Luke DeLalio : Interdisciplinary Artist

Artist's Statement

There are a number of issues, for want of a better word, that run through my work. Some of these issues are thematic, some are technical.

Thematically, I am interested in how we construe/construct relationships. I use the word ‘relationships’ in a wide sense: not simply interpersonal relationships, but our relationships to spaces, objects, each other, ourselves. In my work I seek to reinvent relationships such that they are reconsidered, with the ultimate goal of making something virgin out of the intimately mundane. There does tend to be a domestic thread through a lot of my work as well as a spiritual one, and often pieces sit on the boundary between that which is there and that which is in mind. Usually my work is a view from inside to without, which explains recurring window motifs and frames within frames - these are devices to re-contextualize and redefine.

Technically, I am concerned with traditional painterly issues like representation and depth, as well as contemporary (or modern) issues such as flattening of the picture plane, the integration of ground and figure, self-referentiality, the possibilities of expression via abstraction. I have a fairly rigorous background in art history and this manifests itself as active experimentation in my work. I am continually foiling things against each other - painting vs. drawing, depth vs. flatness, spontaneousness with planning and forethought, abstraction vs. representation. Often a work will have pictoral depth (ie, shading and some sense of perspective) which is put into tension with the flat surface of the base by use of texture, scratches, impasto, drips, words, etc. When I hit the balance on this just right the viewers eye jumps from deep in the work to the obvious flat surface, resulting in a strange sort of 3D effect which translates poorly to photographs. Charcoal is a constant in virtually everything I make, and to it I add oil, acrylic, torn paper, etc. The gestural qualities and smudginess of charcoal I find quite seductive.

Before I came to painting I worked in music and theatre. This background has proven to be a boon as well as troublesome. Theatre and music evolve across time, while a painting is essentially static. And music, and especially theatre, also have the potential for narrative, or at the very least a sense of directional thrust. The question for me has been how to get a sense of duration and/or narrative in a painting without reverting to illustration or devices that were explored previously (Futurism and “Nude Descending a Staircase” come to mind). I try to do this by suggesting some sort of open ended scenario in a piece, providing hopefully just enough information that a viewer can construct his or her own narrative, and hopefully this narrative is ever changing and influenced by the particulars of a viewer’s personality and experiences. My work towards this end is especially evident in my series “Person + Chair + Picture,” in which the pictures really function as imaginative prompts rather than a set story.

Because my work hinges on viewer interpretation via imaginative engagement, I am loath to express my specific thoughts or impulse for a piece or a series. I prefer no plaques, rather just the work on the wall and its title (which is why I often write the title right onto the work or the frame). Too often in contemporary art one needs a written explanation to grasp a piece, and then the experience becomes “spot the intention,” a sort of intellectual version of “Where’s Waldo.” It should be harder than that, but not so hard that one leaves with no idea. Like music, which to me is best remembered by melody, art needs a riff or a hook.