cinemafia: When I first discovered your work, it was in the form of concert posters, album covers and stickers being sold out of head shops in the mid 90s. This was still a while before the idea of what has been collectively termed 'lowbrow art' went mainstream, and it's really interesting to see how far it's come. I think there's a lot of work in the gallery circuit now, especially here in L.A., that nobody - the artist's included- would have thought could be there back then. What was it like for you going from those early days to showing your work now? What kinds of things have you seen change around you since then, for the good or for the bad? What things are different for you, now that you're a family man?
coop: Not a family man yet, but I'm working on it...
Well, I can make a little better living at this, for one thing. There's a lot more exposure these days, but at the same time, the mainstream interest seems to flow more easily towards those whose style is more friendly to the mainstream. Somebody like Mark Ryden or Shag (both talented artists as well as friends of mine) have more opportunities available because their work is more user-friendly, at least on first glance, than a 12-foot-long painting of a rubber-fetish dominatrix.
I've also learned a few hard lessons about trying to chase after bullshit instead of concentrating on my own work. I lost a couple of years trying filmmaking, (unsuccessfully) and blew off showing in galleries for a few years too. I've spent the last 6 years focused solely on fine art, slowly untangling myself from my commercial obligations. I'm making less money now, but I'm much more satisfied.
Still, it's nice to begin to see the benefits of a long career trajectory, like getting into museums and being reviewed in art mags and whatnot. I always try to remember that what I'm doing for a living runs counter to the instant-millionaire-at-twenty-five life that everyone measures as success these day, and try not to get bummed out too much. Even someone like Ed Ruscha had to spend 40 years or so painting brilliant work before he really started to be taken seriously by the "real" art world in NYC. That says to me that you have to be in this for the long haul if you are serious about your work.
cinemafia: For the kind of art that's more user-friendly, let's just call it cute art, what separates that from craft? I mean, is it still art if it's not pushing any boundaries, not making people uncomfortable?
coop: Just because I say it's user-friendly, doesn't mean it is bland or lacking in subversive content. In fact, Shag's last show was pretty dark and weird - using his slick, familiar style to explore darker themes made the content more disturbing, if anything. Mark Ryden's stuff has always creeped me out - and that is meant as a compliment!
There is some lightweight stuff out there, but there's no need to name names. Good stuff is going to stand the test of time - the lame stuff will be forgotten as time goes on.
cinemafia: What was it about filmmaking that didn't work out for you? For me, it was that I was obsessed with doing everything myself, and I mean literally everything from writing, operating the camera, editing, doing the score. It just couldn't work over the long run, because I needed to understand that it was a collaborative process- and I had a hard time with that.
coop: I really enjoyed the collaborative part of the process. Coming from a career where I was doing everything by myself, it was really fun and energizing to have that outside input, and the improvisational part of shooting was challenging and very rewarding. Everyone I worked with was, to a person, creative and driven to make something cool.
I just did not have the temperament to deal with the long process of convincing the people with money to let me have it. That part of it really made me miserable and suicidal! I just wasn't any good at doing meetings and sucking ass. That's is the other side of doing everything yourself - I just couldn't get into doing a song-and-dance every time I wanted a job.
cinemafia: I heard an owner of an L.A. gallery once say that the reason they love to show work here is because there's less baggage. Their point was that the effect of the tradition and expectation of the New York art scene often results in the work being stifled, whereas the lack of deep tradition and expectation in L.A. means artists here are more open and create new things, even if they're just wall candy and don't necessarily have a deeper meaning. What has your experience within the L.A. art scene made you feel, and has it had effect on the kind of art you create? Do you think you'd have a different experience or acceptance if you were working back East?
coop: I think that's true to a certain extent, but unfortunately, it also ignores the great history of modern art in L.A. I see the "lowbrow" scene (I HATE that term, but we're stuck with it) as a parallel to the Ferus gallery artists of the 60's here in L.A.
Warhol's first show was at Ferus, when nobody in NYC was interested in his work. Duchamp, the wellspring of all modern art, had his first retrospective in Pasadena at the Norton Simon. The BCAM at LACMA is a world-class collection of postwar American art.
We have nothing to be ashamed of here.
cinemafia: One of the things I liked the most about your book, the Big Fat One (and there's a lot to like in there), is that it's all true sketches. They have a kind of honesty and intimacy that doesn't necessarily come across when you've moved on from that original idea. There was so much clamoring for CG illustration from the 90s on that it became very much a glut of over-polished, too-perfect line art. Only within the past couple years has it become in vogue again to put a pencil onto paper and say, there, that's it. You certainly don't seem to have any apprehension to showing your works-in-progress, but some artists have the mind set that they need to shut themselves away for months at a time with no visitors and then emerge with new work. What are your thoughts about this ? Do you think there's a benefit to having a fan base (support group?) along every step of the way?
coop: I go back and forth on that. I love to see other artist's sketchbooks and preliminary work, but I also understand the concern about showing everything. I see it as a sign of insecurity, frankly, both in myself and others. I try to fight that all the time, as I think it's important to "show your work" as they used to say in math class.
The more I paint, the more I realize the process is just as important as the end result, and that it needs to be documented as fully as possible. I blog most of my paintings step by step, along with in-progress photos and digressions about techniques and conceptual blathering. I'm finishing layouts on my next book, and every painting is complemented with the sketches, preliminary drawings, and reference photos used to create it.
I've actually argued with my gallery about this, (but no too much, they are sweethearts) as they would prefer to keep everything under wraps until the show. I feel that there are a lot more people out there in the world who can't make it to the show that would like to see what goes on as well.
Also, artists are all liars. They're all full of shit, myself included. Putting all the development and process out there for everyone to see keeps me honest, I hope.
cinemafia: I think the opportunity to see artists at work is at least as enlightening as going to see the work at the gallery. It's pretty amazing that there's stuff like this on youtube now, much of it intently presented as tutorial, that anyone can watch and learn from. Do you think galleries and agents would embrace the idea if it were somehow monetized?
coop: Galleries will embrace ANYTHING if you can monetize it!
cinemafia: There's a fine line between erotic art and pornography, and I believe you've been able to, forgive the use of the word, straddle that line in a very successful way. From your 'Coop Girl' drawings and paintings a now with your interest in photography you've used very strong sexual images and themes- fetishistic, even. Now, some would just say, "sex sells", but I have a feeling there's more to it than that for you. What is it about sexuality that you find compelled to create, and compelled to communicate? How have you approached dissenting attitudes about erotic art?
coop: Really? I was trying to make porn. Clearly I have failed. I fetishize women and sexuality, the same way I fetishize the other objects of my obsessions, like race cars or vintage Japanese toys. Photography is another tool to use to do that.
Sex sells? Maybe bullshit Madison Avenue tease, Victoria's Secret/Sex In The City fantasy, or toothless "burlesque" nostalgia-huffing, but real obsessive dirty fetishism? It freaks people out, they run screaming from it most of the time, or they run home and jerk off in front of their computer afterwards.
I know all too well that sex makes people squeamish, even (especially!) supposedly-liberal types. It makes it more difficult, not easier, to sell my work - not everyone can handle a giant painting of a naked woman on their wall. For me, it is a compulsion - I have to make stuff that interests me, market be damned.
cinemafia: Why do you think there's a disparity between the reactions of people to kind of erotic art you've done and say classical nude art? Why would one be less offensive, or more valid as art than the other?
coop: I think most people see classical art as "old stuff" and don't see that and what a modern artist does as part of the same continuum. Manet's "Olympia", a classical theme reinterpreted using a prostitute as a model, was even more shocking in its day than anything I will ever do, but today you can buy postcards of it in the museum bookstore.
cinemafia: Finally, I want to ask you about the next generation. There's hundreds, probably thousands of kids around the world right now that are sitting in their bedrooms doodling at their desks a lot like you did. What kinds of things should they be doing now if they want to pursue a career in the art world? Should they be pursuing a career in the art world at all? Do you think the connections they make will be as important as the strength of their work?
coop: They have it SO easy now. The internet has smashed so many barriers to making a living as an artist. It's hard for me to believe how much things have changed, just in the 20 years or so that I've been doing this. You can be anywhere in the world and have access to a potentially-global audience. A lot more people are making a living from their creativity than ever before in human history. Is any of it any good? Will any of it be remembered? Probably not.
But that's the risk we all take, myself included.
~ ~ ~
Coop's Blog
http://positiveapeindex.wordpress.com
CoopStuff on the Web
http://coopstuff.com