Lisa Sanditz: Ranunculus and...

PM: Will you tell us a little bit about your painting style? To say you break rules does not match up in a sophisticated way with what I see in your work. I find your work to be incredibly dynamic and exciting. You do all of these things that seem so risky, and it is incredibly thrilling in terms of color usage and perspective. How did that method starrt? Tell us about your Jimi Hendrix painting style.

LS: I do not know how it developed. There is so much that I enjoy and am curious about with regard to color and how colors influence each other. There are so many possibilities to work with in the world of color. I am excited to be able to attempt to put together an image that functions within the frame and also has continuity with another image. I explore many different potential ways of putting together color, imagery, and composition. I think there is a certain amount of chaos in daily life. There is a lot of vulnerability and change happening in the inner and outer landscapes, which leads me to wonder how a painting can reflect a sense of that without being didactic or too pointed.

One of the things that is very attractive to me about your work is that you are very much a painter who is not scared to tell the whole picture. You push the painting in order to present that to your viewer.

I think that is the case. There are a lot of different ways to enter a scene or start a conversation with a painting. I used to think every painting had to have everything all the time. And now sometimes, as you can see in my work, some are more pointed towards a certain specific place or story, a shared event or personal event. Others are more of an open, enigmatic read.

I know that sometimes you will create multiple versions of a painting, what makes you want to go back into a painting, how does that work for you?

Well, I think sometimes I feel like I solved the problem, and then other times I think the problem could be solved in a different way, or a better way. I ruin a lot of paintings doing this. 

Is that part of the process?

Yes, I think so. Well, apparently it is part of the process. It is not like I am heading out to ruin a painting.

That is one of the things that I really love about your work, it feels like there is really something at stake. There is a type of risk that is in there. It causes me to see things in these paintings that I have never seen before. I have never seen things presented this way.

I think there is something to be said for painting directly from the scene. It influences your sense of color, your sense of touch. Is that true in your work?

Yes, and I think sometimes people can see the difference. Sometimes I will begin by painting on-site, and then I often come back to the studio where I can spend some more time working back into them. I think there is something about plein air painting that affects the touch, the sight. In part that is due to the restrictions of materials, and also the restriction of time. It has limitations that I think can be useful for myself and other people.

What is that experience like for you, when you begin a painting on site and then bring it back into the studio with you?

Painting outside is something that has only really been a part of my practice in the last 10 years. Sometimes that work is simply to get me outside. Painting in the environment helps me work out certain formal color ideas. It was amazing to remember how much I enjoy doing that and how lean and economic it is in terms of not using a lot of paint, and painting pretty small, and getting exercise. At the same time, I continue working in the studio. When I am working in the studio it feels like a big, bulky practice both intellectually and materially. It has been interesting to reconnect with the smaller and more economic side of the practice through painting outside.

Do you see the colors in your work functioning spatially or do you see it as being more flat?

I think at times the color exists in more of a flat space. In other paintings it may have more pictorial depth. I like playing around with both. I mean, it is a painting, so you can do whatever you want in there, you can make it flat and deal with a sense of modern flat abstraction or you can make more illusionistic space. I have been pushing and pulling with that lately.

So that idea of 'It is a painting, you can do anything you want in there,' have you always felt that way?

I have felt that way since grad school, when I had a little more of a sense of the what and the why in my work. I think about the idea of aligning formal interests and ideas. Do those things work together or push against each other? Do they inform the story, do they open up the story? When I say story that can simply be a color, or a literal narrative story. I have been thinking of those considerations together since grad school.