What is the motivating factor (technique/ politics etc) that drives you to paint every day (and Denis I know you are one of the most dedicated artists I know). What is your motivating force to be such a dedicated artist?

"Working daily in the studio is a function of consistently producing measurable results in a proscribed time period to exhibit series with corresponding themes, i.e. urban-centric life, invasive commercialism, cultural breakdown and the like. It is also about learning novel techniques that result in stylistic and thematic variations. So, it is pretty much a matter of logistics. Besides, I'm trying to catch up to Bouguereau who cranked out 826 works in his lifetime! Dedication to producing serious art goes a lot deeper into my core beliefs. My grandfather, a master painter, encouraged me to draw and paint from the time when I was very young - a toddler in fact. Consequently, art became a routine means of spontaneous and creative expression. Years later, I was fortunate to be taught by leading painters who became close friends with me and remained my mentors for years. These deeply profound life experiences gave me a personalized sense of identity and purpose in art that continues in my work to this day."

Denis Peterson, 'Apocalypse'

I know that the subject matter of your work can vary quite a bit, but there always seems to be a certain vein running throughout your paintings. You mentioned 'invasive commercialism'. This theme (to me) seems to be behind most of your paintings in some way or another. (Capitalism out of control) has been a driving theme in great classics such as 'Blade Runner' and representations of the end of the economy seem to be on every American's mind with the Recession is effect and economy failure as a possibility. I think it is obvious that corporate greed and consumer ignorance has led American's to this point. When I look at your work I always see such a well executed, but strangely quiet and strategic critique on the Western economy and capitalism. Denis your paintings are not a representation of the 'post' but a 'during without anyone knowing it' kind of end! Could you explain how your work ties into your opinions on our American/ Western economy and how your work acts as a reactionary force against the culprits of ignorance and greed that seem to be at the forefront of the American society and economy?

"There are two ends to this circle of ignorance and greed: capitalism and socialism. One is dictated by greed of the select few and the other is driven by laxity of the unproductive masses. Unfortunately, there is no meeting ground and although I do not pretend to be either an economist or a political activist, I do observe my surroundings with a critical eye.

Over the years, I have had to work in the belly of the beast; learning how the system really works and observing prevailing paradigms that were self-serving and deliberate. In considering my work as a nexus, I determined to establish a cultural continuum, one which would have lasting worth aesthetically and philosophically.

Therefore, as opposed to being reactionary in the sense of pointing to injustices and inequities -the indefatigable human spirit is proactively highlighted with dignity. And whatever the subject matter, it is always uppermost in my mind to produce art ahead of the mainstream, if just a little bit... not in the sense of racing or competing with my colleagues, but in a singular vein where the viewer may be taken to a place s/he hasn't been before.

The series on Darfur, for example, has drawn over two million 'site hits' and dozens of blog commentaries. And although some of it is the all but expected "These are paintings - not photos!" a fair amount of commentary recognizes art immersed in the human spirit. Darfur, of course, is not about commercialism, but about government; its evil core and obsessive nature to rule, deflate and effectively obliterate freedom and independent behaviors. Regardless, it is all thesame stuff in Western culture as can be readily seen in my homelessness series.

The ends of the circle come together when corruption and power are cyclical and dominate forces in any society that targets its population. Hopefully, my art brings the viewer to the same place that I am in terms of recognizing the abysmal failure of contemporary cultures to put their people first. I am not hoping for a revolution or a dramatic change, but for viewers to see their own lives in a more expansive context; one which might personally empower them to change their lives and to improve the lives of others. If my art does that even in a small way, I have accomplished more than I had set out to when I initially decided to make art."

Denis Peterson, 'Diogenes'

Then I guess that would lead me to ask why you paint? I don't mean to be too abrupt with this question; I am sure you have heard them all before. I mean, when I paint - I transform. I really think this is hard to explain. There is a bit on Shamanism or Alchemy in the ritual. Let's look at Joseph Beuys for a moment. I think that as an artist, he (Beuys) has answered a lot of questions for 'why I paint'. Beuys truly wanted to change the world by creating and making the creation a social event. Something will happen when you (society) create or are in understanding of what this means. You are transforming a photo reference to something completely different, but why? What happens to the reference once the painting is completed?

"Performance artists like Beuys tend to raise esoteric questions of mythological and metaphoric symbolism. They can put something out there to defy social norms and create controversy merely by a staging mechanism rather than by a polemic developed through process. To me, painting sidesteps these issues and is an immutable continuum of what Wilbur the caveman carved on his living room wall. Granted, it may have lacked stylistic and compositional value, but it was a creative process of dimensional communication and interpretation.

A manufactured grand piano can be seen virtually anywhere without the help of the artist, i.e. Grandma's living room, the local funeral parlor or an uptown department store. To further illustrate this point, if a grand piano draped in felt were in any of these venues, it would likely be overlooked as a piece of art; whereas Beuys relied upon placement, context and venue in order to create his ideological firestorms.

For purposes of comparison, the painting process is like rebuilding the entire piano by hand to even more exacting standards, or in some cases, more unorthodox standards. Taking a reference photograph, for example, framing it in sheepskin and turning it upside down on a gallery wall would not suffice as a reasonable substitute for a painting.

For me, painting is thaumaturgic in the sense of working in wonders and appealing to the unconscious inclinations of others. I don't set out with a particular outcome in mind, but instead seek to create a transformational statement that remains flexible throughout the painting process. Creating the illusion of reality is secondary in purpose, a virtual means to an end. The primary goal is to create the appearance of a timeless composition that, regardless of its sometimes endless complexities, can mesmerize the viewer, capture his or her imagination, and evoke a core response.

My reference photos never seem to have this quality, no matter how they had appeared at first. When looking back at them, I am always astonished at how utterly uninspiring they had become. Or perhaps they always were. With that said, Wilbur the sanitation worker may be enjoying dozens of them framed in sheepskin hung upside down on his living room wall!"

Denis Peterson, 'Nothing'

Could you explain a bit about your process and how the outcome of a finished painting comes about?

"To start with, I do not use a singular redundant process. Depending on subject, size and composition of the work under consideration, I adapt technique and materials accordingly. Virtually every piece has been painted by improvising combinations of varied but amorphous painting techniques, mediums and processes. Reference photos are taken from different angles with a low resolution camera to produce small 500k to 1mb jpegs. Most are shot from quite a far distance, even though the paintings typically lead one to assume that the reference photo was taken close up. Final reference shots are selected and edited for scale and proportion, yielding one to two inch altered images. Computer generated art is not a part of my process. Enlarged drawings work as foundational under paintings incorporating compositional changes, multiple depths of field, expanded color ranges and broadened tonal perspectives. By initially ensuring fairly indistinct images, I am freed from relying on the restriction of a tightly scaled up drawing or crisp bright photograph begging to be duplicated, especially since hyperrealism is based on altered visualizations. Gouache, watercolor, polyvinyl and/or copolymer paints are applied freehand in glazes with airbrushes and flat sable brushes, starting with lightest colors first and working throughout the canvas color by color. I work as rapidly as possible in order to maintain a sense of spontaneity and movement, utilizing a range of mediums for special effects, whereby details are built up through glazes rather than simply applying an opaque local color. Varnishing has become an important part of the process to bring out color depth and translucent surface values that are an integral part of my work as well as for inherent UV protection and stability. This past year, I have been working with special water based paints developed for me by a paint manufacturer. I love using these paints so much that I may be offering the same color formulas on my website and in some public workshops I may conduct this next year."

Denis, if anyone ever gets to meet you, I think the one thing they will find prominent about your personality is your willingness to pass on great information/ knowledge and advice to other artists/students. As a teacher myself, I have realized that my own role as an artist and a teacher have become inseparable. Originally I didn't want to teach, but stumbled upon teaching by a strange twist of chance. When I left graduate school, I realized that most MFA students went on to become professors immediately without even giving the art-world a try. There is a great article by performance artist Daniel Joseph Martinez where he refers to this scenario as the 'rotating door'- students leave academia only to immediately return to academia without ever gaining experience of being in the 'belly of the beast' as you say. What role do you feel today's artist plays in relation to the overall education in the field of fine art?

"I have always been surrounded by great teachers of truth. But attempting to teach what one has not yet learned can be a daunting task. Yet that is precisely what is routinely and unfairly laid on the mantles of so many young art teachers, who after starting off steadfast in their pursuits begin to look for shortcuts or exits from the often unsettling demands of formalized education. Some of my best teachers were well known exhibiting painters who taught primarily to supplement their ailing fine art incomes. They didn't give a damn about academic conventions, political correctness, or the like, nor did they ever attempt to placate the continuing stream of hierarchical demands by the system.

For example, take Stan Twardowicz who had not even finished sixth grade as I recall him telling me on more than one occasion. I mean here was one of the original guys to start the beat generation... best friends with Kerouac, Pollack, Lichtenstein, Kline and the others. Now, Stan taught what was natural to him, he taught the truth and he taught by example... he was unconventionally consistent, whether it be in the studio classroom, at his solo opening or at yours. Today's artists need to teach that same universal respect for all artistic expression, regardless of technique, method, or medium. Academic pedantics fall short on mileage - they can only give art students a superfluous idea of 'how' art is done, not 'why' it is done and certainly not 'what can be done'.

Unforgettably, another inspiring painting professor and good friend, Ted Kurahara, once wisely offered, "Denis, you paint on a professional level. But that alone will not make you successful as a painter. To be a successful painter, you need to work all day, every day, no matter how you feel; and even when you feel sick, you still have to go to your studio and paint every day. It's hard work." That was perhaps the most truthful seed he could plant in my mind at that point in my burgeoning career. And in so doing, his respectful counsel at once fulfilled an inherent and inescapable responsibility to teach the truth in painting, much the same as Cezanne did when toward the end of his life he wrote to his then protégé and much younger painter Emile Bernard, stating "I owe you the truth in painting and I will tell it to you." "

Denis Peterson, 'Pureeka'

***conversation continues in New York City between Jason John and Denis Peterson***
When we were in New York the other day you mentioned you were an abstract painter for the beginning of your career. What brought you to representational art and furthermore, art with heavy conceptual weight from pure form?

"For me, particular art genres are secondary to their impact, not as entertainment or aesthetics, but as a means of emotional communication. In my early work, there was always some figurative reference within. Eventually more precise realism to the figures emerged as I began shooting thick acrylics through an airbrush in a prehistoric attempt to emulate a glossy photographic print.

Now this was about forty years ago and no one was doing that, guys using airbrush were all shooting Dr. Martins dyes, not acrylics. I worked at making large paintings that appeared to be blown up black and white photos, cropping the heads to accentuate a photographic look. Following an extended absence from exhibiting, I spent another two or so years of painting more large heads until I determined to do some work of intrinsically conceptual value.

I eventually became motivated to effect lives, or at least the thoughts, of others through my work; hence, the genocide and the homelessness series. I wanted to create paintings that presented an alternate reality as a departure from those defeating images that we are inundated with by photojournalism. These paintings required intense research and emotional involvement with the subcultures that I was depicting. The weighted outcome that consistently emerged from within my work was undeniable - an emergence of the indefatigable human spirit. However, stylistic value was always kept first and foremost. Content followed as a close second, never the other way around.

On reflection, I rarely set out to create a message or an aesthetic, but rather to paint a stellar work of art that will potentially evolve into a meaningful visual statement. I still apply old techniques originally learned from leading expressionist and minimalist painters; contributing to the sense of unbridled vitality in my work. This long winding road has somehow evolved into painting the least amount of descriptive elements as possible to allow the viewer to make deliberate observations and subjective conclusions. Ultimately, one might say that minimal form has been the continuum."