The following is an interview conducted via email in late 2004 between artist, April Gornik, and BroadstreetStudio's Brian Martin while he was a graduate student.To learn more about April and view more of her work please visit her web site at:
www.aprilgornik.com (link will open a new window)Broadstreetstudio is very excited for this opportunity and would like to express gratitude to Ms. Gornik for giving us permission to post this interview!

"I am an artist who works with the landscape as well. One of the issues I have been struggling with is the long tradition of landscape painting, especially American landscape painting, and how I fit into it in the 21st century. I am curious how you, as a contemporary artist working with the landscape, view/defend your position within that history? Thank you, again, so much for taking time to answer my questions."

"We can do whatever format you like, and I'll just answer as best I can. I have many responses to your question. First of all, I am not a fan of the history of art seen as a unifiable progression of style and subject matter a la Gombrich. Even within this past century art has repeated itself so many times I feel it's illusion to perceive it as an affirmation of the avant-garde (although I think many artists think they're doing something new and keeping the avant-garde faith). Second, I don't believe an artist can escape their time. I couldn't really do painting the way a 19th C painter would. The way I make landscapes is specific to me as a product of the 20th and 21st Centuries, and not a recapitulation of something that may have interested, say, Frederic Church. Church, Bierstadt, Kensett, Ryder, et al. They are certainly my historical antecedents, but my work is specifically different from theirs. One example is the absence of people and cultural artifacts in my images, which in their work clues the viewer in to both an appropriate emotional response to the scene (body language) and also the proportion in which the viewer occupies and can project into the space (e.g. specific to the Am. Luminist school would be the diminution of man in relation to nature as God). My intuitive inclination with my work has always been to not posit a particular place for the viewer to stand, or to people my landscapes, but to let the experience of the place be an open-ended response, to allow for the richness of ambiguity to be a central part of one's reaction. In a sense, I even think the work is less "scenic" and more psychological, i.e. landscape as an excuse and trope for self-location, but without the goal of a specific response or meaning being necessary. Whether the work finds a niche in the NY or any other contemporary art world is a bit of a throw of cultural dice. It has been seen variously by critics as an elaborate revision of historical landscape painting, an ironic clin d'oeil towards romanticism, a kind of satire, etc etc. But in fact my work is sincere and almost too personal to fit well into any art movement, as I see it. I hope this is helpful."

"April, Thank you for your thorough answer. It was good to hear such a clear response to question that I, as a student, am asked often, and we seem to share similar views. In your response, you mention that "the experience of the place" is important, that your work is "psychological", sincere and personal. To me, there is clearly a psychological component to your paintings and drawings. When I view your work I feel as if I am looking into an experience or memory and there seems to be a very personal "sense" about it. How have those elements played into your decision to use landscape imagery? What is it about nature and the landscape that you feel allows you to convey your thought and ideas? Is there a personal connection you have with nature, are the scenes you depict based in your experiences or memories? There may be more than one question in there, but they all seem to relate to the same idea to me. I hope that is ok. Thank you, Brian Martin"

"Dear Brian, I just smashed my middle finger of my right hand so I'm gonna keep this short, but I'm not sure I can adequately answer this question anyway. I think the elements you mention are profoundly important to my choice of subject matter being landscape, but exactly why is probably for my shrink to solve. One thing I realize I love about landscapes is how essentially abstract they are. If they are the Other for me, they are also the most prone to metaphor of all subjects I can think of. Why to, and where to, draw a perimeter around what is essentially just a big open space leads me to think that it must be my projection of importance or meaning that decides, and that projection is totally subjective. The scenes I depict are based on both experiences and memories, and increasingly it feels like experience is almost a kind of deja vu, since what I see that seems appropriate to paint often feels like recognition rather than simple attraction, and the recognition feels like a kind of familiarity.
-April"

"Dear April, Your responses were very informative. It's always interesting to read(hear) the sincere thoughts and feelings of an artist and their work. Sorry if the Feminist question was a bit out there. As a grad student, I spend a lot of time reading and discussing Art Theory, and when the Other is brought up it's often in reference to Feminism. Also, in reading about your work on the web, the exact site is escaping me at the moment, I came across an article the spoke of your landscapes relating to the female body. So I guess I was curious if that was a reading of your work developed by someone else, or was something you consciously deal with."

"I wonder whose site it was that you came upon my work relating it to the female body? I'd be curious to know... I guess I could google it. In any event, it's definitely not conscious, although I'm not unaware of the interpretive possibility."

"If it's ok, my last questions are more about formal aspects of your work. 1.You said that your landscapes come from memories and/or experiences and aren't necessarily specific places. When you start a piece, do you work solely from memory and create your imagery from that? Or do you use references or work from life?"

"Now I mostly work from digital pictures I take. I rework them pretty extensively, but occasionally the changes are technically slight but to me huge; like cropping, skewing, removing elements of a photo, etc. I also collage photos together, and that's something I've done for a long time, but not previously with a computer (Photoshop). When I first started painting landscapes I painted a lot from dreams. I've also worked from little sketches done on stuff like receipts. I don't ever work in situ, or make actual sketches in situ."

"2.Your charcoal drawings are absolutely exquisite and very moving. Could you describe your process. Are they done subtractively, do you lay down a ground first, just work up from the white of the paper, etc.? If you don't mind, could you tell me what kind of materials you use, as far what type of paper and charcoal. I'm really curious about that because I've been doing some large scale charcoals and have been fighting with different types of paper to give me the effect I want."

"Thanks for the kind words about the charcoals. The process of sketch preparation is exactly as described above for the paintings; lots of prep work. I do work as you describe it. I sketch lightly in pencil, then work in harder, greyer charcoal, building up the surface with softer darker charcoals till I get to real black. I rework them somewhat but not as much as the paintings. The paper I use is just a fairly inexpensive etching paper called Lenox. The charcoals themselves are all different, whatever Pearl or NY Central has in stock, and I'm always looking for good deep blacks. I used to use black pastel for the blacks too. i don't actually know what the difference between, say, compressed charcoal and pastels are, do you?"

"3.My last question is about your influences. You mentioned some of the 19th century artists that inform your work. What contemporary artists inspire you, even if they don't relate to your work?"

"Oh I like all sorts of contemporary artists. I love Eric's work (did I mention/do you know Eric Fischl is my husband?), also diverse people like Matthew Ritchie, Amy Myers, Francesco Clemente, Gerhard Richter, David Salle, Rosenquist, Barbara Takanaga, Ross Bleckner most of the time, Chuck Close, Anselm Kieffer, Lynne Davis, Sally Gall, Walton Ford, etc etc. Lots more, those are just off the top of my head. Anything I like is inspiring."

"I have to thank you again for your willingness, and openness, in discussing your work with me. This has been an incredible experience for me. If, in the future, you have the time to look at the work of a lowly grad student, I would be infinitely appreciative to hear your response. :) Also, if you're ever in the Pittsburg area and need a favor, please feel free to ask."

"If you ever want to send me jpegs of your work, please feel free. I'm on broadband so I dont' mind getting images. And good luck with your big charcoal drawings. the main thing to me its that if you don't screw up the light the paper gives you, you've already won most of the battle.

Best,
April"

"Thank you again and again. Sincerely, Brian Martin"