[interview conducted as part of Constructed Colour catalogue text]

Kyle Jenkins Justin Andrews

What do you think Constructed Colour represents?

Constructed Colour was an ongoing exhibition series that presented artworks from individuals, whose work focuses upon the production of abstraction as installations or objects with specific, fully defined formal meanings. Because Constructed Colour occurred over a number of exhibitions (in changing sites), differences could be drawn out and each show could be seen as an installment of a larger debate. Constructed Colour was the evolution of the curator’s overall aim to provide an ongoing framework for the presentation of, and the discussion on the continued importance of an art that employs colour in a constructional sense, or as a heavily reduced element in itself, or as a concept altogether intrinsic to an artwork entirely.

What type of work do you do? Do you classify it being more than one thing than another (e.g. painting or architecture)?

I am a geometric abstractionist. The form of abstraction that I pursue is derived from aspects of architectural form. I am interested in the formal use of colour – as a value that is set in similar ways to other parts of my practice. I am interested in fabricating artworks in a number of different formats, to further re-iterate the central importance of the concepts that drive them all. These formats include canvas and panel painting, drawing, printmaking, low-relief horizontal and vertical sculpture, wall painting, adhesive vinyl wall works, geometric wall projection animations, and three dimensional computer modelling. All of these formats are outcomes to my central project, which is to produce a kind of geometric art that references the urban environment.

Do you think your projects are continuations of linear conceptual concerns that are upheld over an amount of time?

My practice has evolved in a number of directions simultaneously. This is due to the differing solutions that I have been able to create for the works and projects so far. The formats that I produce work in have also been contingent upon the opportunities that have been available to me, as well as a willingness for constant experimentation. I try to view every different method of mine as a possibility that I can redevelop in the future. Even though every aspect of my practice seems to have the ability to oscillate from one body of work to the next, perhaps paint has been a relatively common denominator so far – either applied to mobile supports or used site-specifically. I am not talking about some kind of painterly concern. Both reading and constructing situations two dimensionally is a fundamental way of working for me. I am constantly aware of the ambitions behind all of my works. If there is anything that remotely resembles a lineal concern it would be the aspiration to develop the central project of my practice. It is this project that I view the world through every day.

What type of work are you doing now?

Recently I have been developing three dimensional artworks. This relatively new direction in my work comes from a closer examination of individual geometric elements. By breaking down sections of compositions into separate parts I have been able to produce low-relief horizontal and vertical sculptures to gain a more material understanding of image construction in the purely formalist sense.

I have also been developing the digital film component of my practice – of which my contribution to Constructed Colour 4 (Untitled Film (Artspace Site Specific) 2004) was one. This work was comprised of a geometric film projected over a site-specific adhesive vinyl geometric diagram of the exact site that the work was installed in. When discussing this work with Daniel Göttin, his suggestions concerned the possibilities of framing the entire geometric film sequence within the vinyl signifier of the installation site. He then went on to suggest the possibilities of representing these moments in a studied space by actually constructing floating planes within it, or by marcating the position of the elements, or the points of contact between the elements and the space by use of wall painting. This discussion was pivotal to my new investigations into three dimensional assemblies, as well as my further development of geometric filmwork. I suspect that these two mediums will merge at some point.

Do you believe your work is about presentation or representation?

Both. I think that my practice is fundamentally concerned with the presentation of abstract representations, all referred to, defined by, and set within the urban environment. I always try to decide on the clearest and most economical way of presenting this perspective. Be it an entire project or a single work, my art still comes from this central motivation. The desire to present my own representations of the constructed world have always been there – the issue is in having the experience to present these ideas clearly. My opinion is that the skills required to do this come from involving oneself with the actual subject matter, and working within it to find out if an essential level of information can be transferred from the primary to the secondary medium.

Presentation and representation are terms. Terms become restrictive if they are allotted to a single definition. It is in the nature of a progressive art practice to change. In both work format and conceptual concern. That is why it is best for me not to be too specific when talking about presentation or representation, currently or in the future, here or somewhere else.

Does your practice embrace formal concerns like unity and simplicity? Are formal concerns intrinsic to your practice? Have these formal concerns changed in any way over time?

Form and detail have both pictorial and philosophical importance in my practice. They are two different treatments of information. They are polemic markers for work to be conceived of in between. Form equates to structure, and detail as destructure. I produce highly detailed work as well as work that is solid and simplified. Illusionistic construction would have to be one of the largest procedural spaces within my work.

This is due to the fact that I approach my work with a painting sensibility that states that within my work nothing is obligated to make super structural sense. Just because my work may be seen as architectural does not mean that the actual work must be able to be made by an engineer in the technical and ‘correct’ sense. Even though I am engaging with a kind of formal art, I always aim to locate my work within a space that allows for the breaking of these rules that I openly advocate. Abstraction is an amorphous conduit for work to be put through. It is for this reason that I can employ both detail and simplicity either singularly or simultaneously on any level, anytime, and still achieve a hermetic result.

Is there any historical precedence in art that relates to what you have been doing?

I produce a kind of geometric abstraction that operates self-referentially between the two and three dimensional formats. A broad range of artists have developed this specific field of abstraction. Artists that precede my own practice most closely (and have had the most affect upon me) may be El Lissitzky, Donald Judd, Ellsworth Kelly, Al Held, David Novros, Colin Ardley, and Stephen Bram. My interest in the work of these artists is both material and conceptual.

What kinds of projects have you been involved in that have allowed you to extend your own practice? Do you believe that your own work can be informed by working through projects with other people?

I have learnt the most from being part of, or assisting with projects that are developed by artists whose work is closely related to my own. These include:

1 A very large-scale site-specific wall painting project with Stephen Bram. I assisted Bram in creating three floor-to-ceiling wall paintings at the Monash University Museum of Modern Art. All three works were devised from three pivotal pairs of vanishing points, located in spaces that extended beyond the physical proportions of the gallery area. Working with Bram definitely developed my knowledge on the transformative possibilities of physical materials, employed on a highly immediate scale.

2 Transferring graphic information from two to three dimensions virtually has become a major component to my practice. As part of the Gertrude Contemporary Art Spaces’ Inverted Topology exhibition project, I was able to redraft and then three dimensionally remodel a series of Kyle Jenkins’ architecturally generated line drawings. By doing this I was able to develop the flat drawings in a different procedural context, which generated different results based upon the original information.

3 By conducting a series of alternatively referential artworks, Masato Takasaka and I were able to produce a body of work that bridged both painting and sculptural formats. The works made through the Method Abstract Plastic (MAP) project placed importance in the interpretation of two and three dimensional information, as well as the possible applications for this information from one practice to another, in both directions.

Do you think other people’s work can set questions about your own?

One artist’s work should only set questions on another’s when the latter artist considers the former to be a predecessor of a closely related nature, and even so, only if the latter sees the act of having their work ‘questioned’ (by themselves or otherwise) as a constructive process. There are aspects of some artist’s work that I think operate on a level of efficiency and effectiveness that I will, in my own terms, always aim to emulate.

On the third of December 2002, I viewed a single colour lithograph titled Eight by Eight [RTP] of 1972 by Richard Serra. The print is held in collection at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra, and was fundamental to my Post Graduate thesis upon some of the possibilities of contemporary architectural abstraction. The print is of a pitch-black four-sided form that exerts illusionistic forces upon both its own internal proportions as well as the space between it and the edge of the print itself. Seeing the work physically instilled a long lasting sense of possibility in a practice that has many mediums and media to choose from, to explore core ideas. Further research resulted in confirming that the print was made in the time that Serra was using large, single-surfaced steel entities to cut architectural environments, and to transform viewers’ in-situ co-ordinates.

On the recent development of my practice that equates real-world information into abstracted form, the art/world nexus embedded within John Nixon’s art would have to be the biggest precedent. This is largely due to my ongoing discussions with Nixon, some of which are on the process of abstracting real-world information and materials into concrete works of art, that which simultaneously point to both their original status as well as their transformed objecthood. My fascination in Nixon’s practice stems from the meticulously diverse development of his artistic concern - as an ongoing project, symbiotic to the world on such a fundamental and literal level.

Do you think location is important in regards to the nature of the work?

My work is generated from synthetic elements; artificial colours, precision edges, straight lines, exact angles, machined surfaces, and constant patinas. This therefore means that the most suitable context for both the inception and display of my work is in an artificial or urban environment. Installing my work in an organic situation would only point towards its dislocation. This is not suitable. In terms of geographic location, I think that the possibilities for communication are increasing, and that the art world divide between Australia and the rest of the world may not be as insurmountable as it once was. Even though living and working in the area of the world that geometric abstraction largely originated from may be a very suitable context, some of the artists that I respect the most live in Melbourne. They are active, approachable, and very generous people. This therefore makes my current location highly conducive to art production and first-hand research – which is something that every artist must surely look for, regardless of their location.  

How do you think your work is judged? Do you believe there is any judgment system suitable to your practice?

I would be pleased if a viewer considered my artwork to be an abstraction of physical geometries – most commonly found in urban landscapes. I would hope that a viewer could glean some kind of perception or interpretation of our constructed surrounds by looking at my art as a signifier of it. A knowledge of art history, or of the origins and reasonings for geometric abstraction are not imperative when looking at my work. I make my art so that people who view my work may be able to see an alternate reading of the physical surrounds that they inhabit everyday. This therefore means that my work uses a viewer’s own experiences to ‘open up’ their judgment system when looking at my work. My work benefits from being looked at through every viewer’s own life experience.

What was it like being involved in the Constructed Colour project? Do you see it as an extension of what you have been doing?

Constructed Colour enabled me to present a facet of my practice. As part of an ongoing exhibition series, it gave me some recognition as a participant within the current discipline of geometric abstraction. Constructed Colour provided an opportunity to take part in making non-objectively constructive art visible and discussable, as part of the wider international practice of contemporary art. Constructed Colour has occurred within an era that has already seen the beginnings of a critical re-evaluation of minimalist art. For me, it was very meaningful to be part of a related survey during this time.