How Tom French is Transcending the Limitations of a Visible Reality
Tom French is a British artist who’s surreal multi-layered paintings speak of life, love, and morality. Sticking to a monochromatic palate, French is able to create images within images that both elucidate and contradict each other. Within the vibrating voids that fill the centre of his canvasses, characters interact within the hollow sockets of faces, a duality that suggests multiple possible narratives, the conclusions of which are left up to the viewer.
Automatic drawings and abstract shapes give depth and suggest a nightmarish landscape that is constantly hounding the characters, and they could be swallowed up at any moment. His works are at once both tense and serene, and seem to exist as in stasis; a moment frozen in imaginary time. The works act as a memento mori, reminding the viewer of their morality, and in turn conjuring an appreciation of the fragility of life.
His new show Transcend opens at Lawrence Alkin Gallery on April 22nd.
BM – Firstly, please explain the relevance of the title Transcend, and how it relates to the works.
TF – I wanted a title that related to the whole body of work on multiple levels, whilst keeping that relationship somewhat abstract.
The definition of Transcend - Be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere) - resonates well with the illusionary works, and in many ways sums up the nature of illusion, at least in the form which it takes within my work. The act of having two images existing within the same space is an attempt to go beyond the limitations of that space. Also the actions of the characters within the images intended to be more psychological, rather than representing actual physical activities, so the interpretations of these transcends what is initially viewed.
BM - Do each of your works have a specific and definite message they are trying to convey, or are they intentionally left vague?
TF - The works don’t have a single specific message as such, and there are many possible interpretations of the meaning - its always fascinating to hear how other people read the images with personal relevance. They are very much intentionally left vague for this reason, particularly with some of these latest works being more abstract than ever.
For myself, the illusionary works reflect upon the relationship between the conscious and unconscious. The figurative elements represent the conscious, with characters absorbed in their own actions, whilst the abstracted portraits in which they sit represent the subconscious, the instinctual yet hidden human drives that shape and determine the blissfully unaware subjects and make up the bigger picture.
BM - There are often multiple layers present; faces within eye sockets for example; are the works intended to have multiple possible readings simultaneously or are they intended to be read as a whole?
TF - Both. The image needs to work as a whole, and the relationship between the bigger image and the characters within that is very important, they are a part of each other, one cannot exist without the other, and the actions or expressions of one are relevant to the other. But each must also hold up in its own right. When viewing these images its almost impossible to see both at the same time, as you move closer to the image or further away your eyes readjust from one to the other, the brain struggles to see them simultaneously, so its vital that each one can stand alone as an individual image.
BM - In a lot of your paintings the majority of the imagery hovers within a central void, whilst the periphery is largely sparse. What is this device used for?
TF - Primarily to help the eye read the image without too much distraction. Personally I find the images very complex, both in the creation and the viewing, so having other things going on in the paintings can overcomplicate matters, making the image more difficult to read or diluting its strength.
BM - You seem to never portray an entire figure, rather you fragment the body, sometimes repeating elements. Why is this?
TF - I’ve given this a lot of thought prior to creating this series, so I’m glad you asked. It comes down to reflecting how our eyes take in imagery, and the way our brains process this information. When we view a figure, our eyes don’t see the whole figure, they move around from one point to another, focusing and refocusing, our brains taking note of whatever elements it deems relevant and discarding the rest. Then memory comes into play, we can have just finished speaking to a person, turn away, and not recall many elements of their appearance, even what colour their eyes were. So this way of painting incorporates all of these things, I guess the elements of the figures which are relevant to the image are picked out, the rest discarded.
BM - Your works give the air of spontaneity, and yet are perfectly ordered. How much of a role does each play in the creation of your work?
TF - I used to extensively plan my images, meticulously planning the position of every detail, but working this way inevitably created a static feel which I really wanted to break away from. So these days I go straight in with the bold abstraction, creating the composition very loosely and intuitively, then afterwards working into that with the more tightly rendered figurative elements. Its very much a game of chance, a lot of images just don’t work and get left along the way, but overall these casualties are worth it to achieve that air of spontaneity. A lot of the figurative areas get painted and repainted many times, until they achieve what’s desired, and work within the bigger picture - the slight tilt of a head or angle of a hand can have a huge impact on getting the image to work as a whole.
BM - How much of a role does the dichotomy between order and chaos play in your work?
TF - It plays a big role, both aesthetically and conceptually. Aesthetically I find the interplay between the two interesting and exciting to they eye. As always this bears relevance to the interpretation of the images, and the contrast between order and chaos seems to have an emotional connection which I find is rather effortlessly related to.
BM - There are elements of a few different schools of painting discernable within your works (surrealism, cubism, abstract expressionism), and yet you seem to fit within none of them. Which (if any) do you feel you have most in common with?
TF - I don’t think of my work as fitting into a particular genre or school of painting, and I don’t create work with the intention of doing so. That way of thinking just isn’t on my radar when in the studio. At a push I’d say surrealism is the most common link, more so conceptually than visually, though I’d not class myself as a surrealist artist.
BM - Chiaroscuro plays a large part in your work, is this used as an auxiliary device to bolster the darkness and light in your subject matter?
TF – I’d say so, coming back to the memento mori theme, a reminder that you will die initially appears to be a dark message, but in reality a reminder of this can be a very enlightening experience.
These images are essentially created simply out of light and dark, that’s all that they are; the viewers themselves create the sense of dark and light within the subject matter.
BM - You feature skulls often, are your works intended as a memento mori/ vanitas in any way?
TF - Yes that’s definitely one dimension of the works - I refer to ‘the bigger picture’ in terms of the illusion which is present in the works, but of course the bigger picture also refers to the meaning of memento mori. It’s almost unavoidable (to myself at least) to use a skull without it representing the fragility of life. It seems that a reminder of this can add a refreshing perspective on things and help when prioritising what’s important.
Benjamin Murphy
Transcend runs from 22 April 2016 - 21 May 2016 at Lawrence Alkin Gallery
42 New Compton Street
London
WC2H 8DA
