《專訪：美國新銳藝術家PETER STRIFFOLINO》｜探索「非正式」超現實主義世界
藝之森文化主編：陳紫瑜；高級記者：聶靜雯
陳紫瑜 序：
Peter Striffolino（彼得·斯特里弗利諾）是美國新銳超現實主義畫家。他的作品多運用墨水，石墨和紙這些藝術媒介，探索分離、感知與自我等深刻的主題。 在近期的作品里，他將焦點放在對宗教經典人物的塑造，賦予他們更為荒誕的幻想、更為奇特的形態。當我們細看他的創作，會發現精細、怪誕、超現實都是其作品的關鍵詞。
「超現實主義」這個詞是由Guillaume Apollinaire在1917年3月創作的。在20世紀20年代早期，達達派之後，法國就產生了一個近代藝術史上影響力最大的畫派——超現實派。其理論背景為弗洛伊德的精神分析學說和帕格森的直覺主義。強調直覺和潛意識的藝術風格。
當談及此畫派時，想必大家會想起的藝術家們，就有薩爾瓦多·達利、夏卡爾、雷尼·馬格里特、胡安·米羅等人。超現實主義畫作的畫作往往予人一種奇特的異國情調，致力構建一個彩色的虛幻世界。
然而，Peter Striffolino自認自己尚且還算不上超現實主義的「正式成員」，但是他對這一藝術類型有著獨到且透徹的見解。2010年，他在紐約布魯克林開展自己的藝術生涯，八年後移居洛杉磯。2012年起，他的作品在美國多個城市展出。
Carmen：感謝你接受我們的採訪。我好奇你開始畫畫的契機是什麼？你是怎麼找到個人風格的？
Peter：我從小開始畫畫， 畫畫這件事能讓我感到很開心，所以我幾乎把所有時間投入到藝術創作上，希望讓自己變得更好。在初中和高中的時候，我就很喜歡上美術課，後來我進入了藝術學校，花了很多精力學習傳統藝術，比如人體素描、油畫、水彩畫和膠卷攝影，還有美術史。在學習美術史的過程里，我接觸到很多藝術家，尤其是超現實主義畫家和古典畫畫家，他們對我影響很深。所以畢業以後，我就專注於藝術創作這件事上。
說到風格，我自己是非常喜歡那些細節很豐富的藝術作品的。藝術學校有提供關於銅版畫的課程，當我第一次接觸到銅版畫的時候就完全愛上它了。銅版畫是一種你得用細得像針一樣的工具來雕刻，通過線條來表現的藝術形式，經過上墨、壓印等步驟才能完成一幅作品。我現在很喜歡用針管筆來創作也是因為能找到相似的感覺，「精細」和「極簡」能同時表達出來——看似笨重像「雕像」的人物，脫離一切語境和背景語言，任由想象力在一個空白的空間上揮灑自如。
我是經過很多年的沈澱，才慢慢找到個人風格的。從我的作品就能看得出來，我熱衷於探索「意識」、「潛意識」和「意識」之間的流動性。但是我並不認為自己是超現實主義藝術思哲的「正式成員」，我只是剛好落入了這樣的藝術領域。
Carmen：是否有一些對你影響很深的藝術先輩？如果有，會是誰？
Peter：太多了，我家裡的書架上全是跟藝術家相關的書籍，我在他們身上發現了許多值得學習的地方。例如，莫里茲·柯尼利斯·艾雪（Maurits Cornelis Escher），他的作品對我來說極具衝擊力，簡練利落、超現實主義、幾何感強烈的圖像深深擊中了我，看到他的畫作我才發現，原來並不是描繪桌上一堆蘋果才叫「藝術」。其次就是阿爾佈雷希特·丟勒（Albrecht Dürer）和古斯塔夫·多雷（Gustave Doré）。
迄今為止，他們仍然是我的靈感源泉，我尤其欣賞他們筆下極其細緻的輪廓線條和經典的構圖方式。另外一個很重要的畫家就是超現實主義者雷內·馬格里特（René Magritte），在其作品里可以看到大量嚴謹的構圖和引人深思的意象，他對人體形態和圖案的運用非常游刃有餘。還有弗朗西斯·培根（Francis Bacon），第一次看到他的作品時，感覺藝術家和觀者之間根本不存在「隔膜」，我能從他的畫里感受到那種樸實無華的個人情感。有些藝術品，我看著看著就會開始思考，但是培根的作品我根本沒有時間去分析或思考，因為它們散髮出來的感覺是非常強烈和直接的。他懂得如何運用為人熟知的宗教及古典藝術的語言和圖像作為元素，傳達出一種更為個性化的感覺，而不是虔誠。
Carmen：很多人認為，「超現實主義」是受到弗洛伊德《夢的解析》的影響才形成的一種藝術風格，關注於探索潛意識和夢境般的幻想。你的創作動力是什麼？你想通過你的作品傳達出怎樣的信息和情緒？
Peter：我不喜歡很明確地描述我作品的含義。我認為「邏輯性理解」是瞭解潛意識的對立面，「潛意識」本身就是一種不穩定的、朦朧的東西，可以有各種解釋。如果我說，每幅畫都有事先規劃好的含義，那我一定是在瞎說。在我的藝術里，從來沒有一種信息需要被理解。
我畫的內容不像字母表，有某個特定意義，也不是出於為了表達超現實主義而存在的，有時在創作過程中或者創作完成後，我能在我的畫里找到個人意義，我希望其他人也能像我一樣，在畫里找到自己，找到共鳴，又或者沒有，單純地欣賞一幅畫也很好。話雖如此，我會習慣性地把一些重復性元素或主題融入到我的創作里，來表達我的感知和情緒。比方說，「手」反映的是感知能力、刺激和高敏的狀態，因為我有時會想太多，很容易焦慮和抑鬱，如果你看到我某一副畫里有100只手，那就意味著我那段時間正處於緊張和焦慮的狀態。另外，我很喜歡探討「自我毀滅」和「形態改變」的主題。不過圖像的最終呈現一般是由構圖而定的。我非常喜歡對稱式構圖。
Carmen：所以你是有意識地將你的人物圖像分割成碎片，然後將其作為元素重復、規律地排列起來？
Peter：是的，我是有意識進行這樣的佈局的。動筆之前我腦子里會有很多想法，我會不斷整合想到的內容，直到有個明確的構思，例如以怎樣的結構和對稱形式來表達，我才會動筆。我的創作是經過深思熟慮而得到的結果。「分裂」也是我另一個很喜歡的主題。你所看到的那些「分裂的面孔」和其他向不同方向排列開來的元素可能象徵了一個人的思想、情感和自我意識的混亂或停滯，像我之前提到的，我享受通過藝術創作探尋「意識」和「潛意識」之間的紐帶。
Carmen：會從某個形象、某個概念，甚至某個夢境開始創作嗎？
Peter：我一般會從某個概念或者某個角度開始，比如把「手指」排布成皇冠或光輪狀，像給人物築起一道圍牆，以此表達一種脆弱或者受到外界過度刺激的感覺。類似這樣，從一個模糊的概念開始，然後在速寫本上畫一些草圖，感覺構思得差不多了就在紙上作畫。畫的過程里，有時也會即興發揮，但始終保持構圖的平衡感。接下來就是集中精力地處理細節和陰影的部分，每一處的落筆都很直接的，怎麼好看怎麼來。
Carmen：許多超現實主義藝術家很愛在他們的畫里擺弄「眼睛」，像雷內和達利，通過「眼睛」創造「雙重意象」，賦予畫面不同的隱晦含義。「眼睛」也同樣出現在你大部分的作品里，它象徵了什麼呢？
Peter：我的畫沒有他們的那麼複雜，他們的「雙重意象」是無法超越的。比起眼睛，我會更痴戀於事物本身。「眼睛」在我看來象徵著「感知」，是一種表達形式。所以，如果你在我某一幅畫里看到了數個眼睛，很可能只是我想表達緊張和恐懼的感覺，沈迷於這樣的表現手法而已。我還會經常將第三隻「眼」加入到畫面里去，所謂的「天眼」，來描繪一些籠統的想法，像外在的體驗、心靈上的啓發等等。不過有時候，我只是很喜歡畫眼睛。
Carmen：你近期的作品似乎加添了更多宗教色彩，例如《投射》這個系列，它讓我想起了聖母瑪麗亞，卻以一種荒誕的形式呈現。靈感從何而來？是你夢境的「投射」嗎？想以此表達些什麼？
Peter：確實，某部分的創作靈感源自於聖母瑪麗亞的形象。不過我想說明下，我並非天主教徒，也沒有任何宗教信仰，只是她那令人熟悉的形象和她所展現出來的強烈的人類情感引起了我的興趣。
在歷史長河裡，幾乎所有大師，包括那些我所敬佩的藝術家先輩，幾千年以來都描繪著相似的內容，都是同樣的瑪麗亞、同樣的故事、同樣的角色，一遍又一遍地美化她的形象。我就好奇，如果以我的方式來表達，會得出怎樣的效果。至於我想表達的東西，還是那句話，並不是能具體概括出來的內容，我只是畫出我當時的內心感觸，一些愧疚的、超脫的、亢奮的，諸如此類的感覺。
Carmen：最後，我想瞭解下你對超現實主義風格的看法。你是如何看待超現實主義？為什麼會迷戀上這種藝術表達形式？
Peter：我喜歡這種藝術風格是因為它能將潛意識這一強大而無形的東西視覺化，觀者也能從中得到一些判讀空間，就像把無形之物帶到了燈光下，那些被隱藏起來的情感和悲慘抑鬱的想法得以展現出來。另外就是好奇心的問題：以這樣的表達方式，我的思想層面與外部世界以及其他人會產生怎樣的共鳴？
我認為，超現實主義風格是不應缺席的，就跟其他藝術類型一樣，儘管這已經是老生常談的話題，但重要的是，人應當不斷地創造些新的東西出來，去講述他周遭的世界和他所感知到的事情，而不是在時代的潮流趨勢下隨波逐流。過去幾年里，社會焦慮和恐慌不斷增加，我也很好奇，借助超現實主義能得到怎樣的表達。
ENGLISH VERSION
Peter Striffolino
Originally from New Hampshire, moving to Brooklyn from 2010-2018 and then LA, and now currently floating in limbo somewhere in the US.
His drawings are detailed, bizarre, surrealistic line drawings on paper primarily with ink and graphite.
Since 2012, his artworks have been exhibited many times across the US.
In his recent work, he has focused on the creation of classical religious figures, giving them more grotesque fantasies and exotic transformations, so as to explore ideas of dissociation, perception, and destruction of the self.
Carmen: Thanks for being interviewed. I was wondering are you a self-taught artist? How did you develop your signature style?
Peter: I have always been drawing since I was a child, and recognized it was something that felt good, so eventually I decided to spend as much time creating art as possible to get better. Everyone had to take art classes in middle school and high school as well so that was cool. Later I went to art school and spent a lot of time in the studio with traditional arts like life drawing, painting with oils & watercolors, and film photography. I also studied art history and that exposed me to more artists, especially surrealist artists and classical painters. I ended up graduating with a degree in studio art with a focus on painting and drawing.
In terms of the style itself, I have always been drawn to very fine details in art, and in school I was introduced to Intaglio printmaking and fell in love with that. That’s where you carve into copper plates with very fine needle tools and then ink it and press it onto paper to make prints. Now I use very fine technical pens and graphite on paper since it’s more economical but has a similar feel. I like the very detailed or minimalist combination as well – with heavy, statue-like figures in an antiseptic environment, out of context, without any sort of background – in a white void or limbo, leaving things up to the imagination.
I developed my style slowly over many years as it has kept evolving. I have always been interested in consciousness, and the fluidity between the unconscious and the conscious mind, so it makes sense that my art would reflect that interest, I think. But I’m not a card-carrying member of the Surrealist art school of thought or philosophy, I think my work just happens to fall into that same realm.
Carmen: Do you have art heroes? If yes, who are they?
Peter: My bookshelf is filled with books of artists I admire and feel inspired by, more than I can list here! There are a few standout moments in my life though, when I discovered an artist and had a big “moment”.
Escher was very impactful for me to discover, his incredibly clean, surreal, and graphic-heavy art really inspired me and showed me that “Art” can be more than an oil painting of some apples on a table.
Albrecht Durer was another huge discovery for me, and he continues to be an inspiration for me to this day, especially with his incredibly detailed contour lines and classically structured prints. Gustave Doré is another artist to whom this comment applies.
Dorothea Tanning, Max Ernst, Remedios Varo, and Leonara Carrington were able to create their own dream logic very well. I love their paintings and how they make me feel.
René Magritte is also inspiring as a surrealist; He had very tight and deliberate compositions, as well as a lot of use of the human form and fabric.
Francis Bacon made me feel a lot of things when I saw some of his work for the first time. It felt like the barrier between artist and viewer was eliminated, and I felt this raw, personal emotion from looking at his paintings. Some art I look at and “think” about, and it’s pleasing to look at and I admire it, but with Bacon’s work there wasn’t time to analyze or think since the feeling was so overwhelming and immediate. I also liked how he used the language and iconography of familiar religious and classical art to convey a much more personal feeling, rather than a pious one.
Carmen: The art school “Surrealism” was deemed to be strongly influenced by Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, focusing on unleashing the subconscious and the dreamlike fantasies. Could you tell me what you think your painting is about? The narrative, message, and overall sentiment?
Peter: I have to say I don’t love explicitly describing what my drawings mean. I think that “logical understanding” is the opposite of what the subconscious is: a fluid nebulous thing open to different interpretations.
I would be lying if I said everything had a pre-planned meaning. There is never one singular message in my art to understand. The things I draw are not like an alphabet, with a clear translation. I would not by any means consider my process surrealist automatism but I do try and limit my conscious mind when I can. Sometimes while I’m drawing it or after it’s done, I will find a personal meaning in it, and I hope others find their own personal meaning in it as well, or not – and it’s just a cool thing to look at!
All that being said, I do tend to inject certain repeating themes, feelings, and objects into my drawings. Perception and sensation are common themes I like. Hands are a facsimile for sensation, stimulation, overstimulation. I do tend to live inside my own head, overthink things, and am prone to anxiety and depression, so you could safely guess that if I drew a picture with hundreds of hands it means I was probably feeling overstimulated and anxious during that period. Destruction of the self or ego and transformation is another theme I like.
Concepts aside, a lot of the final image is dictated by composition and structure, and I’m obsessed with symmetry.
Carmen: So you are conscious to dissociate your figures into pieces and then line them up repeatedly and regularly?
Peter: I am very conscious of that! The genesis of the idea is a messy process and I change it so many times before I’m happy with it, but when I’m actually drawing on the final paper – structure, and symmetry are really important to me, so that part is all very deliberate. Dissociation is also another idea I like, so the splitting faces, and multidirectional features might symbolize a confusion or disconnect from one’s thoughts, feelings, and sense of self. Also like I mentioned previously I like to think about the bridge between conscious and unconscious awareness when I draw so
Carmen: The eye occupies a central place in most of your drawings. Any meaning of it? For Dalí, the eye is the instrument for showing the spectator “invisible things” and the theme of the “double image”. What about yours?
Peter: Nothing as deliberate or concrete as Dali and his double image language. I tend to hyper-fixate on things, and eyes are a symbol for perception. So a lot of eyes in a drawing could mean being overly aware of something, hyper-fixating, or possibly a feeling of insecurity or dread. I do use the image of the third eye a lot too, and that ties into some general ideas like having an experience outside of one’s body, revelations, things like that. Also, I just like drawing eyes.
Carmen: How do you usually work? Begin with an image, a concept, or a dream?
Peter: Usually I will start with a concept or an aspect of a drawing that I’m fixated on, like a “crown or halo of fingers” which I’ve done a few times, that crown of fingers could come from a feeling of being too sensitive, putting up walls around oneself, or being enveloped by overstimulation. From that vague idea I will start sketching some ideas in my sketchbook. Once I feel like I’ve developed the idea a little bit I will start drawing with pencil on the final paper. This is the part where I try and let the drawing evolve on its own, but I do also rigidly control the symmetry and composition during this part. After the pencil is completely done and everything is mapped out, then it’s basically just a matter of being industrious and inking all the lines carefully and then shading with graphite. All the decisions are made when the pencil is down on the paper, so by the time I’m inking it it’s automatic and straightforward.
Carmen: I noticed that your recent drawings have tended to be more religious. The series of “Projection”, for example, reminded me of Virgin Mary in a cloak but presented bizarrely. Where did you find the inspiration? Are they the projection of your dreams? And what are you trying to express?
Peter: Yes, some of these figures were inspired by the Virgin Mary imagery– and I should note that I’m not catholic, nor do I follow any set of religious beliefs. But the familiarity of the Mary figure, along with the very human emotions that she is often shown expressing, is what interested me. All of these “master” artists throughout history, including some that I look up to, have been rendering the same content for thousands of years; the same Mary, the same stories, the same characters, perfecting these moments over and over again. I am interested in that repeating narrative, and I sometimes try and use it as a sort of structure and see what happened in my drawings.
As to what I’m trying to express, like I mentioned earlier that it’s never anything very specific and encapsulated. But it was mostly these intense moments that these characters were feeling at the time: penitence, transcendence, elation, etc. I guess I was drawn to that and tried to repurpose it.
Carmen: I would like to end our interview with a question about Surrealism today. Why do you like the surrealist expression? Do we need Surrealism nowadays?
Peter: As I mentioned earlier, my favorite type of art leaves some interpretation up to the viewer and the subconscious is a powerful yet invisible thing. So, I like the idea of Surrealism because it puts “invisible” things into the light, and illuminates feelings and hidden “thoughts” that normally remain in the dark and we are not normally to be aware of. It is also a matter of curiosity for me. I am very curious as to what’s going on below the surface of our thoughts as people – myself and others.
It is corny to say, but I think we need Surrealism nowadays just as much as we need every other type of art. It’s important that people keep creating what they feel connected to and not think about “movements” or current trends. The past years have created a lot of anxiety and uncertainty in the collective psyche, so I am very curious to see how that is expressed via surrealism today.
