Q: Would you tell us a bit about yourself?
A: 55 years old. Started painting in the late eighties, but have always painted, drawn, and done a lot of cutting and pasting. I was, unlike many from my generation, lucky to attend kindergarten, where drawing and being creative was encouraged. A friend of mine took me to her evening course in painting in Haderslev. The city had taken a long time to redevelop the centre; in consequence many of the old houses were still there, but without it looking like a museum.
A lot of people on the course painted these houses, they sat there painting houses from photographs. That was not for me. A building or structure is something in itself, but also part of its context; the building next door, the people in the street, the street’s furniture etc. The time of year and its weather also influence how you perceive a building or a space in the city.
These things where what I decided to paint. My first naïve painting was a depiction of the main square in Haderslev with the Erik Heide sculpture (and the unpopular mayor stepping in a pile of dog shit)
Haderslev Square
Q: In your paintings there are often references to history; heraldic coats of arms, stylistic elements from the middle ages and fantastic creatures from folklore, but also people just going about everyday things. What does this combination of a great and a small narrative contribute with?
A: I have never consciously thought about that- or put it into words in that way. I pick things I use from two sets of criteria, both are very visual.
#1 That they, with their shape and colour, fit into the slots in the composition left empty, or generated with the folding of the perspective. #2 That they contribute to the telling of the story about the building or space, to the portrait of it that I am creating.
I strive, on different levels, to visualize walking around, on and (in)to a building or a space in the city, to create the same effect you get when you are actually there. But that said and when you are asking, I guess it has something to do with the mere physical presence of the architecture that has an impact on the people and stories that unfold. In the same way the history of the building means something- no matter how old it is. Accomplished architects capture something defining of their era in their buildings- and something of the possibilities put before people of that era. All this reminds people to appreciate their possibilities, to respect architecture, heritage and appreciate cultural diversity. But also to encourage them to break set perspectives and boundaries, not to be indifferent to bad architecture and to respect other people’s heritage. And that every individual is but a cork in the machine of things.
Q: The level of detail and the diagrammatic character and precision in your paintings give the impression of the same kind of urgency you find in for example botanical drawings from the 19.century. Those images were scientific documentation, what’s at stake for you?
A: Interesting that you see it that way. And you are right I take a kind of pride in that all details of the building and the city space make it on to the canvas. Some gallery owners want me to paint more people in the painting "so people get their money’s worth," like one said (he doesn’t get it), but what’s at stake is that things should be so well depicted that you can reconstruct the building from my painting. But it also has something to do with the answer to the last question and the details' importance for the whole and how their intercourse affects the whole. It’s also a signal of how the whole is the important thing and how every detail needs to know it’s place, to accommodate everything. You can’t go breaking perspectives left and right, if you are not true to your point of departure, chaos will ensue, not esthetic order.
Q: You are often asked to paint for big public institutions. Are the works you do for them a counterpart to classical portraiture, and if so how does it affect the dialogue you have with these patrons?
A: The comparison with portraiture is right, that’s what I call it anyway. I don’t know how much dialogue there is, the majority of patrons just want their buildings painted and trust in my judgment, they give me the freedom and all the information I need – but are often surprised by what makes it into the painting. It’s different with people who commission me to paint their house. They have so many expectations and want their own story included the painting. But I guess there's a lot of tradition attached to people having paintings done of their possessions. In the past there were painters who made their livelihood traveling between farms and painting them, later you have aerial photography. Patrons probably want to boast, to display their power by showing off the possessions they own. More ‘normal’ people just hang it over the sofa and get pleasure just from watching it.
Amagertorv
Q: Do you see a kinship between your work and marginalized and outsider art?
A: Yes, I hope there is. I also think so as I’ve been at INSITA (in 2007 and now 2010), Triennial for Self-taught art. So the jury must be of the opinion that I ‘... have achieved exceptional standards in my creative output’ and that ‘The jury will exclude all works manifesting any imitative or artificial qualities, as well as works reflecting conscious academic or professional criteria.’ I hope show a kinship to marginalized and outsider art. My ‘nerdy’ approach to the details, which you call urgency and their place within the whole, that people are subordinate to the buildings, space and environment are likewise outsider-ish. I also have a sort of fear, maybe too big a word in this context, of copying myself. Every work must be original. So contrary to what other naïve artists are doing, I rarely do the same motive twice, the colour scheme changes from painting to painting, (what else when you have to capture the atmosphere) and the size of the canvas is never the same. There are maybe two exceptions: ‘Alphabetical Shops in X Dimensions’ or ‘The Landscapes of Times’. But here the individual works are a part of a whole, and assembled they are a universe onto themselves.
Q: In your paintings there are often references to history; heraldic coats of arms, stylistic elements from the middle ages and fantastic creatures from folklore, but also people just going about everyday things. What does this combination of a great and a small narrative contribute with?
A: I have never consciously thought about that- or put it into words in that way. I pick things I use from two sets of criteria, both are very visual.
#1 That they, with their shape and colour, fit into the slots in the composition left empty, or generated with the folding of the perspective. #2 That they contribute to the telling of the story about the building or space, to the portrait of it that I am creating.
I strive, on different levels, to visualize walking around, on and (in)to a building or a space in the city, to create the same effect you get when you are actually there. But that said and when you are asking, I guess it has something to do with the mere physical presence of the architecture that has an impact on the people and stories that unfold. In the same way the history of the building means something- no matter how old it is. Accomplished architects capture something defining of their era in their buildings- and something of the possibilities put before people of that era. All this reminds people to appreciate their possibilities, to respect architecture, heritage and appreciate cultural diversity. But also to encourage them to break set perspectives and boundaries, not to be indifferent to bad architecture and to respect other people’s heritage. And that every individual is but a cork in the machine of things.
Q: The level of detail and the diagrammatic character and precision in your paintings give the impression of the same kind of urgency you find in for example botanical drawings from the 19.century. Those images were scientific documentation, what’s at stake for you?
A: Interesting that you see it that way. And you are right I take a kind of pride in that all details of the building and the city space make it on to the canvas. Some gallery owners want me to paint more people in the painting "so people get their money’s worth," like one said (he doesn’t get it), but what’s at stake is that things should be so well depicted that you can reconstruct the building from my painting. But it also has something to do with the answer to the last question and the details' importance for the whole and how their intercourse affects the whole. It’s also a signal of how the whole is the important thing and how every detail needs to know it’s place, to accommodate everything. You can’t go breaking perspectives left and right, if you are not true to your point of departure, chaos will ensue, not esthetic order.
Ribe Domkirke
Q: You are often asked to paint for big public institutions. Are the works you do for them a counterpart to classical portraiture, and if so how does it affect the dialogue you have with these patrons?
A: The comparison with portraiture is right, that’s what I call it anyway. I don’t know how much dialogue there is, the majority of patrons just want their buildings painted and trust in my judgment, they give me the freedom and all the information I need – but are often surprised by what makes it into the painting. It’s different with people who commission me to paint their house. They have so many expectations and want their own story included the painting. But I guess there's a lot of tradition attached to people having paintings done of their possessions. In the past there were painters who made their livelihood traveling between farms and painting them, later you have aerial photography. Patrons probably want to boast, to display their power by showing off the possessions they own. More ‘normal’ people just hang it over the sofa and get pleasure just from watching it.
Amagertorv
Q: Do you see a kinship between your work and marginalized and outsider art?
A: Yes, I hope there is. I also think so as I’ve been at INSITA (in 2007 and now 2010), Triennial for Self-taught art. So the jury must be of the opinion that I ‘... have achieved exceptional standards in my creative output’ and that ‘The jury will exclude all works manifesting any imitative or artificial qualities, as well as works reflecting conscious academic or professional criteria.’ I hope show a kinship to marginalized and outsider art. My ‘nerdy’ approach to the details, which you call urgency and their place within the whole, that people are subordinate to the buildings, space and environment are likewise outsider-ish. I also have a sort of fear, maybe too big a word in this context, of copying myself. Every work must be original. So contrary to what other naïve artists are doing, I rarely do the same motive twice, the colour scheme changes from painting to painting, (what else when you have to capture the atmosphere) and the size of the canvas is never the same. There are maybe two exceptions: ‘Alphabetical Shops in X Dimensions’ or ‘The Landscapes of Times’. But here the individual works are a part of a whole, and assembled they are a universe onto themselves.
For more info on Dorte Marcussen or to see more of her works go to:
What a amazing artist...
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing her work.
very interesting to read what you chose to ask her - and what she chose to answer.
ReplyDelete