An Interview with Kate Fenker
Thursday, September 25th, 2008Kate Fenker’s most recent work consists of mathematically derived, organic structures that evoke a sense of their evolutionary process. When speaking with me, she referred to them as eggs, or seedlings for what will grow out of the primordial soup of her own personally derived visual language. Both she and Orji Walflauer sat down to discuss with me the recent trends in her work, living in New York City, and what interests her about other artists.
=============================================
Kate, I know that you’re showing work for the Portland Art Open - what about you Orji?
Orji: What I’m doing, I’m supplement and providing a context for Kate’s work. I’m making a caption and a poetical mediation on each piece that will accompany it, and I’m creating a soundscape so that anyone stepping in will feel like they’re being digested, slowly, by Kate’s way of seeing. That’s my intention with the soundscape.
Kate: Also, there’s going to be a video.
Orji: It’s going to be quite an assault on the senses, but it’s going to be very serene.
Kate: And the next show that we do, it will probably be me making props for his presentation, I thought. This is more of a regular art show context, and I’m the object maker of the two of us, so this is going to be more along those lines.
It should be a pretty immersive experience. My MFA show was the last time I did an immersive environment that incorporated sculptures but also branched out into creating an environment. I haven’t had the opportunity or the right kind of context to do that again. It’s only just now occurred to me that it’s been so long. It was really fun.
What of your work will you be showing?
I’ve been working for the last few years on - I have sort of a late blooming interest in math and science. I started reading and considering really heavily math and science over the last several years. The work is sort of drawing on ideas after that. I’ve always been attracted to the organic and primordial sort of forms. and when I started reading more about biology and evolution, mathematics and geometry, it gave a whole new way of seeing the way that forms develop in nature. So basically all of these forms are spun out of this new information and way of considering self organizing systems in nature, euclidean and non-euclidean things, hyperbolics, chaos, the way that form develops in a really basic way. Most of the pieces are really small, some of them are very very finished, and some of them are not so finished. Some of them are very successful and others of them not so successful, but they’re all part of this pool of thought. I’m sort of considering them a library of prototypes, and thoughts in various stages of progress, hopefully to be spun out once again in more elaborate and more developed forms.
So would you almost say that they’re the additional seeds of this visual language that you’re exploring?
Yeah, or almost that they’re the initial flowers, or the initial chickens and then their eggs will hatch, into the next more elaborate chickens. So they’re the protochickens, and I can’t wait for them lay eggs that’ll hatch into the next generation of mutant chickens.
This show is really, for my own use, it’s about serving and assessing what I’ve done and where I’ve been and what I’ve been thinking about. All this work I did in New York, it’s all over the last few years. It’s to fertilize this chapter, lay it out so it can grow into the next set of pieces.
You spoke of using mathematical systems in nature. What about this excited you, how did it influence the pieces? Were you actually writing equations for these sorts of pieces?
You might be surprised. I actually do write a lot of equations, but I never got much farther than trigonometry in school, as far as math goes. I never took any calculus or anything, and that’s what you have to do to get into very sophisticated math. Yet somehow I can get an intuitive appreciated for some of that stuff just by analogy. But a lot of these things are built out of huge towers of arithmetic. I wouldn’t got so far as to call it ‘mathematics’ but it’s definitely arithmetic. Complete with mistakes.
I guess I was frustrated with approaching art-making it on a purely intuitive basis, is I don’t mind the part where get an idea from wherever. But developing just out of your gut instinct was frustrating to me, and I wanted to have some kind of tool to use. I started learning about how things form in nature according to systems like the Fibonacci sequence, and according to certain sequences of proportion, and certain kinds of chaos dynamics, which are really hard to understand but really inspiring to think about. The Fibonacci sequence is easy to understand, but chaos is really hard to understand, and somewhere in between there is this rich terrain.
It’s like how artists use the cut up technique, or other things to get beyond themselves, and incorporate chance, so using some kind of numerical sequence as part of something else isn’t exactly chance, but it takes you in a place that you’re not making up. Your sort of plugging yourself into nature in way.
It grounds it.
Yeah, and I’m not stuck in it. I can make decisions in just the same way. If you see something even in nature, maybe if you completely abstract it and put in a vacuum, it can break down into these systems, but it’s not like that out there. All kinds of stuff is going on and messing it all up in all kinds of great ways.
I feel like there’s me and real life and everything messing it up. But then other times I’ve done things to incorporate chance, actual chance in a more conscious way. Like using arrangements and scattering stuff or rolling dice or anything to augment my - it’s never just purely that, there’s something that I’ve decided that I’m doing and a way that I’m executing it. But yet it’s nice to simultaneously ground things and shake things up, by adding a little bit of chance, and another mind to it.
Did working with these euclidean ideas and things like the Fibonacci sequence, did that change your perceptions of classical art? A lot of renaissance art is rooted in the geometry of those sequences. Not to say that you’re approaching your work in exactly the same way because it sounds like your approaching it in a more organic way.
It’s funny because I don’t know what the renaissance artists themselves would say. There were a lot of stokers on the golden mean - stokers meaning enthusiasts - devotes. I always bought it because I was told so many times and shown these dotted lines of how things corresponded to the golden mean. A lot of that I think just comes naturally, because that’s how we’re made. If you divide up your finger, that’s how it’s proportioned, from this knuckle to that knuckle, etc. You can’t escape it, it’s a comfortable place to be. Yet there are a lot of other places to be that are used very extensively because they’re not. If you have a long attenuated, spiky thing, that doesn’t have anything to do with the phi proportion or whatever. It’s effect is completely because it’s extreme and it’s not. And you find that as much as you find the other. I have the feeling that they were finding it because they were looking for it.
I don’t think you have to. I think people naturally find that kind of proportion. although some of the middle eastern geometry and the way they made their temples, that’s consciously based in various geometric proportions.
So there’s a lot of work that fits this pattern, and yet the creator of it isn’t always aware of it. It looks good because it is.
Kate: Yeah. If it’s natural to us then we go that way.
So when you talk about using these ideas in a primordial way - your work is knitted so it’s process oriented, so it’s a lot of the same action. Do you approach these pieces from the ground up, are you seeing what you grow into? Or, I know the painting term is ‘blocking in’ the picture, do you look at it from the outside, and then try and refine it down into something?
Kate: I go both ways. I’ve consciously blocked it in, worked it out completely, started from the beginning and arrived at the end exactly as I had planned. Then there are other times when I’ve applied a repeating process to something and seeing what it grows into, which is sometimes a giant mess. but there’s parts of the too. I’m always looking for processes that don’t just cave completely in on themselves really fast, but actually will go somewhere interesting without me being able to see exactly where they are going, because I think that’s really interesting to accept and adventure for yourself. An adventure would be no good if the first thing you did was step off a cliff and just fall to your death. It’s only a good adventure if you kind of know what your getting into so you can actually have an adventure. So I like it when I come up with a process that I can rely on to take me on an adventure, and not just eat itself up.
It can be nice to know that something might get away from you in the long run because that can be very interesting.
Kate: Yeah, there’s one piece that would be a good example where I didn’t know exactly how it was going to work. It was a process of subdividing into squares at different angles, and I just went until the squares got too small. I could maybe if my life depended on it, make the ten thousand tiny squares that would constitute the further branching out, but I’d probably go in the other direction. Stat with a bigger square to begin with and get down to squares the size I have now.
Orji: The fractalization of the fringes, and the inclusion of the formula in the grid, that sets up a mental space that sort of extends infinitely.
Yeah, right now it’s a visual thing your making, so it’s about visually where do you stop.
Kate: Yeah
Is there anything about this latest body of work that did surprise you in a good way or a bad way, when you finished it or as you were working on it?
Kate: The truth is, yes there was something that surprised me. The work is very time consuming, and I’ll get very absorbed in the thing that I’m working on, and by the time done with it, even if it’s just a little turd, I have pretty much exhausted my interest in it for anywhere between five seconds, or five years (laughs). But what I mean is, so often when I’m finished with something, a lot of the stuff I’m not so satisfied with, and I don’t want to look at it because it’s driving me crazy. But now, bringing it all out, and looking at it all at once, I was really surprised by all the variety and all the liveliness that was all spread around me.
I was really surprised by all the live fecundity of the whole spread. I kept it putting it out of my mind as I went from piece to piece, putting them away so I wouldn’t have to look at them. Now that I’ve got a little bit of distance they don’t drive me crazy. It’s almost like I enjoy my work a lot better, after putting it all away and getting it out all at once than I ever though I would have.
Kate: Yeah, there were correlations between different pieces. That’s one of the most surprising and interesting and useful things for me, and that’s one of the things I was looking for but didn’t really allow myself to find in the process, because I kept hiding my own work from myself so it wouldn’t drive me nuts. But now that it’s out, I can see relationships between pieces created with different media at different times, that give me ideas about where I could take mutations of two different ideas or more. I often didn’t realize that two different pieces were so similar.
So in terms of being eggs, they’re very successful, you have a lot to go on from here.
Kate: That’s basically it. As great masterworks, I don’t think that’s what they were ever really intended to be. But as eggs, and little crystals of ideas, I can’t wait to keep rolling.
Do you prefer to work by hand, did you use machines at all to make these?
Kate: I love to use machines. I don’t have knowledge or access to many mechanized processes, so most of the stuff is done by hand. But often when I was doing it by hand, I was pretending I was the machine that I would have do it if only I could just program it into a machine. I’d make the whole program and then act it out like I was the machine, because I didn’t have one (laughs). Some of the things were made on a knitting machine, but not an automatic knitting machine, a manual one. So even though it wasn’t automated, there was a process according to a pattern. It wasn’t like a just write a program and then hit ‘on’ and have it generate these things - which would be great! I would love it. Especially because you could potentially go so fast. Talk about trying things and seeing where they would go to surprise yourself. You could plug in rules and moves, and some might work and some might not. Some ideas are just too complex to get your head around. After the first step and then that second step, the third step gets really crazy sometimes, and you just have to do it.
Especially working with mathematics.
Kate: Especially fractals, you go first generation, second generation, and then it gets completely out of hand! Machines or computers would be really useful.
I could come up with ideas that would be implementable through any kind of process, too. so I hope to get more hooked up with processes so that I can try to use automated things a little bit more.
To expand the scope or the scale of things that you’re working on?
Kate: Yes, definitely. Something that’s so compact can be hard to consider and hidden.
Orji: We were talking earlier about how the arc of this was to expand, and make it more macro.
Kate: Yes definitely, it’s unfortunate that we’re just heading into the cold and rainy season. I have some stuff mapped out, big geometric networks to be made out steel wire. They’re soldered pieces so I want to do it outside.
Did you come from New York City?
Kate: Yeah, I lived just on the opposite side on the water, in Brooklyn.
Would you say you were part of the ’scene’ in New York?
Kate: I wasn’t really. I kind of meant to be. I guess what it comes down to is I just didn’t have the right kind of personality for it. No matter how it is that this mythology that you present of yourself, somewhere in there you have to really want to play the game, and get out there and shamelessly hustle yourself.
So your work isn’t about ego.
Kate: No, in fact, I’m always trying to put the intent and the ideas into the objects as if they just made themselves. And try to get myself out of it. Self-promotion and stuff, that was what I would’ve needed to do. I went into New York wanting to do that sort of stuff, and I ended up making a lot of work in secret and keeping it to myself.
Orji: That’s been one of the challenges with the show, or one of the points of it really. With this context that we’re developing, it’s about making the world that’s suggested by these pieces and the intellectual ambiance of her process, making that seductive. Generally there’s that personality factor where an artist is presenting this iconic, archetypal cartoon of themselves for everyone to digest.
Every piece is a self portrait.
Orji: Yeah, totally. In many ways, this is like the opposite of that, it’s making the place and the process that they come from mysterious and alluring. I think people do want to get immersed, they want to make emotional contact with someone who’s a world unto themselves and go all the way into that world. But with this work it’s not just about making a superhero out of the artist, it’s making a palpable, hungry alien world.
Kate: A place you can go, a different place.
In a lot of ways, the body of work isn’t judgmental. It’s in and of itself.
Kate: Yeah that’s true. It’s not much of a commentary on anything else. It’s asking you if you want to live in this dimension, to consider this.
I think that’s a great aspiration. That shows wisdom, in way. Most great artists that we look back on now, they succeeded doing that in whatever fashion. there work is not judgmental. Even though the work is by them, and could only be made by them, in so many other ways the work speaks so strongly for itself with the language that it has created.
Orji: I think that you can be part of the cultural conversation, without having a ‘message’.
Or an agenda.
Orji: Yeah, just by presenting a fierce beauty.
Kate: It’s funny. Like when I said I wanted to go to New York and do all that, that was an old dream. I went to graduate school in San Francisco and was stuck there for ten years, and it’s a very expensive city. You’re doing creative work, and your trying to save enough money to go to New York, it’s like ‘give me a break.’ that’s hard stuff to do. I was doing a lot of musical theater, having a crazy fun life, and actually doing a lot of art too, but always dreaming that I really wanted to go to New York.
I remember, I used to have a really great art history class in college, and we saw videos of the 80s art opening scene parties. The teacher was great, he brought into our class the flavor of what was going on in New York at that time; the crazy scene, the people, the action and everything, and I just wanted to be there and wanted to be one of those people. I was really into the whole Warhol story and all the art stars and everything. People who did good work and were art stars.
It’s just over now, I just want to be alone and think. It’s just different, it wasn’t a conscious decision. It’s just natural to make these things. I feel like we made a really good decision to come here. Portland is really inviting to things, and you don’t have to fight the hustle, and really sell yourself in order to have a chance to show your work or share your work, or get people interested in your work. The flavor of all of that is so different from New York. In New York, you’re in the art world or your kind of not. here, there’s participation at all levels.
I think the New York scene in the 80’s is different from how it is now. I think the whole city has really clamped down, and it’s really become a marketplace. It feels more like there are cultural commodities, but not as much cultural generation.
I would like to make work that meant something to people, and was known. I would love to have my future solo show at the Gegosian or something. But even now, I wouldn’t want to pressure these little seeds with all that. I’m not a kid anymore, but my work is kind of young. I’ve finally found the beginnings of my own real thing, and I just have to let it be, give it some space to grow. The last thing I need is bright lights.
That’s said to have happened in the fifties, with Abstract Expressionism. It all began with eight or so guys getting loft space and talking. It started to change when they began to sell a lot of work.
Orji: It’s nice to be in that environment where ideas are circulating freely. When you talk about these groups of amazing artists who are just all about tossing ideas around…
Kate: Yeah, they’re excited, because they’re actually doing something that’s strangely, inexplicably important.
Orji: Right, and then all of a sudden, that body of ideas is like a product, and everyone has different territorial claims to it.
I’m the big brush guy.
Orji: Yeah!
Kate: Yeah, and your dealer, and people getting more attention than others.
Orji: So you’ve been at war with ten years, and get your name cast in stone as the big brush guy.
I guess to anyone who does it for while, if you’re not into the whole scene, it’d be nice to be that grand old man. Like you get to be Monet wit his waterlilies, or Matisse, drawing on the walls with a stick. They’re respected and appreciated, but were able to extricate themselves from all that.
Orji: That’s kind of the idea with Portland, for it be that teeming laboratory where there aren’t those demands placed on everything. New York will always be the ultimate marketplace. that’s where you take things to sell them, to network.
It makes sense, with your work being based on growth, that you’d want to get somewhere it could be allowed to do that in an organic fashion.
Kate: When it’s big enough to eat you, it can go back to New York.
How long did you live in New York?
Kate: Ten years.
Did the geography inform your work at all? In your work, you’ve paired everything down, and you’ve started small, and it occupies mental space, rather than being responsive to all the external parts of the city. Was that due to New York?
Kate: Definitely. Partly because of the shortage of space in general, and having it difficult to transport stuff. If you have a large painting, well now you’ve got yourself a ball of worms, don’t you? Are you going to take it on the subway? Sure, if you’ve got big money deals, you can transport those big glass Jeff Koons. I just wanted to be able to be free, so I got small.
Also, the artistic environment there, the art that you see, if you do go out - oh my god, it’s so good! Having that constant onslaught of really serious work. Serious, awesome work being taken so seriously, and being valued a lot. Just seeing it exist, it’s heartening to an artist, seeing it be a successful part of culture.
That was one of the last things I did before I moved out here, was visited the museums one last time.
Kate: Before I got on the plane, I jetted to the Whitney, I only had half an hour. There was an exhibit of Buckminster Fuller, his concept pieces and his drawings. All these weird little objects. It was really, really interesting.
There’s a research and mathematical aspect to your work, where did that stem from?
Kate: I read one book by Steven J. Gould, essays - I think it was because the title was funny. I don’t know, this was years ago. When you read these books by scientists they mention a lot of other scientists, a lot of philosophers, a lot of writers, and it just branched out from there. Did it come from New York? I don’t think so.
Orji: I think an arc can be traced, your older work, they’re paintings, but they’re these paintings of amoeboid entities. There are some that are a very clear sort of microverse and there’s weird bodies and weird states of mutation. and then there’s your work with decorative materials.
Kate: Then it started snowballing a lot. It got substructure from the science and math. I don’t think it came from New York, it just happened. I could’ve been anywhere. But I did find that New York being a big place with all kinds great stuff going on, I did find a great sort of fun science subculture, like the Secret Science club at Union Hall, where you could here lectures from people who are from the jet propulsion laboratories, or Cornell, or wherever! (laughs). Super interesting stuff, but in a bar, down in the basement, once a month!
What do you like about the materials you’re working in?
Kate: There’s a whole complex of things that has resulted of these types of media being in play. A technical reason for the knitting, as well as the beads, is because there’s a unit-by-unit sort of structure with the knitting that makes it really easy to employ a sequence of equations or a number sequence, because there you have. It’s numbers and units.
The beads, they have that, but they also have different sizes. Knitting stitches are always kind of the same, but beads can have these units but they can each be different. I’m interested the way things together and somehow can become really firm by little pieces fitting in between bigger ones.
The other reason for the media, which isn’t technical, is because I’ve done so much work in costume, fashion, theater, decoration, it just seemed like not only developing a fluency with those materials because I was working with them so much, that’s useful. But also because there’s a biographical, real life honesty of making your own ideas out of the stuff you’re always working with anyway. Like Lichtenstein painting billboards and then making his paintings like that.
Like with the big bright billboard paint.
Kate: Yeah, his own work didn’t cut itself off from the commercial work that he was doing. It took it higher or to a more personal level. It transmogrified it into something more artistically relevant without denying. I guess that’s how I feel about what I’m doing with these materials, craft and clothing and decoration kind of materials. Making those materials that I’ve had to work with fit my purposes.
That’s all true, but there are structural limitations with knitting. I don’t like things where the structure is faked. I like the structure to be integral to the way the piece is created. So I would like to put a knitted piece on an armature, or something like that. I don’t like anything where you have to say ‘oh don’t look at the back.’ To me, that’s show business. So however they’re made, that’s a part of the piece. And knitting is fairly limited in how much of a structure you can create. It’s soft, you can only make things by piling or stacking, curling or convoluting, while also being so time consuming. Ultimately, if you had enough yarn, you could make something HUGE, but there’s a reality check there.
Yarn also doesn’t last so well. Small pieces you can protect, but if you make something really huge, it’s going to get eaten and destroyed. You couldn’t clean it really, if it’s too big. So this is the genesis of these pieces. But I think that their evolution will grow into different materials. And once I realized I could teach myself new skills, I can employ these similar kind of structural techniques but expound upon them. They can bare more weight, grow quite a bit if I can use stronger stuff.
I’m a painter. and it seems like these days the traditional oil painter is the least ‘natural’ way of becoming an artist, because you’re never going to use that stuff in any other aspect of your life. You have to say ‘I’m going to approach this thing and learn it purely for the purpose of making pictures’ rather than making art with something that I already had familiarity with. And now, even if you are a successful oil painter, the only people who are going to identify with it from a materials or craft standpoint are other painters.
Kate: It has it’s pros and cons - because it can be misleading. I am really enthusiastic about knitting in a way, but you’re never going to see me knitting a sweater, ever. I’m more likely to make something that sweats.
Sometimes people because of your technique can relate to your work on a craftsman like level, whereas painting only has ties to art history, and traditional art. So no one’s ever going to mistake what your doing for something else.
So by knitting, you’re not necessarily commenting on women’s domestic roles?
Kate: No, except it’s funny… because I wouldn’t entirely say that’s not a part of it, but it’s just a part that came naturally, rather than a part I chose. Because my mom did not teach my brother to sew, but she did teach me to sew. Therefor, I knew how to sew. I didn’t learn to knit until later, but I knew I could because I was comfortable with that type of thing. I could have decided not to do that, and there have been times when, because of its correlation with women’s domestic crafts, I’ve wanted to not do it. I didn’t want to be that. Yet there it is, and I actually really enjoy it. I’m actually really heartened to see that many men are taking on these kinds of crafts these days. It’s a little problematic for me, but it’s honest.
It’s inherent.
Yeah it is. Even just blindly what I was attracted to when I first started painting were there were these primordial forms. They were just imagined and executed, they weren’t yet grounded in anything else. So those same ideas have been expressing themselves through different mediums that happen to be around me. And it could be other stuff. I think that’s what it is, your ideas have a life and they want to grow and they express themselves through whatever they have. If there’s other stuff around, which I guess there will be, they’ll use that.
So are there any artists that you really like?
Kate: The artist who really rocks my world is Tim Hawkinson. He made a tiny bird skull out of his fingernail clippings, and a tiny spiderweb out of his hair. And he made this strange contraption made out of a chair and a record player turntable and a ballpoint pen, and all this stuff cobbled together, and it signed his name over and over again on little shreds of paper. This chair is surrounded by all sort of paper with his signature. In his handwriting! I would say that’s an artist whose work I really admire.
Old Leigh Bowery was quite an inspiration to me as well. The things that really got me were - for example he was on this talk show with a bunch of these New York club kids, and he had this weird suit on, and his head was like a giant fungus, and he just sat there and didn’t say anything. Being like that, this mute presence, this kind of lurking dramatic thing.
There are lots of artists who’ve inspired me a lot without directly relating to my work. I love it when people do things that surprise me, and in fact it’s better when it doesn’t have anything to do with what I do. I love to see people be defiant, and just filled with the joy of being alive.
================================================
Kate will be showing her work in room 401 at Milepost 5 for the entirety of the show. Thanks again to Kate and Orji for taking the time to talk with me!









You do a great job of describing each image on your web site. Is there a particular way that the viewer is supposed to perceive the backgrounds or the marbling beneath the written characters? you described it as light at one point, which I found to be very interesting. 




