend to explore the conflict between the public image of the art professional and the private idea that this image signifies. Pretty intense stuff, I guess?

Jon Coffelt: What has been your most difficult interview to do thus far?

qi peng: My most difficult interview was with Brooklyn artist Lane Twitchell. He didn’t really like to answer the questions via email so I ended up having to edit a bunch of questions through Facebook conversations. In fact, he also disagreed with the underlying concept of THE ART ASSASSIN so it’s the only interview that is a rendezvous rather than an assassination. Also, the original introduction had to be revised and his profile picture he prohibited even though the photo of him was in public domain. So basically, I ask myself whether it was worth it and it was good to go through the hoops to get approval from the subject. Thus the amount of work between Twitchell and me make this particular interview portrait a true collaboration just like a newspaper editor and a particular journalist.

The only other difficult interview was the eighteen page talk I had with Ivar Zeile, director of Plus Gallery. It took me around three days to add of the hypertext references to his musings as he gave the viewer a complete list of recommended movies and musical tracks that was very detailed. I loved doing all that nitty-gritty work in fact because it really got to the essence of what a perfunctory court portrait was all about. No one ever said that Velazquez had it easy either, eh?

Jon Coffelt: What has been your most pleasurable experience as an interviewer? As an interviewee?

qi peng: The most pleasurable experience as an interviewing court painter has been pretty much each person so far. I think that each individual has a certain aura, but not that of a celebrity in fact. For me, it is most important to respect the arts professional with a certain off-handed demeanor because the coolness is what can evoke the humor.

As an interviewee, it’s less than zero. The character of “qi peng” is fictional enough that it corresponds to a particular signifier to the man behind the mask. So in Barthes’ sense of the pleasure of reading, I think that the viewer will have an “erotic” joy being able to confront a visual portrait of me executed by someone else. For example, the Wikipedia entry for “qi peng” is a publicly created portrait of who I am, perhaps similar to the virtual Simone character in that crazy movie of bits and bytes. I consider being interviewed a good experience as I get sniped rather quickly. I need to be assassinated as a reminder of my eventual mortality, the ultimate grand failure of my own life of what I don’t live for.

Jon Coffelt: What is the one thing you want people to walk away with once they experience a piece of your work?

qi peng: The one thing is that the viewer would want to be satisfied with walking in the shoes of that particular subject. Certainly I feel that being able to immerse yourself into the esoteric and haute couture world of contemporary art. I am absolutely grateful for being able to share something that is highly public and deeply personal with the character studies. Of course, with the documents series, I hope that the viewers can relate to the frustrations of an emerging artist trying to find gallery representation like a blind idiot. It’s the emotional thrust of conceptual art that I hope to capture successfully and if I can make the visual experience operatic like a Wagner orchestral piece, I will be happy. Being the nicest guy in the art world show business is not easy because people blame you for not having an edge. But I don’t have much interest in acting up like a dumb punk. It’s quicker to lose friends that way.

Jon Coffelt: Will your work always be about making people rethink the box?

qi peng: Rethinking the box perhaps not so much as making the box transparent. The art world has become a rather mysterious system with all of the drama that’s going on in fact. I honestly hope that infusing the contemporary art world with a sense of humanity without losing the cynical edge and black humor and the drive that conceptual art has. My work is conceptual art with a heart, alive and beating. It should be a counterpart for a fable by Kafka in its terse look at some unknown but sometimes threatening force that we cannot account for.

So if people are willing to give in to puncturing the veneer that we call the “contemporary art market” to get an in-depth look at the individual as a human being with needs, desires, hates, and passions, then I will have felt happy with the public response to these interview portraits. It couldn’t be any harder considering that the tools of the mass media tend to be canned so often. I don’t want to airbrush any answers here. Warts and all must serve to exist to emphasize the character flaws for each person as one who can stand on their own two feet. After all, didn’t Shakespeare refuse to shy away from portraying his heroes and heroines as characters who were willing to embrace their tragic flaw, the thing that brought the whole stage down? Self-images need to be deconstructed as well. I am not here to deliver a polished product but something that accounts for the vulnerabilities of the person asking the questions as well as the subject answering them. Plus, visual artists are embracing the use of the word into the act of painting. Take a look at Christopher Wool, Richard Prince, Jenny Holzer, and even Ed Ruscha. The power of a single word or phrase as its own form of water-tight description of some reality beyond the everyday boredom. For me, it’s all about the strength of the paragraphs to form the sinews of the ultimate painting. The spiritual essence of the characters I encounter in a virtual land like a science fiction traveler.

Jon Coffelt: On conclusion, where do you see your work in the next five years?

qi peng: Yes, basically, I will continue to work on these interview portraits as well as the document series for a very long-term. I suspect that when I compile both into the artist’s books, volume by volume, that I can gear myself for the long haul of trying to increase the size of this galaxy of the contemporary art world in its crazy cast of people involved in it. However, I don’t plan to give up traditional painting using cutting-edge methods. I plan to do some more work with construction/industrial colored spray paint on canvas or wood panels. The main focus of my upcoming paintings will be a series of traditionally realistic oil artworks that reflect the saga of the Salander fraud case. Everyone wants to do Madoff because he is more high-profile but I think that this bastard of a slimy reptile named Larry Salander undermining his clients, including my childhood favorite tennis player John McEnroe, has a hint of the postmodern joke with a rueful and ruthless examination of an art dealer trying too hard to become the magical artists mired in their own pitfalls of their imaginary success. It’s the brilliant alchemy of failure that I relish. I haven’t a problem converting gold into dark matter either.

So I plan to continue the path which I think will be a rather offbeat adventure without too many qualms until I tire of these charades. But these interview portraits are way too addictive like candy to give up and I could see myself executing these for the next decade or two of my entire life. Plus my art career is destined down the path of ultimate failure like a burning oil barrel so I think that collecting documentation of my poignant failure is a final meaningful gesture from the last artist standing.

For more gossip or dishing me the art scoop: E-mail me at qipengart@gmail.com
Advertisements

Written by qi peng

May 12, 2009 at 1:35 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: