Interview With Rachel Off

Rachel Off explains her concepts and her perspective on art with the clarity of a person who has thought a great deal on the subject. Her answers do not feel rehearsed, but rather that she has answered them before in her head and to other people from a different perspective. In many of her pieces, she explores the concept of the surface the paint covers with as much attention as the paint. This is a segment of our conversation.

Ted: You seem to be as interested in the surface you are painting on as well as the paint itself. Could you explain how that came about?

Rachel: I think it was seeing a show of Joan Snyder’s that actually triggered it. I saw her show “A year in the life of Painting” I think it was called, in Chelsea, right before I started doing the India series. I was really just taken away by the way she used materials. I mean just a whole plethora of different things, it seemed like she just through everything she had on her house on this painting. On the surface of the paint and over it. I am really interested in getting close to a painting and really exploring its surface as well as what’s on top of the surface.

Ted: Do you think that the materials you use to form the canvas have their own narrative meaning separate from the paint?

Rachel: Absolutely. I think there is something very relatable in a surface. [It] definitely develops more of a character to the painting. There is something about stretching a perfectly white canvas over perfectly angled stretcher bars, and then putting four coats of gesso and sanding in between. It is so preteen. It is so sharp and crisp and that kind of makes it lifeless. Whereas for me it’s about creating this thing and then almost ruining it before I go back and paint it. When I spread plaster on a piece of masonite, and then through gesso on top, it’s really a mess, and it’s almost a problem that I have to deal with. And then it’s problem for me to then put an image on and then make it work. Same thing with weaving: really tough textiles are hard to paint on and it’s kind of a struggle, I like that, it gives me a challenge. An I also think that it’s more relatable to the human experience. It involves more of the things of life. When you se recognizable things like a screen, a recognizable floral pattern in the middle of a painting, you feel a better connection to the piece verses just the image on the piece.

Ted:  Do you find that the material you are working on has a strong mental association and connection with the subject you are painting?

Rachel: Yes. I believe that most of them do. For instance, the portrait of my mother. She is very crafty, [though] she doesn’t understand the artistry of it, but she taught me to sow for instance so the whole weaving process was very directly related to her. I consider the one with the painting of her on it and, the one without any paint on it at all, both portraits of her because there kind of this stand in for who she is to me and the way she taught me and spurred that creative side of me without knowing it. So I would say there is a direct relationship to the materials and the surface. Same thing with the India one and the trash, this yucky plaster and scratch mesh metal material, it’s like trash painted on trash almost.

Ted:  I was noticing that the gestural marks one some of the India painting. You were mentioning that it was a very trashy environment, and the gestural forms seemed to reflect that.

Rachel: Yeah, absolutely. I’m a realest painter, But I really want to abstract things a little bit more, start to abstract forms, so just kind of loosening up helped me do that and I’m definitely interested in that impressionist feel to a [brush] stroke.

Ted: The use of color in your pieces seems to be more important in some works and less important in others. Is this a deliberate chose?

Rachel: I think it’s probably more of a weakness. I think I struggle most with being specific in the color choices I use and in making very spot on decisions about a certain pallet. I tend to get carried away and I don’t have a very specific pallet idea for that piece.  So I love color, I love to put a lot of color into different things, find interesting colors in something realistic: finding that orange in a blue shadow and things like that. I think I tend to get a little carried away. I think color is not necessarily my strongest suit, I guess you could say. It’s something I’m working on to be a little bit more specific.

Ted: Dose the color of the surface you are painting on influence the color, or subject, of your piece?

Rachel: Absolutely. It works on two levels really. The fabric color and patterns help to dictate my pallet, but at the same time they are in competition with each other. The stronger the colors or patterns on the support are, the more of the viewers attention it will call. I’m looking for the tension between image and object.

Ted: In what ways do you address the distinctions, or lack of distinctions, between disciples?

Rachel: One thing I am interested in is pushing the boundaries of both genres of painting, sculpture, drawing, things of that nature: and also portraiture and still life. So for instance taking the piece I did that was just the women, the portrait of my mother, but there is no paint on it. Its still considered a painting in my mind. So kind of pushing the limits of what we think is a painting. If something is three dimensional but it’s on a stretcher, is it a sculpture? Those kind of ideas.

Ted: You have considered the space boundary from moving from two dimensions to three. Have you ever considers the time boundary, and moving into time based media?

Rachel: Absolutely. I love performance so I’m definitely considering maybe having pieces being performative in themselves. Say you have a painting like a sack, I picture this almost if I were to wrap man’s a shirt over a stretcher bar and fill it with sand and the sand would drip out of the man’s shirt. Something performative in that aspect where it’s that time laps were a painting only exists as a whole for thirty five seconds or something of that nature.  I’m definitely interested in performance art in general. So yeah, time would definitely be something I’m going to head into. Also suspending paintings in different ways so that they are more objects, not objects on a wall so you only look at them one [from one side]. But suspending them from the center of the room so you walk around them, so you see the back. A lot of the woven ones are really interesting from the back because it bleeds through: it’s not necessarily primed on the other side, so you kind of get this after image on the back. And you get to experience more of the fabrics as they were before they were painted.

Ted: You talk of experimenting with multimedia projects. If possible, would you try to create a piece that incorporated as many media forms as possible? And what would the resulting piece look like?

Rachel: I think I get into trouble when I try to be too inclusive. I get carried away. I’m more likely to stretch the boundaries of a certain genre. Can you have a painting, with no actual paint, and consider it a performance piece at the same time? It’s a painting because it uses the formal qualities of painting and performance because it’s actively decaying, or something along those lines. I hope considering something “multimedia” becomes obsolete.  

 

Ted: All the woven fabrics you have that I’ve seen, seem to have a pattern. Have you ever considered breaking that pattern? I saw some of your works use a weave that was positioned at a forty five degree angle from the stretcher bar. Do you plan on pushing this concept farther?

Rachel: Absolutely. I think that’s what I’m going to transition into next. Actually the woven ones were kind of how I broke into working with just fabrics, dealing with just textiles, and only that and no paint. So it’s in the very beginning stages. I think I’m going to work with sewing randomly. I’m going to start maybe creating my own patterns as well, painting patterns, dyeing fabrics, more hand made from the start to the finish and not found object per say. So there will definitely be more random more abstract shapes. The ones that are not straight woven I kind of consider more minimalist work, like the grid basically it  refers to. So I’m definitely going to break more into that abstract expressionist kind of feel in the way that I deal with the textiles.

Ted: To what extent do you let your work evolve as you make it?

Rachel: I usually have no idea what I’m doing when I start something. When I do, I’m most often disappointed with what comes out of it. I try to work with a very basic idea and some kind of inspiration, whether that’s a subject or material. Then I just run with it and see what happens. I try not to get to conceptual with the beginnings of something either. I find you learn a lot more about something when actually involved in it.

Ted: Many of your pieces involve landscapes. Is there a reason for this?

Rachel: Not particularly. I just like looking. I’m interested in a lot of what I see. I’m definitely attracted to natural forms. I guess landscapes and the human figure would be the two most propionate.

Ted: Has any piece you have worked on ever started with a concept that you wanted to finish regardless of where the piece lead you?

Rachel: I was working on a final project last year, I had this photo that I found in a thrift store, and had been hanging on to for awhile. It was these soldiers, I’m guessing WWII. They were just hanging out, I’m pretty sure the one was in his boxers. Anyway, I fell in love with this photo. I prepped my support with plaster and fabric. It was a mess of a landscape, and when I went to start painting the image I had lost the photo. It was a real learning process of stepping away from the image and from my intentions and just letting the painting come to life. It definitely changed the way I work.

Ted: You seem very interested in presentation as the subject. Do you find that you are more interested in addressing the conventional frame of a piece over the subject?

Rachel: I think now I’m moving into the direction where the presentation is the subject. I’m stuck in this vein of trying to destroy the conventional support.

Ted:  Are there any sensory stimuli that inspire your work? Smells, sounds, visuals, and how do they emerge in any of your pieces?

Rachel: Not as a forethought, but I’m definitely effect by my immediate surroundings when I’m working. Usually it affects my pallet decisions or my stroke or style. Things like music or smells do that easily.

Ted: In general, what inspires your work?

Rachel: Culture, on a conceptual level. I’m curious about what dictates my immediate culture, but I’m fascinated by the past and foreign places and people. What makes us different. But then you get down to the base of it all and were all have the same drive. We want the same things.

Ted:  Are there any concepts you plan on addressing, or want to address, in your work in the near or distant future?

Rachel: Well I can be materialistic. Especially with clothes, I can have shopaholic tendencies. So I’m thinking of using my clothes as my support. Sowing, weaving, and piecing them together. I’m not sure where it will end up going, both conceptually and materially. It’s just been something I’ve been considering doing.

  

Ted: You mention that culture on a conceptual level is what inspires you:
such as their differences and similarities. Is there a particular
culture that you want to make a piece about, or that fascinates you
more then others right now?

Rachel: I don't think there is a specific one. I'm more fascinated by the idea of culture. I'm would say I'm fascinated by the extremes of society, like extreme poverty or extreme wealth, but not any one particular people group or area of the world. I guess my immediate surrounds would be the first this tackle.

Ted:  What artists have inspired you in the past? And who’s work interests you?

Rachel: As I said, I was definitely interested in the impressionist movement, post impressionist, I love Van Gogh, Monet, their [brush] stroke. Definitely Joan Snyder, she inspired me to branch off into this using different media, mixed media painting… Peter Doig and Momma Anderson are people I look to for more subject matter. And also the way that they use the materiality of the paint itself. Kind of pushing the limits of what simple oil paint can look like on different lumps on a canvas.

Ted: Do you have any thoughts about what you plan on making for [Thesis & Exhibition]?

Rachel: I’m thinking it might have something to do with installation. Whether that is painting installation, or simply arranging paintings: hanging them in peculiar ways, different ways. Or whether it’s something more along the lines of what you saw with the yarn. I feel like installation might be what I’m leaning towards. As far as subject matter and idea, I have no idea. It really excites me. I’m ready for it. I’ll figure that out in the next year.