Rebirth on an Island: On Light, Time, and Space with Mariko Mori

interview by Alper Kurtul

Tokyo’s energy, New York’s boundless creativity, and Miyako Island’s quiet, almost womb-like protective nature. Japanese artist Mariko Mori redefines light, time, and space as she moves between these different worlds. Her latest project, Radiance, brings together ancient stone spirituality and advanced technology to make the invisible visible. Her self-designed home, Yuputira, which she dedicates to the sun god, is not merely a living space for her; it is the architecture of becoming one with nature. Ahead of her upcoming retrospective, Mori shares with us both the source of her creativity and the enduring meaning of silence in the contemporary world.

ALPER KURTUL: I’d love to begin with Radiance. It’s such a luminous project, both visually and conceptually. Radiance brings together ancient stone spirituality and advanced materials. What first drew you to connect the sacred and the scientific in one visual language?

MARIKO MORI: Yes, these ancient stones, which we can call divine stones, are believed to be landing stones of nature gods, or sometimes the gods themselves live within them. This tradition started during the Jōmon era, probably around 1500 BC, but it developed further during the Kofun period, between the 5th and 7th centuries. Even today, people still worship these divine stones.

Instead of focusing on the physicality of the stone, I wanted to interpret the existence of this divine stone, making the invisible visible. To do that, I used a medium that could project the feeling of the stone’s metaphysical aspect rather than its physical one.

KURTUL: I was also reading about Yuputira. How does inhabiting a space you designed change your daily relationship with light and creation?

MORI: Yes, it was my dream for about fifteen years. It truly was a dream come true, something I had long envisioned. Producing it was such a joy because it was like bringing a wish into reality. I also enjoyed collaborating with different craftsmen. It was exciting to use technology to create forms that were not possible fifty years ago. It was worth the wait because now we have 3D printing and new tools. I probably made around 30 different models of the house. It was really fun to do.

At first, I felt a little pressure to produce truly great work from that studio, but I began to enjoy being there because it represented my vision of heaven on Earth, together with nature, a feeling of oneness with it. Every day, you witness the passage of time, moment to moment, as nature changes, the sea’s low tide and high tide, the sky’s shifting colors. It is endlessly changing, never the same.

The beauty of nature made a huge impact on me and really opened my mind toward it. I do feel quite isolated because it is remote, like living in my own bubble, but I also feel protected and nurtured by nature. I love it there and never want to leave, but I have to work, so I cannot stay for long periods. I go back and forth and try to spend as much time as I can. It is really like heaven on Earth for me.

KURTUL: It feels like an inspirational place for you, and also a very personal one. Is that feeling of being nurtured a source of inspiration? 

MORI: Yes, very much so. The village I belong to is quite far away, but still part of that community, and it has a beautiful sacred site that I often visit. It is very powerful. The island itself is deeply rooted in this culture, with around 500 sacred sites where about 70,000 people live. The rituals have been passed down since the 13th century and continue today.

 
 

KURTUL: I also love how you ground your architectural works in mythology. Yuputira was inspired by the island’s sun god, and I’m curious about how that divine symbolism shapes the way you perceive time, solitude, and renewal in your life as an artist.

MORI: Yes, it is my way to honor the local culture. Unfortunately, even though some areas continue to perform these rituals, the village I belong to no longer practices them. I was afraid this important tradition might disappear, because those names are preserved in songs. During the rituals, people would pray and sing these songs, but since no one performs them anymore, they risk being lost.

Therefore, I wanted to honor the local sun god, which is why I named the house Yuputira. The meaning is also important: yupu means indulgence or richness, and tira means sun. So, it means “rich sun,” symbolizing the sun that gives harvest. People were wishing for abundance from the sun, which I believe is why they named it that way. I wanted this place to receive the energy of the sun and evoke a feeling of fulfillment.

I also designed the openings of the windows to directly respond to the sun’s path. I wanted this architecture to honor the sun.

 
 

KURTUL: The stones in Radiance feel alive. They seem to hold something ancient but almost futuristic as well. What kind of presence or silence do you think stones still carry in a world ruled by technology?

MORI: When you stand in front of these sacred stones, you feel a very heavy physical presence. But I imagined that these stones are full of light, perhaps connected to the world of light and receiving the light within. That was my imagination when I visited many sacred sites. It felt universal to all divine stones.

It was my way to visualize the metaphysical feeling of the stone. I was able to do that through new technology. Even though the material is physical, I try to transform something that you cannot see within the real stone.

KURTUL: You also have a major retrospective coming up. What excites you most about seeing your work interpreted through Alexandra Munroe and Mami Kataoka, through these two distinct curatorial lenses?

MORI: Alexandra Munroe has a very deep understanding of Japanese contemporary art history, and not only of the philosophical background of Japan, such as Buddhism and Shintoism, but also of the international art community through the Guggenheim. That balance is very exciting.

Mami, coming from Japan, has more insight from within and a deep knowledge of contemporary art from around the world, both Western and Eastern. They are in the same field but have different strengths. I feel very privileged to have these two strong curators bringing together this retrospective. I am very excited about it. Through them, I hope to reach not only the art world but also a broader audience.

KURTUL: The collaboration between the Mori Art Museum and the Guggenheim feels like a genuine dialogue between East and West. What do you hope this partnership communicates about Japanese spirituality in a global art context?

MORI: I cannot really speak for them, as we are still developing and collaborating. The structure of the exhibition is mostly complete, but we still have to work on the details. I am looking forward to having more conversations with them. It is truly joyful work.

 
 

KURTUL: Your trajectory from the futuristic to the spiritual is fascinating. What inner or creative shift led you from posthuman cyborg imagery to meditative installations?

MORI: When I was producing Esoteric Cosmos, I visited all the sites and photographed the backdrops myself. At that time, Photoshop did not exist; there was no AI or digital editing. I had to travel physically with a photographer to capture the backgrounds. I visited the Painted Desert in Arizona, the Dead Sea in Israel, and Turpan in China, seeking landscapes that matched my vision.

While visiting these places, I was confronted with vast, powerful, and overwhelming nature, especially in the Painted Desert. At the same time, Esoteric Cosmos was about the iconography of esoteric Buddhism, so I was studying Buddhism deeply. Both experiences—the philosophical study and the direct encounter with immense nature—happened in parallel and opened my mind. They led me to a deeper exploration of Buddhism and to the spiritual dimension that began to inform my later works.

KURTUL: The parallel between your study of Buddhism and your encounters with nature really opened my mind, too. Your installations also evoke strong emotional responses. What role does emptiness play in how you design these environments? I feel like your installations make people feel rather than just observe.

MORI: When you are full, you cannot conceive. But when you are empty, you have limitless space. When your mind is full of many things, it becomes a closed world. But when your mind is empty, you are suddenly connected to the whole world. You open up to limitless space and endless time. That is the symbolism of void and emptiness that I learned from Buddhist philosophy.

That is why, in Yuputira, I have quite empty rooms. They open up to unlimited possibilities.

KURTUL: You divide your time between such diverse energies, like Tokyo, New York, and Miyako Island. How do these environments feed or challenge your spiritual and creative practice?

MORI: I would say New York and Miyako Island are complete opposites. It is almost like going from hot to cold, two extremes. In New York, there is so much energy from people. The people are very engaging, and that creates an amazing kind of energy, intellectually and culturally, with people from all over the world. It is a very dynamic mix, and it is wonderful.

Since I first came to New York in 1992, I have always been encouraged to do what seems impossible. There is no other place in the world that inspires you to challenge yourself in that way. I love this attitude of pushing limits.

Meanwhile, in Miyako Island, I feel nurtured by nature, almost like being in a mother’s womb, very protected. In New York, it is like being whipped, and in Miyako Island, it is like being soothed with sugar. They are opposites, but for me, it is a necessary balance. New York expects you to give — to have energy, ideas, and creativity to share. Miyako Island gives that energy back. I feel completely recharged there and ready to return to New York.

KURTUL: Yes, and decharged here in New York as well.
MORI: Yes. I am also encouraged by the people in New York. I dream here, and then I go back to Miyako Island to execute those dreams.

KURTUL: Finally, Radiance feels like both a culmination and a new beginning. If Radiance marks a turning point before the retrospective, what do you feel you are radiating toward next, both personally and artistically?

MORI: I would like to project hope. We hear so much news about uncertainty in society, and people may develop fear, but we must always keep hope and project the future. I hope this exhibition encourages people to project light toward the future. I wish that when people come to see the exhibition, they find their own inner light to carry forward.

In Dialogue with the Present: Read an Interview of Designer Ying Gao

Mirrors collection menswear and womenswear

All Mirrors Collection. Photography by Malina Corpadean.

interview by Lola Titilayo

What happens when couture meets code? Montréal-based fashion designer Ying Gao is recognized for consistently pushing the boundaries of fashion through her exploration of fabric manipulation, interactivity, and technology. The use of unconventional materials to make wearable art is prominent in her work, as evidenced in her All Mirrors 2024 collection, made of soft mirrors and 18-karat gold finishing. In 2023, her In Camera collection experimented with reactivity in fashion design by coming to life when photographed. Even as early as 2017, she made waves with interactive fingerprint technology that only recognizes strangers in her Possible Tomorrows collection. The infusion of technology in her work adds a sense of movement and interaction that captivates audiences, and each collection has a special story to tell.

From fashion design to lecturing at the Université du Québec à Montréal, Ying Gao has had an incredibly extensive career already. She also served as head of the fashion, jewelry, and accessories design program at HEAD Genève from 2013 to 2015 and has presented her creative work in over 100 exhibitions around the world with 16 official collections.

LOLA TITILAYO: You’ve developed a unique practice at the intersection of fashion, technology, and philosophy. Could you share how your journey began; where you come from, and how your experiences and background have influenced your fascination with design and innovation?

YING GAO: My path has always been shaped by displacement, between countries, languages, and systems of thought. I grew up between Switzerland and China, between different structures and imagination, in places where order mattered as much as invention. When I discovered fashion, I didn’t see it as an industry, but as a medium for reflection—a way to question materiality and identity. Technology entered naturally, not as a tool of progress but as a means to disturb perception. Montréal, where I live and work now, offers the right distance from the fashion capitals and the freedom to think differently. Here, experimentation is not only tolerated; it is expected.

TITILAYO: Let’s dive into your new work, Charlotte and Everybody Else [2025]. This collection explores faces that don’t exist in the real world, yet seem real enough to deceive recognition systems. What draws you to this boundary between the real and the artificial?

GAO: This work began with a simple question: What if we could create a face that belongs to no one, yet seems entirely plausible? A face that could trick not only a machine, but our own empathy. We live surrounded by systems that authenticate, verify, and categorize. Charlotte and Everybody Else is a reversal of that process; it fabricates illusion until illusion becomes credible. What attracts me is the tension between intimacy and fiction. These faces are ghosts of data, assembled by an algorithm, yet they awaken something human. They are both mirror and mask. I am interested in that brief moment of uncertainty, when recognition collapses, when the image stops being someone and becomes everyone.

Collection exploring facial recognition systems

Charlotte and Everybody Else. Photography byVincent René Lortie

TITILAYO: This piece is both a critique and a product of algorithmic potential; is technology an ally to you? An adversary, or something in between?

GAO: Technology is neither an ally nor an adversary. It is a medium, a mirror of our collective anxieties and desires. I treat it as a collaborator that resists simplification. It amplifies fragility, exposes our need for control, and sometimes reveals the absurdity of our own systems. When it fails, it becomes poetic. I am interested in this instability, where the machine is not simply an extension of human intention, but an autonomous presence capable of contradiction and failures.

TITILAYO: Fashion often revolves around the idea of creativity and self-expression, while algorithms are more rigid. How do you reconcile these opposing impulses in your work?

GAO: I don’t see them as opposites. Both fashion and algorithms rely on structure, rules, and patterns. What differs is intention. In my work, I let the algorithm introduce resistance into the creative process. It becomes a partner that generates complexity rather than predictability. The garment, in turn, negotiates between intuition and logic. The result is rather a tension.

TITILAYO: Can you talk about the specific technologies used in this project? For example, how do the faces ripple in response to the authentication system?

GAO: The project combines an identification protocol with a responsive surface system. Actuators and translucent composites translate digital uncertainty into physical movement. When the authentication process detects an anomaly, the signal triggers a subtle ripple across the facial surface, a gesture both mechanical and algorithmic. The movement is minimal, but it reveals the system’s doubt, materializing the space between data and uncertainty. The faces do not imitate life; they render visible the fragility of verification itself.

TITILAYO: In your 2024 collection, All Mirrors, you reference Umberto Eco’s idea that “mirrors provide both an impression of virtuality and an impression of reality.” How did you interpret that duality in your work?

GAO: A mirror is always ambiguous; it confirms presence while creating distance. In All Mirrors, I wanted to design garments that behave like mirrors: reflective but porous, tangible yet elusive. They don’t simply return an image; they question it. What you see is never exactly what is there. For me, that duality echoes the way we navigate identity today, oscillating between visibility and erasure, reality and simulation.

 
Mirrors collection menswear

All Mirrors Collection. Photography by Malina Corpadean.

 

TITILAYO: Still on your All Mirrors collection, how do you balance texture, motion, and functionality in your designs?

GAO: These elements form an “ensemble” rather than a hierarchy. Texture is what seduces, motion introduces time, functionality brings everything back to the body. I work with materials that retain a memory of movement, such as soft robotics, as well as reflective and flexible composites. The challenge is to create garments that remain unstable; tactile yet unpredictable.

TITILAYO: To what extent does being based in Montréal shape your perspective on design and technology in your work?

GAO: Being based in Montréal matters deeply. It is not a neutral location; it’s a city between languages, between speeds. I live and think in French, then in English, and in Chinese. This gives a different rhythm to the way I approach design. The French language carries nuance and delay. To me, it resists immediacy. That affects how I build a project, how I let an idea unfold. Montréal is a bilingual city, but for me, it remains profoundly francophone in its sensibility: curious, critical, open, and slightly detached from global acceleration. It’s not a city of excess; it’s a city of negotiation, of hybrid systems. That context allows me to work in the pauses and the intervals. It keeps me alert, and perhaps a little out of step, which I value.

TITILAYO: You’re also a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. How has teaching influenced your creative practice, and what subjects do you focus on with your students?

GAO: Teaching keeps me in dialogue with the present. My students move through an excess of images and information, yet they search for meaning within it. Watching how they make sense of this noise forces me to question my own pace. It’s a reciprocal process; their way of seeing redefines mine, and that exchange keeps the work intellectually alive. I teach fashion design in a broad sense, less about trend or style, more about influence and context. We talk about literature, film, and politics as much as about garments, because fashion is always a reflection of its time, its fears, and its desires. What I try to transmit is curiosity and a certain freedom of thought. I want them to see beyond their screens, to connect form with meaning. Teaching reminds me that fashion design should be a social act before it becomes an aesthetic one.

TITILAYO: Do the students inform or challenge your creative process?

GAO: Absolutely. My students question a lot of things, influences, function, intention, meaning. Their curiosity obliges me to revisit my own assumptions. They bring a freshness and urgency that prevents the work from becoming complacent. Their intuition often points to what matters most: how a garment can provoke reflection rather than please.

TITILAYO: What do you envision the future of fashion and technology to look like?

GAO: I imagine a future that is less about spectacle and more about consciousness. Technology will continue to evolve, but the true innovation will come from our ability to use it with restraint. Fashion will not disappear; it will transform into a form of awareness. I see garments as quiet interfaces, capable of remembering, hesitating. The most radical gesture might be simplicity, the ability of a piece to reveal its intelligence without showing it.

In camera collection piece

In Camera collection. Photography by Maude Arsenault

2526 collection, tech wear

2526 collection. Photography by Maude Arsenault

Looking Would Create A Cord: An Interview of Abbey Meaker

A window into the redolent chambers of Abbey Meaker’s MOTHERHOUSE


interview by Summer Bowie

they pass through doors but do not leave
they see through the windows but do not look
looking would create a cord
and the outside would pull
— Abbey Meaker


In the summer of 2012, I visited the decommissioned St. Joseph’s Orphanage in Burlington, Vermont, with the polymathic visual artist and writer Abbey Meaker for the first and only time, to bear witness to her documenting the space. Upon entering, I knew nothing of the premises or its history, except that it was the former residence of her grandfather and great-uncle, whom she had never known. The air had an inexplicable weight to it, as though it were filled with lead particulates, and it felt like my heart was being held in a vice. I later read numerous violent testimonies from the children who lived there and about those who were disappeared, like Abbey’s great uncle. We also visited the nearby Mount Saint Mary’s Convent, which had a wholly inverse energy. Its private chapel bathed in natural light felt like an ebullient sanctuary. Still, what connected the two spaces, which had undergone minimal modifications since the late 1800s, were the former living quarters in each. A haunting chiaroscuro was created by the sunlight’s dauntless efforts to break through the shutters, curtains, and blinds that covered each window, all of which remained after the buildings had become inoperative and left in dire states of disrepair. Thirteen years later, Meaker has curated the resulting images into a book of photographs called MOTHERHOUSE that serves as an uncannily vivid portrait of what it felt like to occupy these illusory spaces.

SUMMER BOWIE: I’d like to start with your earliest memories of learning about the orphanage and the convent.

ABBEY MEAKER: I have a vague, nebulous memory of my mom telling me about her dad when I was about ten and we were living in the house she grew up in. We were driving by the orphanage where he grew up, so she pointed it out to me, and it had a really powerful presence. From there, I just became obsessed with it. For years, every time I drove by, I would stare at it. Or if I went to the beach, you could cut through the back of what was then the Catholic Diocese, and the orphanage part of the building was vacant. So, you could sneak through the backyard, but it sprawled across many acres directly to the lake. I even tried breaking into it a couple of times. 

BOWIE: So, you had never even heard about your grandfather until you were around ten years old?

MEAKER: My mom never talked about him much. The man I thought of as my grandfather was my step-grandfather. My biological grandfather, Arthur, I knew virtually nothing about because he died when my mom was seven. There’s this lore about his brother, Gilbert, who was sick, and my grandfather broke him out of the orphanage in the middle of the night and carried him on his back all the way to his dad’s house in Richmond—twenty miles maybe. But by the time he got there, Gilbert was dead. Over the years, though, there were changes in the story about whether he was already dead and Arthur wanted to bring his body home, or if he had died on the way. 

BOWIE: With that little known, it would almost seem like he just never even existed.

MEAKER: There’s no images of him. There’s no birth or death certificate. He exists only in these stories, in these memories. 

BOWIE: So, when did you finally manage to get into the orphanage?

MEAKER: In 2012, I heard that Burlington College [a small liberal arts school where Bernie Sanders’ wife, Jane, was president at the time] facilitated the purchase of the Catholic Diocese building. As soon as I heard that the school was there, I enrolled and gained access for the first time. 

BOWIE: How did the series evolve over time?

MEAKER: Firstly, the school was operating in a 1950s addition to the original structure. When the orphanage closed, a lot was removed, but a lot was left behind. Students weren’t allowed in there, but a photography professor would sneak me in a few times a week over the course of about three years. At first, I was just consuming the empty spaces and the light, and discovering this place that I had been yearning to see for so long. I was just running around haphazardly taking photos, which is why a lot of them are underexposed.

BOWIE: One of the things I immediately noticed about the work, once I saw it in print, is how counterintuitively they become more cinematic when you take them off the screen. Can you talk about that visceral quality of each room, the way you walk in a room and can immediately hear its score and imagine how people once occupied the space?

MEAKER: There’s a really pronounced absence. Paradoxically, that absence creates a sense of presence due to the large number of people who passed through there over the hundred years it was in operation. That presence still makes it feel full. I do remember vividly crossing the threshold from the ’50s addition into the original structure, and it felt like I was entering a portal—which is overused, but there was a distinct shift in feeling. The air felt really voluminous. It just felt extremely thick. 

BOWIE: It was thick. I’ve never felt anything like that before, where your lungs feel like they’re working a lot harder than they should be. I could actually feel my heart tightening. It was very, very strange.

MEAKER: I’ve had so many conversations with people who were staunchly convinced that my knowledge of the history and the abuse that took place there was informing my perception of the space. But then, people would go in with no knowledge and feel something. 

BOWIE: I didn’t know anything about it when I walked in, and I felt it immediately—and I’ve never been someone who felt particularly sensitive to things like that. What I love about the way you photographed the space is that you’re great at capturing those fleeting moments when the light is filtered through the windows in the most spectacular ways. How many hours were you spending there at a time to find those moments?

MEAKER: It’s interesting that you put it that way because that’s kind of how I describe my practice overall. Whether it’s an interior space with a history or in the natural environment, I find photos in a very intuitive way. I’ll walk around observing, and then I’m drawn to something. Initially, I was moving at such a fast pace because I could only be in there very briefly, so I would try to consume as much as possible. But then over time, I became more or less acclimated to it. I would spend two to four hours at a time there and just wander around. I would make sure I was there when the light was stronger to make sure that I had those moments. I’d walk into a room and it would just be like that.

BOWIE: Do you remember approximately when you wrote the poem about the windows, and can you describe the role that windows and mirrors play in these structures?

MEAKER: I wrote the poem about a year ago when I went to the convent. Eight or nine years had passed between my last visit to the orphanage and my time at the convent, and I was reminded of the feeling of being in this space with so many windows, yet the outside world felt so far away. When I thought of it in the context of the convent, I was considering the allure of the outside and the difficulty one might face in remaining committed to the inside. I was an outsider who’s not religious at all putting myself in the position of what I imagined the nuns there to be. I thought that they probably wouldn’t have been able to look deeply at the outside because they would be pulled.

BOWIE: I’m curious about the nun figure, who is wholly absent and yet deeply imbued in all of these images. What does she mean to you?

MEAKER: When I was at the orphanage, the nuns struck me as these uncanny figures because they were meant to be caregivers, but many of them were also monstrous and abusive. There are lists of nuns that were part of that order, the Sisters of Providence, but there’s no way of knowing who was abusive and who was kind. They were just very mysterious to me. So, I went digging in the University of Vermont Collections to find portraits of nuns that either lived there or at the convent and that wasn’t documented, so I found the portraits that I liked and projected them on the walls of the rooms where they lived, and they became these huge spectral images, and then I rephotographed them. I was so intrigued and repelled by their monstrous quality. I felt afraid.

BOWIE: As a specter within the space, it feels like everything but their image lives there. It makes sense to add that visual component to accompany the energy that’s left behind. 

MEAKER: In that context, knowing the history does inform the atmosphere. 

BOWIE: There’s something about these images where what initially seems almost too banal to draw your attention reveals itself to be layered with feelings and questions. Do these details reveal themselves to you slowly, or do you feel like they pull you in pretty immediately?

MEAKER: The atmosphere there was just so incredibly strong. Every corner was filled with it. I’m always curious if what I feel gets translated in the images, and in these, it clearly is, because everyone who’s looked at these seemingly banal, empty rooms feels they’re very full of something. 

 
 

BOWIE: Sometimes it’ll be a peculiar detail that feels out of place, like one curtain that is reaching for another in a very strange way. Other times, it’s the oddly perfect geometry of things. It speaks to the way that even the architecture mirrors the fastidiousness of the religion. These Catholic orphanages and convents became centralized institutions of both service and power to many cities and towns throughout New England, Canada, and the entire British Commonwealth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What do families like yours, who have been rooted in Burlington for multiple generations, share with others from around the world whose ancestors occupied similar spaces? 

MEAKER: The curious thing about this project is that I don’t know a lot about my history. There’s a lot of lore, but nothing concrete. Part of my attraction to the orphanage was a desire to feel a connection to this unknowable family and history. At the book release celebration, a friend asked me, “So how long has your family lived in Vermont?” and I’m like, “I don’t know.” It’s strange to say that because part of the story is that my mom’s father’s grandmother was an illegally adopted Abenaki child. [The Abenaki are an Indigenous people of the Northeastern Woodlands of Canada and the US.]

BOWIE: There are so many stories of displacement and disappearance. There’s a shared ambiguity amongst families from so many parts of the world, but even for those who know their stories, the epigenetic trauma remains.

MEAKER: If it’s true about my great, great-grandmother, then that really opened the door to all of it. My mom had a daughter when she was sixteen, whom I only learned about two years ago. My father also had a child taken away from him, whom I learned about when I was fourteen. 

BOWIE: Is it fair to say that even your family, which is not religious, was so culturally affected by the religion that major life decisions, major ruptures in the family, were still very much instigated by the shame that Christianity imposes?

MEAKER: I had never heard the word God until I was around six and a babysitter told me about this God figure. I had no idea what she was talking about. But it was because of religion and the shame of her teenage pregnancy that my mom was hidden away during her pregnancy, and then her daughter was adopted. She returned home as if nothing had happened, and no one knew. Her mom, who died ten years ago, knew. And when she had told me, I was then the only person who knew. 

BOWIE: It’s an interesting juxtaposition to the way we live now. There is such an extensive digital footprint of everyone and every tiny thing that they’ve done in their life. Every mundane little detail is recorded. 

MEAKER: There’s a real absence of records. My mom throws everything away. She doesn’t keep anything. 

BOWIE: Sounds liberating to a certain degree. 

MEAKER: Yeah, but in the absence of things, there’s also an absence of empathy and curiosity and passion.

BOWIE: That’s so fascinating. There’s an austerity to that, which has its own connection to Catholicism.

MEAKER: You think of a monastic little bedroom with one chair.

 
 

BOWIE: You’ve talked about the connection between this series and many others that you’ve taken in nature, sharing the capacity of making you feel transported in some way. Where are you currently going to find that feeling?

MEAKER: The woods. It’s the fifth year that every fall and winter, I go to the floodplains when the trees are bare, and I’m still not finished with that. There’s something about the floodplains that feels different from other forests. The river comes in, takes things away, and provides nutrients. There’s a real alive quality there that I’m engaging with. 

MOTHERHOUSE was published by Another Earth an independent publisher of artist books, tapes, and ephemera.

Masterpieces Everywhere: What to Expect From Clément Delépine’s Third & Final Act As Director of Art Basel Paris

Clément Delépine
Director, Art Basel Paris
Photography by Inès Manai for Art Basel. Courtesy of Art Basel.

interview by Summer Bowie

For those of us who are insatiable art enthusiasts, arranging one’s art fair agenda is an art unto itself. It not only requires a close study of all that is on offer throughout the week and the precise timing of transport in between, but a realistic expectation of energetic reserves and proper meal planning. With that in mind, it’s difficult to imagine how one might ever go about organizing an annual program of this magnitude. Art Basel Paris Director Clément Delépine is a master architect of the art fair if there ever were one. Having cut his teeth as co-director of Paris Internationale starting in 2016, he has spent the past decade refining this rarefied practice that is a perplexing combination of curation, commerce, civic diplomacy, and social design. Aside from the 206 exhibitors at the Grand Palais, this year’s fair includes 67 events comprising performances, talks, satellite exhibitions, and guided tours in collaboration with 9 official institutional partners within the City of Light. As the drone of chatter about the declining global economy beats like a rolling snare drum, attracting a broad and diverse audience while striking the right balance of education, entertainment, and alimentation seems an impossible feat. And yet, Art Basel Paris is once again one of the most anticipated events of the art world calendar. 

BOWIE: I want to start all the way at the beginning of your art career because you truly worked your way from the bottom. You started as an intern at the Swiss Institute, then moved up the ladder to eventually become the artistic director. And then, you became co-director of Paris Internationale before your current position as director of Art Basel Paris. Have you always had this blind ambition, or did it all happen more organically?

DELEPINE: Ever since I was a child I knew that I was destined for this. (laughs) No, I’ve been very lucky because I didn’t study art history—I was just responding to different opportunities. I moved to New York to escape a PhD program that I wasn’t disciplined enough to carry through. And then, I was offered an internship at the Swiss Institute. Eventually, the gallery manager was fired and I was asked to replace him, so my mom helped me with 5,000 euros to pay for a visa. From there, it all just accumulated. I met the right people, and back then in New York, you could invent yourself completely, and chances were given.

BOWIE: Was it the opportunity to direct Paris Internationale that brought you back to Paris?

DELEPINE: Well, not really. The real reason I moved back to Paris was because my wife and I wanted to have a child. I was born and raised in Paris, and I spent a lot of time in Zurich, but nonetheless, Paris was my hometown. When I was growing up it was a very hostile city, but since then it changed a lot. I came back to Paris from New York in 2016. And just by chance, I met a couple of gallerist friends from Galerie Gregor Staiger in Zurich. They had founded Paris Internationale the year before with Silvia Ammon who needed an accomplice, so to speak, and they offered me the job as co-director of the fair. At that point, I had been a curator of a non-profit and I had been an artistic director of a commercial gallery, but I was slightly afraid that working for a fair would be confusing—that it would give the impression that I didn’t know what I wanted to do, which in fact was the case. However, I decided to embrace the opportunity and it was very satisfying. So, I ended up doing that for five years, and ever since, the city started to feel very open and international and cosmopolitan again, so it felt like the right context.

Installation view of Alex Da Corte’s performance Kermit The Frog, Even, Fridericianum, Kassel, 2024.
Courtesy of the artist and Fridericianum, Kassel
The project will take place at Place Vendôme in Paris

BOWIE: The timing of that is very interesting too because it marks the beginning of the first Trump administration and also of Brexit. You got out of this mess that I’m in at just the right time. (laughs) But also since Brexit, there’s been this major surge in international galleries opening outposts in Paris. How would you characterize the current art scene there now?

DELEPINE: It’s a very vibrant dynamic, I have to say. Brexit was really the entry point for the European Union asserting its own art economy. Italy just passed a lower VAT rate [Italy’s value added tax was at 22% before Brexit]. It just went down to 5.5%. It has been 5% in France for some time now, so it was very helpful for the French market. Acquisitions were always the most important market within the EU and for the art market globally, so it’s very active. There is a much bigger community of galleries, and an unparalleled institutional landscape of public museums and private foundations. When I was in New York, the Paris scene was perceived as very dusty, but since 2016, there’s been a lot of new dynamics. These things work in cycles, of course, but back then, London was the economic center and the epicenter was Berlin. Now it seems like Paris combines those things, which is a good alignment of the stars for us. The gallery scene in Paris has many heavy hitters now like David Zwirner and Hauser & Wirth, who opened at great scale, and they wouldn’t do that if they didn’t trust that the French model could sustain it. So, It’s good energy at the moment.

BOWIE: Has the increase in art galleries led to a rise in artists working in Paris?

DELEPINE: I would say yes, but it’s a perfectly subjective question. What I can say is that my Instagram feed is full of young artists in search of sublets or apartments, and it really gives me Berlin vibes from the mid aughts, which is quite encouraging. Real estate is expensive, though. Paris is not extremely affordable, but it seems cheaper than other European capitals—London and Zurich, for instance. You can still find studio apartments, and it’s a very small, dense city. Plus, it’s very central. From here you can reach pretty much anywhere in the world.

BOWIE: Can you describe one recent artwork that made a profound impression on you?

DELEPINE: I just came back from Uzbekistan, where I went to attend the Bukhara Biennial that Diana Campbell curated, and her curatorial premise was to bring artists and artisans from Uzbekistan who emphasize the healing and transformational power of art. I attended a performance called the Bukhara Peace Agency Sozandas conceived by Anna Lublina, who’s a theater director. It was storytelling coupled with traditional Uzbek dance and song. This was in the context of an art biennial, which is meant to bring the work of these artists and artisans into the global art dialogue, but it was equally made for an audience of locals. There were many families and kids running everywhere next to a 13th century mosque. It was profoundly beautiful.

BOWIE: I want to turn now to Art Basel Paris to ask you about some of the successes of the inaugural edition that visitors can expect again and what will be different?

Art Basel Paris
Courtesy of Art Basel

DELEPINE: The inaugural edition at the Grand Palais was a success in the sense that it was one of the most anticipated events on the art fair calendar last year. We were also the first event to follow the Olympics, so the Grand Palais had been closed for five years. This meant that we had to plan for it while essentially blindfolded, because the renovation got delayed and we couldn’t access the building—first due to the Olympics, and then because of Chanel. So, it was a real leap of faith. The day before the opening while standing from the balcony to see what came together with the team was a very moving moment, and all of that is coming back.

There are slight changes on the floor plan because we mapped out the directory more precisely. Some galleries have moved, we’ve reinforced the signage and the experience in terms of food and beverage, the restaurant au Grand Palais is open, so there are more quality options to choose from, and we’ve created a new reception to welcome guests in a more fluid and breathable fashion. We’ve also reinforced the partner program, which is the institutional component of the fair. That takes place across nine sites throughout the city, and we’ve turned Avenue Winston Churchill, which separates the Grand Palais from the Petit Palais into a pedestrian space. Then, there is the conversations program, which will feature a full day of conversations curated by Edward Enninful, among many others. It's extremely abundant and, I hope, generous.

BOWIE: Nearly a third of this year’s exhibitors are either French or operate within the country. Why was it so important to maintain such a high ratio of French representation?

DELEPINE: Because it’s important to be anchored within the French scene. In terms of narrative, it needs to say something different than Art Basel or Art Basel Miami or Hong Kong or Doha, and it needs to serve a different purpose. When you cater to the same audience five times a year, you have to offer something different. Besides the Grand Palais, which is highly recognizable, I want the visitors to look at the floor plan and immediately know that they’re not in Basel. On the one hand, it’s a commitment to the city, and on the other hand, it’s a promise made to our visitors that it’s worth coming to Paris.

BOWIE: The art fair fatigue is a very real thing, so there’s a lot to be said for a site-specific offering. The fair also brings together galleries from forty-one different countries. Last year, we saw work from Lambda Lambda Lambda, which is the only contemporary art gallery from Kosovo with international recognition. Can you talk about your approach to diversity and balance when curating the exhibitors list?

DELEPINE: Absolutely. The fair aims to celebrate excellence within each segment of the market. It’s important to identify the leading voices within each community and to serve wide and emerging audiences. I want the visitors of Art Basel Paris to be confronted with galleries that frame the conversations, whether they take place at the very forefront of the avant-garde or in the most well-known art galleries. The last Venice Biennale theme was Foreigners Everywhere, and if the fair had a theme I would want it to be titled Masterpieces Everywhere. Whether that be a masterpiece from an emerging artist or Pablo Picasso, we have to look beyond any specific geography or market. Earlier this year, I visited the Islamic Arts Biennial in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which was all about challenging the notion that the West is the art world’s center of gravity. The canon should not be exempt from Western influence, but the rest of the world should not be belittled by it either. Ultimately, you serve the French scene when you position it on the same foothold as the excellency of the international scene; you create context.

BOWIE: You’ve always championed multidisciplinary dialogues as well. This fair in particular, embraces the blurring of lines between art and fashion. What do these disciplines gain from one another?

DELEPINE: These disciplines have often flirted with one another without always holding hands in public. But clearly, the inter-penetration, so to speak, has been made more obvious. I’m thinking of several fashion designers who are important art collectors, like Hedi Slimane, Jonathan Anderson, Raf Simons, Rick Owens, Pieter Mulier, Jacqemus. All of these designers collect art, their collections are inspired by art, and they collaborate actively with artists. Of course, Miu Miu is a partner of the public program, and Mrs. Prada has been known for championing artists and commissioning films by woman filmmakers.

Then, of course, there’s people like Helmut Lang or Martin Margiela, who transitioned from being fashion designers to visual artists and weren’t initially taken seriously as visual, conceptual artists. I never understood why a creative genius should have to be segmented, but I think those times are over, and these creative fields are much more porous. This is something we have to be attuned to because the people buying art also buy fashion, and are interested in things like sneakers or Labubus and other cultural signifiers. With an event of our caliber, we always have to question how we can continue to make the fair desirable for a younger generation of collectors.

BOWIE: Those Helmut Lang mattress sculptures are just incredible. And they’re actually a very logical continuation of his practice, considering that the mattress is a textile, and they’re often punctured, or perhaps impaled, by metal poles. So, it wasn’t a huge leap from threading a needle through fabric.

DELEPINE: I agree. If you consider Eckhaus Latta, for instance, they have been shown at MoMA PS1 and the Whitney Museum in what are considered very art-sanctioned exhibitions, so it means something.

BOWIE: And this will be the second year that the fair is officially partnering with Miu Miu. How did that come about and why not a French brand?

DELEPINE: I’m quite stacked, you know, with French brands. No, I’m joking. You know, Vuitton is an important partner inside the Grand Palais, so is Guerlain, but it’s not necessarily about France in this case. The commitment of Mrs. Prada and Miu Miu is unquestionable. They are, in my opinion equally credible interlocutors in fashion and in the visual arts. We’ve organized something at Palais d'Iéna, which is the location that they’ve used for their Paris runway show for a long time, and with fashion week taking place just three weeks before, it felt like a natural dialogue because it makes Art Basel visible to the Miu Miu audience, many of whom probably would not have set foot in the Grand Palais had it not been for this collaboration. It’s also an acknowledgement of the work that Miu Miu and Mrs. Prada are doing for the arts, so it’s a match made in heaven for us.

Art Basel Paris - Public Program
Courtesy of Art Basel

BOWIE: When discussing markets within just about any industry lately, the word uncertainty rings like a mantra. In the US, we’re seeing many emerging and mid-size galleries closing their doors. How are you feeling about the global art market these days?

DELEPINE: I mean, the numbers are low for everyone, and the art market, just like any asset, is not immune to the situation. The uncertainty is being fueled by the tariffs and the wars raging on, which leads to the rising cost of transporting premium goods. Certainly, things have been much better, but things have been way worse as well. It’s not the nineties, it’s not 2008, and it’s different from 2014. It’s a new cycle and a definitive generational shift. Some big names, like Tim Blum are sunsetting their galleries, and some are questioning how to reconfigure. There are also very young, energetic, and ambitious galleries that are seizing opportunities to establish themselves as new players. One could say the market is in crisis, but one has to remember that the etymology of the word ‘crisis’ is decision. So, now is the time to make important decisions. We’re definitely moving past the COVID phase and the fruits that it bore, and some of the galleries didn’t make investments following COVID, which proved unwise. It seems to me like the market is now finding a new temple. So, I’m not pessimistic, which is rare considering that I’m French. (laughs) This should be acknowledged. When I was in Bukhara, when I was in Saudi Arabia, wherever I travel, people are so excited about the Paris show. The feedback from the VIP reps is really important, and all the art advisors tell me that their biggest clients are coming and that everyone wants to be there. As a fair, it’s important that we craft a platform for commerce and transaction, but the galleries are equally, if not more interested in the new audiences we can bring to the event and in that respect, I think we are prepared to fulfill their expectations.

BOWIE: I was speaking to a young art advisor who used to intern for me, and she was saying that the one thing she’s seeing is that there are new opportunities for young collectors who normally wouldn’t have access to certain artists or works. So, this transitional period is providing new opportunities for people who are just starting their collections.

DELEPINE: It’s true. Sometimes the polar dynamics shift. Sometimes, a gallery is sufficiently empowered to prioritize its collectors because they have thirty people on the waitlist, so they can tell a collector to buy two and give one to a museum. These are tactics that have been well documented. And sometimes, the collectors take power back. It’s an important balance. Some collectors feel like they’ve been barred from accessing a certain caliber of works, but they shouldn’t be resentful. That’s the way market goes—offer and demand. Au contraire, they should take the opportunity to get their hands on works that were inaccessible to them only a few months ago.

BOWIE: I’m curious about the Premise sector, which is less about the commercial core of the fair and more about unusual, unexpected juxtapositions, or neglected histories. What can we expect to see there?

DELEPINE: The Premise sector is all about storytelling. In French we have a term called passeur, which doesn’t have an English equivalent, but it has to do with the dissemination of knowledge. So, this sector is configured in a way that encourages you to slow down. The booths are smaller and you can really focus on what you are looking at. You can expect to see the works of Hector Hyppolite, for instance. He’s a Haitian painter who has been overlooked and rediscovered as one of the very first heroes of Black portraiture. The Gallery of Everything is going to present a solo of his works with all the paintings that once belonged to André Breton and some of the works that were shown at the Centre Pompidou in the context of corps noir earlier this year. On the other end of the sector, we have a Robert Barry presentation staged by Martine Aboucaya that includes some of his rare immaterial works from 1969 and refers to his performance in the ’70s when he buried radioactive waste in Central Park. I find this quite interesting in an age when we’ve long felt like the nuclear threat is far behind us, and yet, it’s sadly relevant. Pauline Pavec will show the work of Marie Bracquemond, an impressionist painter whose career was interrupted because her husband who was also a painter forbade her from painting because he felt threatened by her success.

BOWIE: What is your best advice for navigating the Grand Palais so that you can see it all and pace yourself?

DELEPINE: Come at the very first minute, stay until the security kicks you out, hydrate yourself and not only with champagne. The fair is a very nice scale. It’s 206 exhibitors, but it’s 195 booths. You can do the booths without rushing or leaving the fair with a headache. Enjoy the setting, pause every now and then to remember where you are, look up at the sky through the glass ceiling. It’s a great experience. Last year on opening day, it was such a bright blue sky, beautiful sun, the energy was buzzing, you know, it was wonderful. A fair can be intimidating, but one should never feel embarrassed to ask questions. Because ultimately, even though gallerists can be tired after eight hours standing in high heels having had little to eat, if you show interest in the work, there’s nothing more exciting for an art dealer than to celebrate the work of the artist that they represent.

BOWIE: My last question for you has to do with your current career transition. Your new appointment at Lafayette Anticipations will be your first time directing a museum. How are you preparing for yet another new role in the art world?

DELEPINE: Well, I’ve dreamed for a long time of running an institution and everything is moving so fast, I really haven’t had much time to prepare. (laughs) I want to be respectful of the history, the legacy, and to bring my vision and my new ideas. But honestly, it’s still a little too early to prepare. I mean, I still have so much to do with the fair that this is a question for October 31st. Right now, I’m fully dedicated and committed to the show at Grand Palais.

Art Basel Paris takes place October 22-26 @ Grand Palais Avenue Winston Churchill 75008, Paris

Ugo Rondinone
The project will take place at Parvis de l’Institut de France in Paris

Making Things You Can Feel: An Interview of Larry Bell

Larry Bell with Pacific Red II. Photography by Matthew Millman, San Francisco 

introduction by Isabella Bernabeo
interview by Bill Powers

For over six decades, Larry Bell has skillfully molded contemporary art in America. Born in Chicago in 1939, Bell moved to the West Coast to study at the Chouinard Art Institute in Los Angeles, the historic precursor to CalArts. 

There, Bell became a member of Los Angeles’s Cool School, a rebellious group of artists, largely represented by Walter Hopps and Irving Blum of Ferus Gallery in the 1950s and ’60s, who brought modern-day avant-garde to the West Coast. Alongside Ed Ruscha and Robert Irwin, Bell is one of the last living members of the School. As a foundational figure in the Light and Space movement, Southern California’s take on Minimalism, which often employed industrial materials and aerospace technology to explore the ways that volume, light and scale play with our sense of perception, Bell made innovative work that experimented with the interconnections of glass and light and their relations to reflection and illusion. 

His most notable works involve his creation of semi-transparent cubes made out of vacuum-coated glass to form an immersive experience as the art melts into space. Recently, six of Bell’s cubes have been installed in Madison Square Park, where they will be on view until March 15, 2026. Improvisations in the Park carries on Bell’s legacy, but with a twist. Instead of their typical white cube environment, they have been placed outside to interact with the constantly changing elements, causing a new perception almost every hour. 

This idea, related to the flexibility of perception, is also highlighted in Bell’s recent series of collage works, Irresponsible Iridescence, on view now at the Judd Foundation in New York. These collages poured out of Bell after the passing of his wife two years ago, sharing a more emotional side of his work with audiences. They also subtly allude to the close friendship between Bell and the late Donald Judd. It was Bell who convinced Judd to build this now-historic organization in Marfa, Texas, rather than El Rosario, Mexico, impacting American art history forever.  

Blues from Aspen, 2018 
Lagoon and true fog laminated glass 
Each pane: 72 x 92 x 92 inches (182.9 x 233.7 x 233.7 cm) 
Courtesy the artist, Hauser & Wirth, and Anthony Meier Fine Arts. Commissioned by Madison Square Park Conservancy. Photo: Timothy Schenck. 

BILL POWERS: How does your work operate differently when it’s outside?

LARRY BELL: I’m just finding out for myself because the Madison Square Park project is the first installation I’ve done with rocks and trees and grass around. I’ve had work outside in courtyards and walled-in areas and next to swimming pools, but never in a jungle like this with squirrels hopping along and birds shitting on them.

POWERS: In Rose Macaulay’s book, The Pleasure of Ruins (1953), she says that a man-made object only knows its worth when it is left to battle it out in the elements without custodianship.

BELL: Everything has its time of being and a right to patina. Some people don’t like to see a patina on a sculpture because they think it alters the work somehow. I’m from a different point of view.

POWERS: In the same vein, I don’t think I’ve seen a Marcel Duchamp where the glass hasn’t cracked by now. That doesn't mean MoMA is throwing them away.

BELL: You know Marcel Duchamp came to visit my studio in 1962. He came with Richard Hamilton and the surrealist painter William Copley.

POWERS: William Copley also had a short-lived gallery in Beverly Hills where he exhibited Man Ray and Joseph Cornell. I believe Duchamp was an unofficial advisor for the gallery.

BELL: I was maybe twenty-two years old and there was a knock on my front door in Venice. Now, I ignored it because only building inspectors would try that entrance. All my friends knew to come through the back. So, after twenty minutes of this gentle rapping on my front door, I look out through this peephole and see three guys outside who don’t look like building inspectors. I open up and instantly Copley puts his hand out and says, “Walter Hopps sent us to see you.” Now Walter was a dear friend of mine so I invited them inside.

Blues from Aspen, 2018 
Lagoon and true fog laminated glass 
Each pane: 72 x 92 x 92 inches (182.9 x 233.7 x 233.7 cm) 
Courtesy the artist, Hauser & Wirth, and Anthony Meier Fine Arts. Commissioned by Madison Square Park Conservancy. Photo: Timothy Schenck. 

POWERS: And did you recognize Marcel Duchamp?

BELL: See, the thing is, I was a bit deaf even back then. When Copley introduced the other guests I didn’t really catch the name and just figured they were rich collectors or something.

POWERS: Probably better not to know you had living legends visiting you.

BELL: So, I’m giving them a tour of my studio and Hamilton is explaining to the other two men how something was made.

POWERS: The fabrication of it?

BELL: Yes, but in fact he was incorrect in his assumption so I jumped in the conversation to clarify when Copley says, “Now Marcel didn’t you do this in a certain way,” I heard the name Marcel and finally put two and two together. I must have completely frozen up because they left a minute later. The studio visit was over. I couldn’t talk anymore. Duchamp was in town, I found out later, to discuss his Pasadena Museum show with Walter Hopps.

POWERS: And that was your last encounter?

BELL: No, a couple of years later, I did a show in New York at Sydney Janis—a group exhibition on 57th Street—and Duchamp invited me over for tea. His wife, Teeny, answered the door and said, “Marcel is waiting for you in the parlor.” I walked into this incredible little room and there he was: a Brancusi to my right, a Man Ray to my left, a Max Ernst over here. He greeted me warmly and then Teeny brought out a tray of milk and cookies.

POWERS: Wow, a couple of real bad boy artists, huh?

BELL: We chatted a while and then I asked him if he was doing any shows and when he had made the work. And Marcel said, “Ooh, when I was six or seven.” He was saying he started the work when he was six or seven years old.

POWERS: A joke about how all creativity springs from childhood.

BELL: I remember he smoked these little cigars, which he held between his ring finger and his middle finger. I smoked cigars back then too but I never saw anyone hold them like that.

Installation view Irresponsible Iridescence, September 29, 2025–January 31, 2026, Judd Foundation, 101 Spring Street, New York. Photo Timothy Doyon ©️Judd Foundation. Art ©️Larry Bell. Donald Judd Art © Judd Foundation / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. 

POWERS: Was the Venice Beach Mafia a term you accepted being grouped into? Meaning the group of artists working in that area in the 1960s: you, Ken Price, Billy Al Bangston, Charles Arnoldi, Ed Ruscha.

BELL: I’ve actually never heard that term before but it sounds like the type of thing Judy Chicago might have called us.

POWERS: What is the rarest kind of light? Some might argue it’s the Northern Lights but I would say it’s the green flash at sunset.

BELL: I’ve seen that in Venice. More than once. At first I thought something was wrong with my eyes. I believe it’s related to the sunlight going through the water at eye level for a split second.

POWERS: Are there any colors you gravitate towards?

BELL: I like reds and blues. They do things to your eye. The blues are close to ultraviolet and the reds are close to infrared. You can’t see ultraviolet and you can’t see infrared either, but there are energies at work with those colors you can feel. I like the idea of making things that you can feel.

POWERS: Ellsworth Kelly has some color combinations like that, which dance in your eye and are almost impossible to photograph.

BELL: He was a friend of mine, Ellsworth. a gentleman.

Blues from Aspen, 2018 
Lagoon and true fog laminated glass 
Each pane: 72 x 92 x 92 inches (182.9 x 233.7 x 233.7 cm) 
Courtesy the artist, Hauser & Wirth, and Anthony Meier Fine Arts. Commissioned by Madison Square Park Conservancy. Photo: Timothy Schenck. 

POWERS: One of your art catalogues is named Time Machines. Is that after the book?

BELL: Have you ever read “The Invisible Man” by HG Wells? There’s a scientist named Griffin whom I feel a certain kinship with. In the story he develops a potion, which makes tissue invisible. The effect is that the body no longer absorbs light. It will pass through it. But no one from the establishment believes in his invention. He was met with ridicule and I empathize with the character. Anyway, before he tries out the potion on a person he feeds some to his landlady’s cat, which makes the animal invisible except for the pupils of its eyes. I had a large sculpture at my studio I’d just made and my daughter who was six years old walked into the center of it, and all I could see through the glass were the pupils of her eyes. So, I named the sculpture “The Dilemma of Griffin’s Cat.”

POWERS: You have said that glass does three things with light: absorb, transmit, and reflect. Which is most essential to activating your work?

BELL: I can say that the most tenuous of the three is absorbed light—that which penetrates and sticks with you.

POWERS: How did you come up with that pink carpet for your Dia Beacon piece?

BELL: It started because the building is an old factory. The room where my sculpture is situated is where they used to print the boxes for animal crackers. When they removed all the heavy machinery, there were big holes in the floor. So, I said, “We can’t do this project unless we have a pedestal or carpet underneath to level out the surface. Finally the curator agreed, and while we were sitting there she asks me, “What color are you going to make the carpet?” At that moment, her assistant was walking by wearing a pink sweater. I pointed at it and said, “THAT color!”

POWERS: Thank god the woman didn’t wear a gray turtleneck to work that day.

BELL: It was intuition and spontaneity and happenstance all rolled into one. I learned that from my teacher Robert Irwin: as an artist you have to trust yourself.

POWERS: You have a show opening at Judd Foundation in SoHo.

BELL: Don [Judd] was the first artist in New York to buy a work from me out of the studio.

Irresponsible Iridescense is on view through January 31 @ Judd Foundation 101 Spring St, New York

Improvisations in the Park is on view through March 15 @ Madison Square Park

Installation view Irresponsible Iridescence, September 29, 2025–January 31, 2026, Judd Foundation, 101 Spring Street, New York. Photo Timothy Doyon ©️Judd Foundation. Art ©️Larry Bell. Donald Judd Art © Judd Foundation / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. 

Vicariously Living Through Paintings: An Interview of Alison Blickle

 

Alison Blickle
Night Fate, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

 

interview by Charlie Kolbrener

In Alison Blickle’s work, viewers are invited to witness a glimpse of a world just as realized off the canvas as it is on it. The figures at the heart of her painting—sometimes based on elaborate photoshoots, sometimes an amalgam of disparate body parts from various sources—are characters who signal larger narratives reflecting our modern world, or concocted visions that live outside of time. Her latest collection, Future Ruins, on view at the Kravets Wehby Gallery, invites attendees to inspect a future that infuses a nostalgic melancholy for nature with a glimmer of the beauty still accessible in her perhaps pessimistic view of what lies ahead. 

Blickle has effectively been painting her whole life, but went on to study Political Economy when plagued with the feeling that “it felt too impractical to pursue as a career.” After working for Diane Feinstein for six months, her realization that “whatever your job is is what your life is” would send her back to get her MFA at Hunter College and embark on the creative path that sees her work on display in New York City now, over a decade later. As we prepare to discuss her new collection, she reflects to me how she first made the leap into pursuing painting: “I have to pursue what I know fulfills me and what I love.”

CHARLIE KOLBRENER: The process for creating this collection differed a bit from your work over the past few years. Can you tell me a bit about how you were producing work previously?

ALISON BLICKLE: I didn’t do it for this body of work, but for the past five or six years, I would put on big photoshoots to get reference images for the paintings. And they ended up getting pretty elaborate. I did a shoot at Jeffrey Deitch’s house in LA, in the Hollywood Hills. I would find interesting locations and have mostly art world friends helping set up lights, build sets, and everything. And that was something I’d never done before. I’d been painting for so long, and I found ways to challenge myself with it and to evolve with it. So, it was fun while I was doing these shoots to push myself into a totally different thing. And painting is totally solo, so having to collaborate and direct people and everything, it was fun.

Alison Blickle
Snow Hike, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

Alison Blickle
Hilltop Meadow Experience, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

KOLBRENER: And then what was the process of taking these images and converting them to painting?

BLICKLE: There was never one photo where it’s like, I’m gonna paint this. It was always chopped up and combined from other ones. I would collage in architectural elements or fake nature elements or weird objects or neons hovering around. You can recognize the people for sure. It’s true to what they look like, but I did a lot of manipulation from the photo that I took to what I ended up using as the reference for the painting.

KOLBRENER: How did the process differ as you approached this collection?

BLICKLE: I’m an art history nerd and I love classical painting, where they’re painting myths with very dynamic groups of figures. I love that tradition so much that I wanted to carry it through to the present day reflecting modern life. I was making a lot of these group paintings with life-size people that were very detailed and maximalist, but I think I’d sort of maxed out on the maximalism. This time, I wanted to make a body of work completely on my own.

Every body of work basically has a narrative underpinning and when I was doing those big group paintings, I would choose an ancient myth that has a powerful female archetype, or goddess in it. Then I would set that character or story in the modern day and connect it to things that are happening now. I love how mythologies have a universality and timeless wisdom that feels comforting, like a guide for modern life.

This time, I wanted to simplify the paintings and try something different. Instead of using the past to help understand the present day, I did more of a sci-fi vibe. The story behind these is that they’re set in a dystopian future where nature doesn’t exist anymore the way it does today, but people still have that longing to connect with something larger than themselves in a spiritual way. The only way that people can do that in this world is in a virtual reality experience, and they go into that as an avatar of themselves. So these paintings are of avatars in these artificial digital environments, hoping to have some sort of feeling of transcendence or connection to something larger than themselves. But it’s falling short and that’s why some of the figures are crying. I’m trying to blur the line between, are they feeling sad because it’s not what they were hoping would happen? or are they partly overcome by actually seeing a space like this for the first time?

KOLBRENER: How are the subjects produced for this series where you’re not relying on actual models and shoots?

BLICKLE: They’re almost like Franken-people, where none of them are an image of a single person. The heads are from different places, they’re all just cobbled together from different sources. And same thing with the environments that they’re in. 

I also think about AI a lot. My previous show was a sort of prayer to this particular Roman deity who oversees periods of transformation to guide humanity into this transition with AI, not knowing what direction it’s going to go for us. I’ve been really into AI for years now, from a place of fear. I mean, you can already buy AI robots that look really human, you can buy an AI robot girlfriend. So, assuming that trajectory continues, at some point, there’s going to be AI robots that are living amongst us. And if they do develop some level of consciousness, something that they might be interested in is what it would have felt like to experience nature in this way. So, these could be human avatars, or they could be robots going through this experience.

 

Alison Blickle
Mask, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

 

There are moments in all of the paintings where I used an AI prompt to create a little section. For example, I wanted to put a weird sun in the sky. That was generated by AI. All of the paintings have a little section that was generated by AI, and I think it sort of conceptually works with the paintings. There’s still a weird awkwardness of AI that made sense with these figures being in a curated digital world.

KOLBRENER: In this collection—or in your work more broadly—what do you look to outside of art to take inspiration?

BLICKLE: Definitely movies, David Lynch is a big inspiration. The paintings in this show that have the duos in them, I was thinking about Mulholland Drive and the doppelganger, or the alter ego. In this piece, where the arms are crossing, the fabric is sort of blending into each other, and it's hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. I love David Lynch's dark surrealism, but his colors are so beautiful. 

 

Alison Blickle
Day Trip, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

 

KOLBRENER: How do you feel your art and the themes within it more generally have evolved since you started?

BLICKLE: It’s a good question. One through line has been that I always—on some level—feel like the figures are a stand in for myself to get to do certain things that I don’t do in my regular life. So, it’s a way of living vicariously through my paintings. 

In terms of evolving, this is my favorite work that I’ve ever made. I’ve been making paintings for so long now, and this is starting to circle back to older work that I made, where these figures are having more of an internal experience. They feel quieter, more contemplative, and a little bit isolated. There’s a melancholy and beauty to them, which reflects modern life. When I started doing these elaborate photoshoots, the figures in them were very performative. I was working with ideas about social media a lot, and how that changes how we think about ourselves. So, the characters looked like they were on stage, and they wanted to be looked at. I explored those externalized, ‘look-at-me’ performative scenes long enough. And now, I’ve been doing a lot more introspection, so I wanted the paintings to circle back. They don’t visually look the same, but they have that same similar quietness. The characters are having an internal experience that you just happen to witness.

Future Ruins is on view through October 4 at the Kravets Wehby Gallery 521 West 21st Street, Ground floor, New York

 

Alison Blickle
Ladies Night, 2025
courtesy the artist and Kravets Wehby Gallery

 

Atlanta As A Nexus Point: An Interview Of Kevin "Coach K" Lee and Ami Sueki

Atlanta has long been a cultural capital, and few figures have been more central to that rise than Kevin “Coach K” Lee. As co-founder of Quality Control Music, he helped launch the careers of Migos, Lil Yachty, City Girls, and Lil Baby, building one of the most influential music rosters of the past decade. Designer Ami Sueki, through her studio Zoo as Zoo, has worked at the intersection of fashion, art, and design with collaborators ranging from Nike to Coca-Cola.

Together, the two have future plans for EXIT, a new 5,000-square-foot space at Atlanta’s Goat Farm arts campus. Set to be designed by Berlin-based architect Daryan Knoblauch, EXIT will be a flexible, multi-use hub—part gallery, studio, concept shop, and event space—intended to address Atlanta’s lack of artist-first “third spaces.” Programming in its first year will include capsule fashion collections, installations, a twelve-track album released monthly with accompanying films, and an inaugural Nike collaboration sneaker.

Earlier this year, EXIT hosted a residency with London-based Nigerian artist Slawn and Lil Yachty, who produced a full body of work in just two days. That collaboration now extends to New York with an exhibition pop up at The Hole, underscoring the project’s mission: to give Atlanta’s creative community the resources to stay rooted locally while connecting to global networks.

OLIVER KUPPER: Atlanta is this really interesting nexus point in the Venn diagram between New York and Los Angeles. Maybe we could start with Atlanta—what it is, where it is, what the cultural scene is.

KEVIN “COACH K” LEE: I’m from Indianapolis, Indiana, and growing up, sports were my refuge. I was raised in a single-parent household in what you could call the ghetto, and basketball became my escape. I played all through school, and when it came time for college, it was my first love. I went to an HBCU in Raleigh, North Carolina, but the first offer I ever got was from Clark Atlanta University.

I remember visiting Atlanta right after high school, and I was honestly a little nervous. The Atlanta child murders in the early 1980s were still a lingering memory for me—35 kids disappeared over a three-year period—and that always frightened me as a kid. So, I ended up going to school in North Carolina, but I had friends at Morehouse and Clark Atlanta, and I would drive down from Raleigh to visit. It was about a five-hour drive, but whenever I went, I could see the city thriving in a way I’d never experienced before.

This was around the time LA Reid moved to Atlanta and started shaping the music scene with his label, LaFace Records. Freaknik was happening, the culture was vibrant, and it felt like a pot of gumbo—you had locals, “Atlantonians,” who were born and raised there, and then you had students coming from all over the country to the city’s four major HBCUs, bringing with them their subcultures. Every time I came back and forth, I remember thinking, I’ve never seen Black people in this kind of position before.

I remember visiting a friend in West Atlanta—he grew up in Cascade—and the neighborhood was just mansions. And it was almost entirely Black families. I’d never seen anything like it. That’s when I realized Atlanta was special, not just because of its music or culture, but because it had sustained African American leadership for decades, and the city’s infrastructure allowed Black culture to flourish. After the ’96 Olympics, Atlanta became a global city in a real way. Traveling for work now, people ask if I’ll move to LA or New York, but there’s nothing like coming home here. The southern hospitality, the warmth—it’s incomparable. And beyond music, the art scene has really started to bloom over the past twenty years. 

OLIVER KUPPER: But in the past decade, especially with social media and TikTok, Atlanta’s influence has gone global—it’s supercharged.

AMI SUEKI: Absolutely. Even when I traveled a few years ago—I was in Amsterdam at a hotel bar—people asked where I was from. I said Atlanta, and immediately they said, “Oh, that’s where Migos are from!” A few years prior, people didn’t even know where Atlanta was. Trap music from Atlanta now has a global audience, and it really connected with the younger generation.

OLIVER KUPPER: Ami, what brought you to Atlanta originally?

AMI SUEKI: I’m Japanese American. I was born in Knoxville, Tennessee, and grew up in a military town in North Carolina near an Air Force base. 9/11 happened during my formative years, and my everyday life was shaped by conversations about war—my friends and family were serving overseas. I grew up around a very American, very Southern environment. People hunted, drank beer, shopped at Walmart when they still had guns. 

I studied neuroscience and industrial design in Raleigh and Durham, and my first job out of college was at Coca-Cola as an industrial designer. I stayed in Atlanta after three years because I realized how deeply my upbringing connected to Southern culture. People often assume I’m from Tokyo because of how I dress or my interests in art, music, and fashion, but I feel a deep resonance with Atlanta—the language, the slang, the food, the community.

OLIVER KUPPER: And what was your role at Coca-Cola?

AMI SUEKI: I was an industrial designer—working on packaging, vending machines, merchandising, and retail. 

OLIVER KUPPER: And what was it about neuroscience that drew you in?

AMI SUEKI: I was a total math and science nerd growing up. I loved biology and the complexity of the brain—how it shapes movement, perception, and experience. I even worked in a Duke lab studying Alzheimer’s. But lab life wasn’t for me; it was too rigid. Then I discovered design through Surface Magazine at an airport, and that completely shifted my trajectory. I ended up at NC State for industrial design, and from there, I stayed in Atlanta.

OLIVER KUPPER: Kevin, tell me about the start of Quality Control Music.

COACH K: I’d been in the music business for fifteen years before starting QC. At the time, I managed Gucci Mane, and Pierre Thomas, my business partner now, used to travel with us and observe. In 2013, I was ready to start my own label because I realized I had been building brands for other artists but not for myself. Pierre had a studio and wanted out of the business. I convinced him to partner, saying I’d bring talent. A week later, we signed Migos, and that was the beginning.

OLIVER KUPPER: What was the pitch?

COACH K: Honestly, Gucci was about to go to prison, so he passed on signing them. Pierre and I said, “We’ll do it,” and that was it. We didn’t look back.

OLIVER KUPPER: And your focus has always been authenticity, right?

COACH K: Yes. Authenticity and originality. I’m a storyteller at heart, and I need to feel the artist’s story. Voices move me, but authenticity drives me. That’s why when I saw Lil Yachty, I knew he had a lane no one else had—his confidence, his voice, his identity—all authentic. That’s how we brought him to brands like Target, Reebok, and Nike.

OLIVER KUPPER: Ami, how did you and Kevin meet?

AMI SUEKI: At a dinner. I wasn’t in the scene, but my team was doing creative work around the city.

COACH K: We knew of each other but hadn’t met. A mutual friend set up a dinner, and we clicked immediately. The connections were crazy—shared birthdays, hometowns, kids, even shoes. Eventually, we decided to start a company together.

OLIVER KUPPER: Can you talk about Zoo as Zoo?

AMI SUEKI: The name comes from the old idea of a zoo—a place where lions, polar bears, goats, all coexist. We take that approach to creativity: diverse people, diverse disciplines. We focus on people first and let the outcomes emerge naturally. Our team has stayed together for ten years, which is rare, and we invest in curiosity-driven projects, like our Glow-in-the-Dark Ramen pop-up.

OLIVER KUPPER: How does Exit fit into all of this?

AMI SUEKI: Exit is a space for creatives to connect, experiment, and explore. Atlanta loses talent because people leave for global opportunities. Exit allows them to stay, collaborate, and thrive here without leaving.

COACH K: Exactly. From a music perspective, I was tired of artists having to go to LA or New York to be seen. Exit gives creatives a home in Atlanta.

OLIVER KUPPER: The pop-up this Friday—how did it come together?

COACH K: Lil Yachty’s friend SLAWN is a rising artist. We wanted to bring him here for a residency. Slawn created a huge body of work in 48 hours. I called Ami, and we realized it was perfect for Exit. The first Exit event was on her birthday, the second on mine—this one is another milestone.

OLIVER KUPPER: It sounds like you’re merging worlds—music, art, design—outside traditional gallery systems.

SUEKI: Yes. We’re fluid, holistic, and adaptive. Creative industries are in flux, and we embrace that.

COACH K: Physical presence matters. Experiencing art, culture, and people firsthand gives us the insight to tell authentic stories. Social media is fine, but it’s limited.

OLIVER KUPPER: It seems like Atlanta is a laboratory for culture, with both of you as the researchers.

SUEKI: Exactly. Physical interaction is crucial for real cultural development.

COACH K: Whether it’s music, fashion, or art, I need to be there to feel it—to understand the context, the energy, the story.

OLIVER KUPPER: The way you’re approaching this—it feels like you’re building infrastructure for creativity in a city that deserves it.

SUEKI: That’s the goal. To create platforms for collaboration, experimentation, and growth. Atlanta has incredible talent—it just needs the space and support.

COACH K: And it’s happening now. We’re seeing artists, designers, and creators staying here and building globally from Atlanta. That’s what makes this city special.

 Friday, September 12 & Saturday, September 13, 2025. 12PM - 8PM. The Hole Gallery,  312 Bowery, New York

Rich In Your Ways: An Interview of Polite Society Designer Surmai Jain

 

Surmai Jain founder of Polite Society

 


interview by Parrie Chhajed


In the bustling streets of Bandra, nestled in a quiet corner, sits Polite Society Shop No.1. With an innovative approach to sustainable design, the label doesn’t just sell clothes; it facilitates an honest and respectful dialogue between its customers and the environment. Surmai Jain, founder and creative director, spent her formative years living between India, New York, and Armenia. This uniquely diverse life experience afforded her an aesthetic sensibility that is both coyly dramatic and delicately balanced. In just five years, she has built a brand whose concerted approach to responsible sourcing and scaling has bolstered her creative outcomes and earned her a loyal and steadily growing clientele.

PARRIE CHHAJED: I’d love to start with the story behind the name Polite Society. Where did it come from?

SURMAI JAIN: When I was naming the brand, I had my name, Surmai Jain, as an option. But I wanted it to feel more like a community, more like a society. While conducting research, the name 'Polite Society’ came to mind. It’s an old literary term referring to people with really good manners and a high standard of wealth. I thought it would be ironic for us to take that because money isn’t all that makes you rich. We have a tagline that says, “You can be rich in your ways,” which sums it all up.

CHHAJED: Your approach to modernity and individuality is very unique. What is the guiding philosophy behind the brand?

JAIN: I started from Rajasthan, went to Armenia, later Bombay, and then to New York. By the time I was twenty-five years old, when I started the label, I felt like I had already seen so many cultures and met so many different people who inspired me through life. Each place has made a very different impact on me, and it has shaped my understanding of the world. All of that helps me design for everyone: a woman, a man, or whoever. When we’re closing in on a design, I imagine myself or someone else wearing it. Do they feel good wearing it?

CHHAJED: How have your experiences in Mumbai, New York, and Armenia—places with wildly different perspectives on fashion—shaped your design sensibility?

JAIN: Fashion practices are different all over. In India, art is synonymous with what artisans are doing. It’s all about their legacies and heritage. In New York, it’s about individuality and self-expression. So, I take a little bit of everything. I also grew up painting and designing, and over time, I found my method of expression.

CHHAJED: Do you feel the way those traits translate specifically in your designs?

JAIN: I go through phases. Right now, I’m feeling more connected to my roots. Maybe it’s just being thirty-two. For this collection, and then the next one, we took inspiration from Rajasthan and used more techniques like Leheriya. Initially, I felt more like a modern designer, but as you search for more inspiration, it comes from your own stories. When you go deeper, being from a certain place makes those things feel valuable. Tomorrow, it could be something else. I might travel to some place and find inspiration there. We did handwork this time, and that’s been incredible. We did a banana leather appliqué with studs. Which is exciting because we are taking the handloom as a base, but doing it differently. 

Banana Leather Keychains

CHHAJED: I think that’s what translating our culture into the language of modernity is all about at the end of the day. Your career path took you from painting to graphic design, and ultimately, to fashion. Do those varying disciplines inform one another? 

JAIN: A hundred percent. It’s all because of that. For example, if you look at the space. We took a lot of time designing it and attending to the smallest details. When you do graphics, you see the same thing in a different light. So, whether you’re designing clothes or a space, you have to have your aesthetics and philosophy in place. Because I learned graphics as a medium, I did our initial branding myself. It was important to make my own universe first and then bring people in and expand it. Right now, we are doing a little rebrand, so I went to someone else and asked for help, but I wasn’t able to outsource in the beginning.

With painting, one of the key pieces that we started with was a few shirts that had illustrations on them. Those were hand-done by me. So initially,  there was a lot of work that I would do myself to set the tone.

CHHAJED: What are the key elements of Polite Society’s design language?

JAIN: One major thing that I like to do is blend the highs and the lows. It’s interesting to create an odd contrast that looks beautiful with elements like finished and unfinished hems. Or in the store, you can see how the glass meets the concrete. One of the earlier key pieces we had at the store was a half-and-half pant that started as a pair of trousers and then transitioned to denim. I like to play with contrast and then balance the femininity with a little bit of masculinity. If we design a dress, I like to add an element to make it a little masculine. It always has to be balanced.

CHHAJED: Can you talk about the brand’s approach to sustainability and if there have been any hurdles that you’ve faced in pursuit of it?

JAIN:  Many companies don’t talk about it, but sometimes you have a bad lot. Once, we sent our denim for a wash, and it came back spoiled. What do you do with it? It hurts because of the work that has already been put in. So, we used that fabric and made corsets. That piece is completely made from deadstock that we couldn’t use. Everyone loved it, and we even considered trying to wash our denim like this.

AAdditionally we've tried some new accessories. These key chains are made from banana leather. Because why not? I met someone who was doing that, and I think it’s better than using animal products.

CHHAJED: What are some of the other non-fashion influences that shape your work in general?

JAIN: Music culture influences me because I grew up listening to a lot of R&B. Often, when you’re designing, you think, If she wore it, that would be nice. For me, it’s always powerful women who are in music and owning it. You can see that being translated into the designs. It wasn’t just about being objectified. It was the overall aura and personality.

CHHAJED: Are there any musicians whose work you’ve translated in any of your collections?

JAIN: Georgia Smith. During one of the earlier collections, I would listen to her the whole time. There are now these women like Sabrina, but back when I was in school, we had Rihanna. I feel like no matter what, the world always comes back to her. 

CHHAJED: Polite Society has a unique niche. How do you approach marketing and building your audience?

JAIN: I just try to stay true to myself. A lot is going on in the industry, and everyone’s just trying to make space for themselves. As designers in this competitive space, if you let that get to you, it will not go well for your mental health. Early on, I felt like I could connect with my consumers. We had experiences that fortified the idea that if I had a store tomorrow, they would show up. We did pop-ups in our studio in Marol, and people were willing to come all the way there to try on pieces. When we saw them try it on and immediately get convinced, that’s when we knew we were doing something right. Those small moments shaped it all.

Being in touch with the consumer has helped. We don’t work in isolation. We opened a studio so people could come in and talk. I always ask, “Which one do you like? What do you not like? What would you want?” People are pretty honest. We have also been working with cool singers and artists from the start, like Kavya Trehan and Liza Mishra, who’ve grown alongside us and fostered a sense of community. They still want to wear Polite.

For the marketing aspect, you need clarity of vision. You need to know where you want to go and make choices on how to grow.

CHHAJED: Sticking to your brand value is difficult in such a saturated world. What have been some of the biggest challenges of running an independent label in India?

JAIN: One massive challenge is producing things. In this space, you either know how to get it done or figure it out doing your own. It’s not organized; you can’t just say, “I want this done this way” and expect someone to do it for you. It comes through experience and team building. As you grow, people’s expectations increase daily. We want to meet those expectations, but it takes a lot of effort. While it’s challenging to grow, maintaining what you’ve done at a smaller scale is equally important.

I learned pattern making because I had to. Otherwise, I would just be imagining random things. You should be able to tell someone, even if not to the letter, how you want it constructed. If you can’t let go and communicate that to someone else, it’s over.

And also the team. I tend to have designers who aren’t afraid to try things, do trials, and drape it themselves. It’s not just about drawing on a piece of paper; it’s a lot of hands-on work.

 
 

CHHAJED: What does the future hold for Polite Society?

JAIN: We’re just trying to take it where it can go. We want to start with India properly and place ourselves in the major cities. Polite Society does have online purchases, but I know that our audience likes to try things on before they buy. I’m traveling and working simultaneously, but these are the steps required for placing yourself on the map. And I also love meeting other creators. I’m traveling to London for work soon. I haven’t done this since New York, which was a while ago, so now, of course, I want to do things outside; outside of studios, and the city, and get ourselves as far out there.

CHHAJED: What piece of advice would you give to aspiring designers who want to have their own space in the industry?

JAIN: Be true to yourself. Your brand vision has to come from within. If you’re looking up to other designers, don’t look to copy or recreate it. You don’t want that. You just want to be you. Business-wise, everything has to make you money. Designers often forget this because they think some angel is going to come and things will suddenly work out commercially.

If you’re building a business, then you have to get your numbers right. Are you making sure that this is something you can replicate at least ten times to make some money? Is it something that can sustain in the industry, or is it just uplifting? 

Rooted, Relevant, and Evolving: Rajiv Menon on Redefining South Asian Diasporic Art

 
 


interview by Parrie Chhajed

With each new generation of immigrants from South Asia making their way to the various corners of the world, so too does their culture and unique interpretation thereof. With the context of comparison, they offer perspectives on their homeland that challenge the idea of authenticity deriving from one’s geographic placement. Thus is the crux of Non-Residency, a group show that comprises sixteen artists of South Asian diasporic identity curated by Rajiv Menon. Bringing the work of non-resident South Asian artists directly to Jaipur is a first for the young gallerist and curator who opened Rajiv Menon Contemporary in Hollywood, California, in his quest to bolster representation of the Indian diaspora within the United States. He refers to these artists as the Non-Resident School, effectively defining a voice of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) taste that is both united and richly diverse by way of its orientation.

Sahana Ramakrishnan
The People Under The Sea

PARRIE CHHAJED: First off, congratulations on the exhibition. The work and the scale of the gallery is quite remarkable.

RAJIV MENON: Thank you so much. It’s really been a mission of mine to bring South Asian art to the U.S. and build a new audience for what I believe is some of the most important work happening globally. Seeing such a meaningful response has been incredibly rewarding.

CHHAJED: Let’s start with Non-Residency. It’s a cleverly charged title. How did it come about, and what does it mean to you personally?

MENON: One of the early inspirations was the ongoing cultural debate around “NRI taste.” I was very attuned to the perception of this gap in sensibility between India and its diaspora. While that gap is real, I wanted to understand its emotional and social underpinnings—and more importantly, how those conditions can be fertile grounds for art-making. I didn’t want this to be just an art exhibition. I wanted Non-Residency to act as an intervention in the culture itself—to challenge how we think about the relationship between the motherland and its diaspora, and to elevate diasporic voices as central, not peripheral, to the narrative of Indian art.

CHHAJED: This is also your first professional project in India and the first time a singular gallery is showcasing at the Jaipur Centre for Art. How does that feel both personally and professionally?

MENON: Immense. I’ve always been in awe of Indian galleries—their coherence, their mission, the way they’re contributing to defining India’s national visual identity. That spirit is what I wanted to engage with. As a diasporic gallery, we don’t operate within India’s territorial boundaries, but we are equally invested in its cultural perception globally. This exhibition is my way of asserting that the diaspora isn’t just looking in from the outside—we’re in dialogue. We’re translating, challenging, and innovating alongside what’s happening in India.

CHHAJED: The exhibition is set in Jaipur’s historic City Palace, yet it tackles themes like migration, displacement, and otherness. How did the palace’s context influence your curatorial choices?

MENON: I really wanted to play with that irony—the grandeur of a heritage space colliding with deeply contemporary diasporic narratives. Jaipur, in the Western and diasporic imagination, often represents fantasy and opulence. By placing diasporic work in that setting, it creates a tension. The goal was to force the viewer to confront that gap and start a dialogue between heritage and the now. The Jaipur Centre’s mission aligns with this—to open up heritage spaces to contemporary voices, and that made it the perfect partner.

CHHAJED: What was the initial spark for this exhibition—what made you feel that Non-residency was needed now?

MENON: Over the past few years, I’ve seen a distinct shift in diasporic art—a cohort of artists in conversation with each other, building something that felt like a movement. I’m calling them the Non-resident School—artists working through similar themes and aesthetics, but with singular visions. Many are already in major museum and private collections, but the world wasn’t seeing it as a movement yet. Non-residency is my way of announcing that. It’s a statement: This is not isolated brilliance—it’s a cultural wave that’s reshaping how South Asian identity is viewed globally.

Kelly Sinnapah
Mary Violette’s Book The Girl with 3 Eyes, 2025
JCG18987
photograph by Christopher Burke Studio

As if Hoque Up Up And Away

CHHAJED: And that wave is definitely visible—not just in art, but across music, fashion, and literature as well.

MENON: Absolutely. Indian fashion, in particular, has had such an incredible global presence lately. When I meet young designers and creatives from India, there’s this shared vision—to show that Indian aesthetics are not just relevant, but leading on the world stage. Whether it’s garments or fine art, we’re participating in the same cultural project. That’s why it’s so important to me that my gallery also acts as a platform to showcase fashion and other creative expressions from India.

CHHAJED: Diasporic identity is often framed through nostalgia. But this exhibition feels like a break from that. Was that intentional?

MENON: Very much so. One of my biggest critiques of diasporic work is its frequent fixation on the past. I wanted this show to be about the future—about innovation. The artists featured are using their identities not to look back longingly, but to create something new. This is about possibility, not just memory. I wanted to challenge the idea that diasporic work is a diluted echo of Indian culture. It’s not. It’s its own form—rooted, relevant, and evolving.

Installation view. Non-Residency. Jaipur Centre for Art 2025

CHHAJED: That’s a powerful shift. You’ve also spoken about moving away from “authenticity” as a standard for Indian art. Can you elaborate?

MENON: The notion that work must be created in India to be authentically Indian is limiting—and frankly outdated. Authenticity is not fixed. It evolves. What we think of as “authentic Indian culture” today is different from fifty or a hundred years ago. Diasporic art is no less authentic just because it’s created elsewhere. It reflects the lived experiences and social contexts of the artists. If we continue to gatekeep Indian culture through rigid authenticity, we miss out on incredible new voices and visions.

CHHAJED: The artist list for Non-Residency includes a rich mix of intersectional identities. Was that intentional?

MENON: I don’t believe curation should be a box-ticking exercise. But if you’re genuinely tuned into the landscape, diversity happens naturally. I wanted to present a wide spectrum of diasporic experience—not just the dominant post-1965 immigration narrative. That’s why including Indo-Caribbean artists was essential. Their work speaks to layered displacements and complex racial and cultural identities. This isn’t just about representing different experiences—it’s about expanding the aesthetic language of the diaspora.

Installation view. Non-Residency. Jaipur Centre for Art 2025

CHHAJED: What was the process like of choosing the artists and curating the show?

MENON: A joy. The majority of the works were created specifically for this show. Many artists responded to the location of Jaipur itself. Anoushka Mirchandani, for example, created a painting in response to Jackie Kennedy’s iconic shoot in Jaipur. Nibha Akireddy, who’s currently in residency at JCA, explored the history of women polo players in the region. The curatorial framework—non-residency as both a social and aesthetic concept—also led me to explore the uncanny. There’s a distortion, a doubling that diasporic artists often experience when engaging with the homeland. That tension became an aesthetic throughline across the works.

CHHAJED: Earlier this year, you also launched a permanent space in Hollywood. How has the journey been of creating a gallery focused on South Asian art in the U.S.?

MENON: There was a huge gap on the West Coast for South Asian art, and the response has been incredible. Not just from the diaspora but from the broader art community. Museums have been especially supportive, and that’s a major signifier of cultural impact. But yes, one of the challenges is the lack of cultural literacy—many Americans don’t have a deep understanding of India. That’s why our gallery isn’t just commercial—it’s educational. I want people to understand the context, the complexity, and the multiplicity of Indian art.

CHHAJED: How did the collaboration with the Jaipur Centre come about?

MENON: I attended their opening last year and was deeply moved. Noelle Kadar and HRH Sawai Padmanabh Singh have a truly global vision for Indian art. It felt like the perfect place to make a cultural statement, to bridge the diaspora and the homeland. Their level of ambition and taste matched the gallery’s, and the collaboration just made sense.

CHHAJED: Were there any surprises along the way?

MENON: The journey is still unfolding—the show installs next week! While I visit India often and it feels like home, bringing art here as a business is a new experience. There’s been a learning curve, but this is only the beginning. We’ll also be showing at the India Art Fair in February and plan to keep India as a consistent part of our programming.

CHHAJED: If Non-residency is a homecoming, what’s next?

MENON: In September, we take on a different kind of homecoming—I’ll be curating a show in my hometown of Houston, Texas, at the Untitled Art Fair. The theme will also be homecoming, and like all my curatorial work, it’s deeply personal. I think this pair of shows—India and Houston—reflects the scope of my own identity and vision. After that, we’ll show at Untitled Miami during Art Basel and continue regular programming in our Los Angeles gallery.

Non-Residency is on view through October 5 @ Jaipur Centre for Art Gate No. 1, City Palace, Pink City, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302002

 

Rajiv Menon at the opening of Non-Residency at Jaipur Centre for Art

 

A World With No Safe Word: An Interview of Nicolette Mishkan

Nicolette Mishkan
Lethe’s Harem, 2024-2025
Oil on linen
48 x 60 in121.9 x 152.4 cm

interview by Summer Bowie

What if death were just a blackout between this life and the next? With its memories wiped clean in a cycle of spiritual cleansing, your soul might carry only faint notions of who you once were, like a SIM card with a brand new hippocampus. Such is the gist of the River Lethe, an underworld tributary from ancient Greek mythology whose waters wash away all remembrance of one’s existence. In Lethe’s Tavern, the fabled Greek river becomes a watering hole where painter Nicolette Mishkan’s ego goes to slosh around, bifurcate, and eventually sing its swan song. Informed equally by Sufi mysticism wherein wine is used to symbolize the intoxicating effects of divine love, she annihilates her sense of individuality by eliminating any distinction between herself and others. Together, these figures revel in the ultimate surrender to their fate, a resplendent transcendence into the unknown where who she once was lies buried without even an epitaph. The following interview took place at Megan Mulrooney on the occasion of the exhibition’s closing and has been edited for length.

SUMMER BOWIE: I want to start by talking about the River Lethe—what it is and how it came to be the crux of this body of work. 

NICOLETTE MISHKAN: I came across an essay on the River Lethe in Greek mythology one day, and I was really intrigued by this image of a river in the underworld where if you drink from it, it wipes your memory clean. You want to avoid drinking the water so that you can keep the memories from your previous existences and carry them into the next life. So, it feeds into this imagery of an eternal cycle—the forgetting and redoing and forgetting again.

Before that, I had been thinking about wine from a Sufi perspective and the belief that it brings you closer to the divine. I like the mixture of that imagery in terms of divine intoxication as a form of spiritual love and also the idea of dispersing your ego and memories and thoughts. Depending on the level of consciousness you bring into it, it'll either connect you with something higher or return you to the cycle of renewal.

BOWIE: It’s interesting in this way that you’re discouraged from drinking the water, but of course, we all come into the world with a fresh slate. So, these works propose a wonderful embrace of that surrender. I love the way these figures are experiencing moments of everything from folly to ecstasy to utter exhaustion. There’s an aspect of labor you can see that really speaks to the more challenging aspects of submission. 

The show also makes reference to the Sufi concept of ‘fana,’ which has to do with ego death and connection to the divine. And it’s also the first show you’ve done where you appear as each and every figure. I like how you approach this idea of ego death in a very counterintuitive way, because you’ve lost all that makes you unique.

MISHKAN: Yeah, I mean from a practical standpoint, I wanted it to be consistent. And I like the idea of multiple selves that represent either your multiple potential realities or different timelines merging, or even just the idea that everyone is a reflection of you. Every work an artist makes is inevitably going to be a self-portrait. Plus, it’s easier because I’m always available..

BOWIE: Are you photographing yourself from multiple angles and then placing those in, or are you finding that you need certain angles as you’re in the process of creating the painting, and then going back and re-photographing? 

MISHKAN: It’s both. It’s like, oh, I know what I want, so let me just…. It’s embarrassing. I set up the camera and I’m like, [assumes a few different poses] you know. And then I took videos and grabbed stills from those as well. 

BOWIE: The movement aspect is really clear, so I can see the way that film stills would lend themselves well to these figures. One major recurrent theme across all of your works is the way that they empower people to connect to the divine feminine. Can you define what the divine feminine is for you? 

MISHKAN: When I started the series, I was thinking of the role of wine according to the Sufis and then it branched out into other cultures and their relationships with wine. And then, I was thinking about this river as a trance into the subconscious, in this moon-like place. As I kept going, I got into more of this story of the feminine descent. Part of that is this cyclical period in everyone’s life, it happens a million times, where she’s forced to start over. Part of that is releasing all the attachments to who she is: I’m a mother, a daughter, a businesswoman, an artist—letting go of all those identity markers. It’s also about letting go of her attachment to a very patriarchal society. We’re raised in this logical, mathematical world that forces us to let go of what makes us feminine: our intuition, connection to our body, emotionality. These are the things that make women strong. Sometimes it just catches up with you and you have to evolve. And part of that evolution is the descent into your subconscious, facing certain things, letting go, coming back.

Nicolette Mishkan
Lethe's Tavern, 2024-2025
Oil on linen
48 x 60 in121.9 x 152.4 cm

BOWIE: The subject of female empowerment comes up a lot in your work, but I feel like your take on it is a direct reflection of not just being a woman, but being an Iranian-American woman.

MISHKAN: It’s just so ingrained. I grew up in America and I was never forced to cover up the way they are, but I still see instances where I’m doing that dance. They’re treated as second-class citizens, essentially, and it’s terrifying to see how a country can go so far backwards so quickly. We see the women over there fighting for rights that we have here, but we take it for granted because we don’t realize how fragile it is. 

BOWIE: Right. The Woman, Life, Freedom movement is asking for something that we currently have in America. But, the far-right has already dismantled Roe v. Wade and defunded family planning clinics that provide everything from birth control to STD screening and pap smears. So, we may be allowed to expose more of our bodies, but the misogynistic foundation of Western society is always pulling back on the liberties that we assume are fixed because our grandmothers already fought for them and won.

MISHKAN: A lot of it comes from this religious mentality. You’ll see people who leave one extreme religion only to find another one with equally extreme practices. Coming back to the series, I want to appreciate the feminine and embrace her because I think that without that, we’re imbalanced, and you can see it all over the place. It’s very imbalanced; women are so repressed. And it has to get so extreme. Women have to go out there and cut their hair off. In Iran, they’re getting their eyes shot out and it’s all because of their hair.

BOWIE: The young women of Iran are fighting back in this way that is just unbelievably intrepid. It’s extremely humbling. But speaking of extremes, a lot of people don’t know about your previous practice as a performance artist and the character you called Permaid. Was that the genesis of this avatar that you found in the siren?

MISHKAN: Permaid was a project I did with my friend and it was just purely out of love. We didn’t really understand what we were doing. We would put this faceless latex mermaid out in the world and take photos and it was candid. But in the end, I realized it was a lot about learning to embrace yourself and all your differences and loving every part of yourself.

After that project ended, I really wanted to continue exploring the siren theme. And part of Permaid was this inherent S&M thing, which is just always in the back of my mind. It’s about sexuality whether I want it to be or not. But, it’s more this idea of what you consent to in your day-to-day life and how we live in a world where there’s no safe word. So, if you are aware of what you’re consenting to, you’re far more empowered. The mermaid is such a feminine symbol. She mirrors women in today’s society very well and the way that our strengths are held against us. 

BOWIE: There’s an extremism about her in the sense that she’s faceless, and already, the mermaid is basically sexless. Yet, she is this symbol of sensuality and in many European seafaring mythologies she is a temptress who lures sailors to inclement, stormy waters. So, if you saw her it was a sign that you were going to die. Yet, Permaid’s facelessness really impedes her ability to beguile. There’s not an inch of skin exposed—it’s almost like a sexy burka. I imagine it was incredibly difficult to breathe in this costume. 

MISHKAN: Oh yeah, it’s very psychological. You freak out while your face is covered and your breath gets short. It suffocates a little bit, but you just kind of breathe into it. It’s very weird. I’d be in that suit sometimes for a very long time. I imagine it’s similar to a burka, where you can see them, but they can’t see you. It's very dehumanizing and weird from a sensory perspective. It’s like a sensory deprivation tank. You can get zen with it and eventually you get used to it, but I didn’t really enjoy it.

BOWIE: There’s a compelling paradox with your body on full display and your complete anonymity. There’s a lot of symbolism there in terms of the female experience. And in these works, we can see traces of Permaid’s with the black latex mask, but now it’s a hood with her face exposed. She’s been liberated in a certain respect, but we’re reminded that it’s still her. Can we talk about your use of water in these works as a symbol of rebirth? 

MISHKAN: I wanted to create a world that’s like this entrance back into the womb. And part of that approach was in these thin washes of paint that build up the darkness. Also, in a lot of literary symbolism, water, when it's out of control, can represent a sort of mental schizoid state. And I like the idea of water as a subconscious realm of collective thought progression. That’s where I imagined the heroine entering—in this deep subconscious shadow world.

Nicolette Mishkan
Ritual of Forgetting, 2024
Oil on linen
24 x 20 in61 x 50.8 cm

BOWIE: There are a couple other motifs that you play with that take the form of talismans, like the latex hoods and poppy flowers. Can you talk about those?

MISHKAN: The latex hoods throughout my paintings prior to this have always been my nod to S&M. But with this series, I wanted it to be a representation of the ego, like that last thing holding her together. And as the series keeps going, they start coming off. With the poppies, I was researching symbols for forgetting, and they started coming up. I like that intersection of this addictive, devotional, all-consuming vice.

BOWIE: You play a lot with this juxtaposition between inebriation and purification. There’s the Dionysian belief that wine brings you closer to the gods that you’re referencing, and then this mythology of the river Lethe making you forget—pulling you away from yourself.

MISHKAN: Yeah, the symbolism of wine comes up in so many different cultures. You have wine representing the blood of Christ. For the Zoroastrians, it represented the fire of the sun and a kind of substitute for blood. In a lot of cultures, wine is something that connects you to the divine or life force, and I like that idea. Intoxication is a process of stepping outside of yourself and connecting to something else. Like this, the heroine is sort of letting down her ego, she's letting down her walls, forgetting her disconnection with others, and reconnecting with her shadow side, as well as her instincts and intuition.

BOWIE: There’s several interesting art historical references that we see in this series, particularly Dorothea Tanning and Leonor Fini. Something I find really intriguing is not just your connection to them as Surrealist female painters that work with the body, and mortality, and nature. But on a personal level, Dorothea Tanning had this history of working in fashion illustration, much like you. And then with Leonor Fini, she had that famous photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson, where she’s nude, bathing in water, and she has this very classical hourglass figure, much like your own, which is a relatively rarefied body type. Do you remember how you discovered either of their work?

MISHKAN: I'd say both of them were always kind of floating around as soon as I got internet access. I was coming across the imagery and it always really spoke to me. You look at it and sometimes you have no idea what's going on. It really touches a part of my brain. But I think Surrealism has historically been a place where women were taken seriously. It's a great entry point for any female artist because it's so welcoming for some reason.

BOWIE: I mean, part of me wonders how much of it had to do with how sexually liberated the female Surrealists were. Like, the narrative around Max Ernst discovering Dorothea Tanning through her Birthday painting, which was a topless self-portrait and then leaving Peggy Guggenheim shortly thereafter for her is pretty telling. Or the fact that Cartier-Bresson’s most famous and valuable photograph is of Leonor Fini nude with a shaved pubis. I want to talk about this palette you chose for these works because it’s very different from your previous works. These wine-dark reds, greenish grays, ashen roses. Where did the inspiration for this palette come from? 

MISHKAN: I don’t remember why these colors happened. The imagery that came up in my research and imagination was in this palette and I really liked it, so I went with it. And as I kept going, I started to realize that it's actually really moldy. And I think mold speaks well to this idea of breakdown and regeneration. It wasn’t intentional, but it works. 

Nicolette Mishkan
Midnight Abyss, 2024-2025
Oil on linen
24 x 36 in61 x 91.4 cm

BOWIE: [Gestures toward a painting] I love that one so much because she gets to this point where she almost can’t take it anymore. It reminds me of the last stage of child labor right before you start to push. I’m curious about the embodiment of the siren and how she guides your way of living.

MISHKAN: You know, at the end of the day I’m a very cheesy girl; I’m very cringy. I just like mermaids and I chose to lean into it. I always loved them as a kid and I still love them. She’s so endlessly fascinating and the more I think about her, the more dimensions she reveals to me. Whether it’s the way she’s historically demonized as representation of the whore, or valorized as the divine feminine—a woman who's strong in her emotions and intuition. She's a timeless symbol.

BOWIE: Do you drink while you paint? 

MISHKAN: There was a period where sometimes I would drink the night before. There was something about the hangover that was interesting to lean into. And then after a while it wasn’t…

BOWIE: You can feel that with these. You can feel the ecstatic moments of drinking and the eventual burn out. Especially with that moment where you’re pouring yourself another drink and the version of yourself receiving it is like, this is a good idea

MISHKAN: That’s what I’m doing when I’m drinking. I’m just really having fun with myself. But the addiction aspect is always floating in the back of my head. The addict is in me and I’ve dated so many of them. But I embrace it because there's something about the addict mentality that is passionate. I like the intensity. I even like the destructive aspect. I don't fight it. I just try to appreciate it. When it comes to these ideas of connecting with the divine, it’s both intoxicating and kind of delusional. If you’re drinking to forget, the cycle just repeats itself versus if you're celebrating, it's a different thing in my mind.

 

Nicolette Mishkan
Limbic Override, 2025
Oil on canvas
14 x 10 in35.6 x 25.4 cm

 

BOWIE: Are they doing both?

MISHKAN: In this series, I like the idea that you could read it a million different ways. Maybe she’s ending back where she started, or maybe her rebirth is leading to a positive transformation.

BOWIE: On the subject of rebirth and a certain feminine continuum, you originally learned to paint as a child because your mom taught oil painting and you used to sit through her classes. I'm curious how your mom feels about your painting practice?

MISHKAN: She’s very supportive. She’s super open-minded and liberal compared to a typical Iranian woman, but when I first sent her the list of work she was like, “Oh, there’s a lot of nudity, and I wanted to bring my friends.” And I was like, “Don't worry about it. You don’t have to bring them.” But then, she did anyway. And I do love that this is really my connection to her in a way. It’s so deeply a part of her that it’s part of me too. And she did teach me. I remember being super young and her being like, “Okay, here are your colors, start mixing.” And that's how I learned oil painting. 

BOWIE: So, it sounds like you’re challenging her in a lot of ways and she’s growing from it in terms of pushing through that discomfort.

MISHKAN: Yeah. I mean, she’s also why I got into classical painting because that’s just what I grew up around. I was always in a house full of paintings of nude women and I didn’t realize that that’s kind of weird. 

BOWIE: Just not as much self-portraiture happening, I imagine.

MISHKAN: No. There was a lot of Rococo and Neoclassical painting going on. It’s very Persian. 

BOWIE: Right. That separation between artist and subject lends itself to a much less vulnerable practice.

MISHKAN: Exactly. 

Nicolette Mishkan
Delta Waves, 2025
Oil on canvas
14 x 14 in35.6 x 35.6 cm

AYA TAKANO'S World Comes to Los Angeles

AYA TAKANO’S “how far how deep we can go" exhibition at Perrotin in LA invites visitors into a mystical world which offers an escape and hope for a brighter existence.

AYA TAKANO 地球上のすべての生物のスピリット  | the spirit of all life on earth, 2025. 130.3 x 162 x 3 cm | 51 5/16 x 63 3/4 x 1 3/16 inches. Oil on canvas. ©2025 AYA TAKANO/Kaikai Kiki Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Courtesy Perrotin.

interview by Poppy Baring

Inspired by all art forms from Expressionism to the erotic art of Japan's Edo period, from manga artists such as Osamu Tezuka to Gustav Klimt, AYA TAKANO has been creating her own intimate fantasy since the age of three. Born in Japan in 1976, the painter, illustrator, and highly recognised Superflat artist welcomes LA residents to her new exhibition titled “how far how deep we can go”.

TAKANO presents otherworldly nymph-like characters that are extraterrestrial and yet still connected to and reflective of our reality. Drawing from the past and thinking to the future, she creates a limitless existence where time, gender, and age are undefined. Through various mediums, the Japanese artist investigates our inherent consciousness, exploring what it means to be marked by the past and connected to all life that occurred before us and will exist after us. Held in LA, home to spiritual seekers as well as recent environmental catastrophe, the exhibition offers a universe where all souls prosper as equals, a space where compassion prevails. In this interview, TAKANO provides insight into her worldview and her day-to-day life, asking visitors to look inwards and reconnect with the “radiance of all life.”

POPPY BARING: To start, how did the concept for “how deep how far we can go” begin? Was there a specific inspiration that made you want to investigate ancestral consciousness and speculative ecology?

AYA TAKANO: As I deepen my thoughts on the mysteries of the universe and life forms, as well as the mystery of consciousness—which I am exploring as the theme of my life—I came to feel that I want to depict a journey of fusion beneath the collective unconscious.

Los Angeles has a spiritual culture, and because [of] sad events such as wildfires, I thought it might be an ideal place to depict a journey of the heart.

I believe that each of us should travel within ourselves and create our own mythology. Personally, I hope for the creation of a mythology of coexistence, compassion, and bliss— something that breaks away from capitalism. I wanted to make it into an exhibition that encourages such a direction.

BARING: Also relating to the exhibition title, what does ‘depth’ mean to you, not just spiritually but also in terms of making, presenting and reacting to art?

TAKANO: I believe that the spiritual is fundamental to everything — to city-making, music, clothing, food, lifestyle, behaviour, love, education, and politics. It is the origin of all things.

"Depth" has a spiritual meaning.

BARING: Your work depicts an interconnected and harmonious mystical world, what’s it like bouncing between that world and reality?

TAKANO: An interconnected and harmonious mystical world is something that is happening within communities of non-human living beings.

Recent studies show that trees and fungi in forests actively communicate and help each other. Of course, there are cunning plants and there are also plants with wisdom. There are cows that give milk to wild foxes, and cows that don’t. But humans take far too much, always one-sidedly. I hope we head toward coexistence, and I believe it is possible.

BARING: Would you say you always exist in both worlds or are the barriers between them somewhat distinct?

TAKANO: I believe that in the unconsciousness of every person, in the truly deep part, inside the body, there is wisdom.

AYA TAKANO アフリカ、牛と一体化する生活を送る子  | in africa, a person lives a life being one with a cow, 2025. 80 x 100 x 2.5 cm | 31 1/2 x 39 3/8 x 1 inches. Oil on canvas. ©2025 AYA TAKANO/Kaikai Kiki Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Courtesy Perrotin.

BARING: You draw from the past and think a lot about the future, can you think of key ways that the present influences you? How does your day-to-day life feed into your imagination and practice?

TAKANO: I believe that everything is truly contained in the present. Only the present creates the future. I want to live the present with all the strength I can give.

I spend my daily life for the exploration of the secrets of the universe. That does not only mean reading books, thinking, or meditating, but I believe that all of my actions deeply affect both my work and my life, so I value taking care of things like cleaning, cooking, and staying physically active on my own.

BARING: How has living in Japan influenced your practice?

TAKANO: Growing up surrounded by manga, anime, characters, and science fiction has had a strong influence on my art style. At the same time, I am deeply interested in Japan’s ancient culture that has continued for over ten thousand years, as well as the wisdom embedded in Budo (Japanese martial arts), Butoh (Japanese dance), and music. These elements have also profoundly influenced me.

BARING: Can you walk us through a typical day in your studio? How do your pieces begin?

TAKANO: Taking care of my cat, looking after my boyfriend (who is a manga artist and insanely busy, so he can’t do much himself), cleaning, doing daily necessary shopping, hiking in the mountains, visiting the beach, reading books, and painting — these are the things I do.

My artwork is born out of these everyday activities.

BARING: Many of the characters in your work appear suspended between worlds—child and adult, earthy and celestial—all living in an undefined time. What attracts you to these in-between states?

TAKANO: They are undifferentiated spiritual beings living deep within all existence. I believe such beings exist within us, and I depict them in my work.

BARING: Your work presents an ideal existence and provides hope for that, how and why do you think your work remains positive and hopeful?

TAKANO: I have a strong hope that everyone can coexist in harmony in a better world. Because of that, I believe I must keep expressing hope and freedom in my work.

BARING: Finally, there is an element of, particularly female, teenage nostalgia. What role does femininity play in your work and why do you think this is a recurring component?

TAKANO: Since the advent of written records in modern civilizations, femininity has been oppressed in most cultures. However, I feel that the root of life itself lies in the feminine, especially as some studies say the Y chromosome is gradually disappearing.

I believe that the right-brain, unconscious world will emerge more strongly than the logical, authoritative, left-brain world in the future. The spirituality of teenage, or even earlier childhood, is not merely nostalgia but a pathway to a better future.


‘how far how deep we can go' is on view through August 29th 2025 at the Perrotin Gallery, 5036 W Pico Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90019.

AYA TAKANO 地球上の全植物の精  | the spirit of all plants on earth, 2025112 x 145 x 3 cm | 44 1/8 x 57 1/16 x 1 3/16 inches. Oil on canvas. ©2025 AYA TAKANO/Kaikai Kiki Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Courtesy Perrotin.

Put On a Face, Any Face: An Interview of Kenny Scharf and Shai Baitel

Courtesy of Roger Davies

interview by Kim Shveka

It’s not often that an artist and a curator connect the way Kenny Scharf and Shai Baitel do. Emotional, the biggest show of Scharf’s career, didn’t come out of a typical museum timeline or curatorial trend. It came from Baitel’s urgent feeling of injustice that the art world hadn’t given Scharf the recognition he deserved, and he wanted to change that. When we spoke, Scharf joined the Zoom call straight from his studio, answering questions with a paintbrush in hand. It felt intimate and telling: Scharf doesn’t separate art from life. His world is constantly in motion, fueled by color, feeling, and spontaneity.

The dynamics between Scharf and Baitel set the tone for a conversation that highlighted the reverent partnership between them, whose collaborative spirit is at the heart of the exhibition. What initially started as an interview about an art show quickly turned into a rhythmic conversation about friendships, personal stories, timing, and how things can easily fall into place when two people believe in the same thing.

Scharf came up in the late seventies and early eighties in New York, rubbing shoulders with Basquiat and Haring, bringing a psychedelic, cartoon-fueled energy that set him apart. He paints like he’s channeling something from another planet, but also something deeply familiar and simple. Emotional is more than a retrospective—it’s a long-overdue celebration of a singular voice in contemporary art.

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

KIM SHVEKA: What are some of your earlier memories of art?

KENNY SCHARF: I didn’t know much about art, just what I got from TV shows, when they had a typical artist in a beret holding a palette with a brush. When I got a little older, my parents took me to the Huntington Library in LA to see “Pinkie” by Thomas Lawrence and “The Blue Boy” by Thomas Gainsborough. It was a whole big deal. Everyone always rushed to see it, like “Oh, you like art? You have to see those two.” I was very excited back then, but to be honest, I didn’t really know what was going on with the art world until I was at my neighbor’s house. They had this book on Dalí—I’ll never forget the feeling I had looking through this book—I was completely blown away. So, that was a very conscious feeling of recognizing art, I think I was about ten.

I was growing up in the suburbs in the sixties, and we didn’t have access to art, but we had those stores called head shops, they would sell skateboards, T-shirts, posters, and smoking paraphernalia. I used to go and look at the psychedelic posters, and they also had [René] Magritte, Dalí, and MC Escher, so I got that also through the head shops.

SHVEKA: This exhibition is built around six core feelings: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and awe. Shai, why did you decide to organize Kenny’s art in this way?

SHAI BAITEL: I was fascinated by Kenny’s approach to the canvas, the way he incorporated emotions blew me away. Throughout history, artists have tried to incorporate feelings through gestures and form, and Kenny does it in such a simple and effortless way. It was incredibly effective in communication, which immediately threw me into the phenomenon of emojis. I saw Kenny’s work as some kind of prophecy; he was able to not only reduce it to such an incredible way of simplicity, but also fast-forward to the way we communicate now. There are no other artists that have achieved such a level of effective communication. During research, my team and I looked into the science of emotions and found Paul Ekman, a psychologist who studied universal facial expressions across cultures. He identified six core emotions that unify all humans: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and awe. I realized that Kenny does it in the same way, which blew my mind. Kenny hasn’t gone to the school of anthropology, but he came to the same conclusion. When you observe Kenny’s creatures, it’s like observing humanity, with the same understanding of where those emotions are divided. This revelation became the foundation for the exhibition, and the reason it’s called Emotional.

SHVEKA: Your work first resonated in the 1980s during a time of underground energy and cultural rebellion. But today, it feels like your art resonates for a new generation as well—it’s more relevant than ever. What do you think they see in your work that mirrors or differs from the ’80s?

SCHARF: Thank you. Because I made my name in New York at that time in the 80s, and it was such a celebrated group, people associate me with that period. But I don't feel particularly attached to any time, I feel I’m very much in the moment that I’m living in. I feel that possibly the rest of the world is catching up to me just now. So in that respect, it’s not like it has different messages so much for today as it did then; these are universal things. Art should be able to exist in any time; it shouldn't speak only to one time because you want it to last forever. That was always in my mind.

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

SHVEKA: You often mix pop culture with sci-fi surrealism and bright colors. Can you go further into your creative process, and how do you translate your mind into your work?

SCHARF: It’s nothing I think about, it's just kind of natural. I show up every day and start with no plan, just go. My subject matter goes way back to childhood. Growing up in LA, in the early 60s, there was this cultural obsession with the future. After Sputnik launched in ’57, the space race began, and there was this optimistic future idea of rockets and forward motion. It inspired everything—ads, cars, TV. The cars looked like rocket ships. We really believed by 1984 we’d be vacationing on the moon. I loved this idea and I believed it.

But then the ’70s hit, and that whole fantasy just died. We went from this crazy colored plastic sci-fi imagery to avocado green, macrame, and beige. Cars were boxy, architecture dull, and no one seemed to care about that dream anymore. I didn't want the fantasy to end, so I continued this fantasy on my own.

BAITEL: You know, Kenny, my art career began with Sputnik, too. I don’t know if I ever told you. Twenty-five years ago, I was working at the United Nations, and it had tons of artwork that was just terribly curated. When you enter, you had a collage by Chagall, six or seven carpets from Iran next to it, a pagoda from Japan, a stone from Jerusalem, and the Sputnik from Russia. It was chaotic. I mentioned it to my boss, who sent me to the head of facilities. He told me the U.N. had over 5,000 artworks gifted by member nations—but no curator. He handed me the checklist, and I just started organizing exhibitions myself. That was the beginning of my interest in art—so yes, it all started with Sputnik for me too.

SCHARF: (Laughs) Wow, there you go, the Sputnik. Can you guys see me, or am I out of the picture? Because I'm painting at the same time while we talk.

BAITEL: Oh, Kim, you have such an authentic interview.

SHVEKA: Definitely! While you paint, I wanted to ask more specifically about the emoji paintings. Do you see them as a translation of your emotions? Other people’s emotions? Who are the emojis?

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

SCHARF: They're everyone. And they're me. There are no rules. I started them in 2018, and I finished them in 2022, so it was right during COVID.

That was obviously a very emotional time for everyone. Well, we’re still having emotional times. It’s a combination of how I feel inside, with what’s going on in the world, and my reaction to that. Sometimes it’s outside, sometimes it’s inside. Sometimes it is someone I just looked at in the street. Sometimes, I’m in a really bad mood and I want to be in a good mood, so I make myself happy. And sometimes it’s the opposite: I’m in a really bad mood and I want to give the anger a way out. There are no rules. As we know, you can have so many emotions at the same time, in the same day, in the same hour, in the same minute. So, they’re all over the place, just like I am, and like emotions are.

BAITEL: I had previously suggested a lot of the things that resulted in the dialogue that Kenny and I had for the past two years or so. It was also about me learning about Kenny and his interaction with the environment, his love for the Earth, nature, and plants. His love for LA, for the ocean, the beaches. All of that goodness and greatness is very pure and very natural. It’s a double meaning in a way. There is some naivety in his artwork, which I love so much.

Kenny’s personality is embedded so greatly in the art, something that you don’t see every day with artists; he’s very honest. He’s very candid in his art making. Every day, when I would call him at about 9 AM in LA, he would always say, “Shai, I’m swimming.”

SCHARF: (Laughs) I just came back from the ocean.

BAITEL: You see? He swims in Venice Beach, and when you walk the promenade, there are a lot of characters, a lot of creatures. He encounters those characters when he walks the promenade, then he goes to the studio and paints them. You might not realize it, but you can see the funky, the playful, the colorful, the vibrant. There is such incredible dynamics between them. So there’s a great wealth of inspiration in the context of Kenny’s everyday.

SHVEKA: Well, I guess it’s a good thing you have a beach near you. Is that the idea behind building a beach in the exhibition space?  

BAITEL: Yes, I wanted to bring the greatness of the beach to the Chinese audience as well, and this is why we created the Kenny Scharf Beach Club on the first floor of the museum. It is probably the first urban beach created in Shanghai. This is exactly the reason for those who do not have a beach to experience, we brought them a utopian beach, à la Kenny Scharf.

SHVEKA: How does the Chinese audience react to it?

SCHARF: It blows me away. I’ve gotten pictures sent to me of all the strollers, kids come with their shovels and their pails and their parents and the grandparents, and they hang out in there. It’s like 100 million degrees outside and humid, but inside is air-conditioned splendor, and you can look at the river. It’s kind of sad (laughs) but it’s kind of sweet. Next time, we have to put an actual swimming pool in there.

BAITEL: It’s a perfect fantasy. Exactly like Kenny said. The sand is not real; it’s pink. You have the water in the background, but it’s of the river. And then, you have all the creatures, which aren’t real either. But all together it gives you a great escapism into the closest thing to a beach club, that could be maybe Venice Beach, in California.

SCHARF: Or Mars. (laughs)

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

SHVEKA: (laughs) Well, denial is a river. Shai, since the emojis weren’t connected to any specific emotion from Kenny’s side as he drew them, how did you align each emoji to a certain emotion?

BAITEL: When I visited Kenny in LA, we explored how visual languages have evolved. We went back to ancient Egyptian symbols and Ekman’s research on universal facial expressions and their connection to emotion. Though often seen as stereotypes, these expressions are biologically real. We looked at Kenny’s artworks—not just the tondos—and identified emotional themes. Grouping them was fascinating, and even with some debate between Kenny, my team, and me, we eventually agreed on six core emotions. That process was a discovery in itself.

SCHARF: When I was a kid, I came across a “how to draw a cartoon” book. The rules I learned there are basically what I applied to the tondo paintings, and it worked. I really studied it. But it’s not always exactly defined; there’s no exact science.

SHVEKA: I guess if there were disagreements between you two during the curation, the audience might also say, “But this isn’t angry,” or “This isn’t fear,” which adds a layer of playfulness.

SCHARF: Exactly like life—things aren’t always exactly how you think it is, it just causes you to think about it more.

BAITEL: We wanted to allow the audience to interpret it on their own. It’s not written in stone, but rather a recommendation; it’s just the way we felt about it. Even when we explain it through art history, looking at Caravaggio, Goya, Rembrandt, or any of the masters, it’s about how they incorporated emotions based on specific scenes or events they were depicting.

SHVEKA: You said you see your artistic style as timeless, but I would still love to know: how do you think the ’80s influenced you in becoming who you are today?

SCHARF: I understand why people are so excited to learn about the ’80s. I think the reason is that my generation was the last one before the internet changed everything. Before that, there was a real urgency of place, especially for artists who wanted to participate. Something that doesn’t exist anymore because you can be anywhere now. In the old days, nothing compared to being in the same room with people. That sense of community of artists meeting in the same place—that’s what used to happen in the ’80s. It also goes back to Paris, Berlin, and earlier times in history. Artists would gather and create together.

SHVEKA: Gen Z and millennials are incredibly nostalgic. We always return to that longing for the past, thinking that things were better back then, without the noise of technology.

SCHARF: I was the same way. I was obsessed with the Beatniks of the ’50s, and we could pretend we were part of that world, because it hadn’t changed much. But the change from the 80s to now? It’s insane how different it is. We can never go back, and it’s very hard to pretend to live in that world if you choose to, because then you have to be completely off the grid, and no one really does that. The ’80s were the very last moment of that kind in history.

SHVEKA: Would you go back if you could?

SCHARF: Oh no! Definitely not. I wouldn’t want to relive all that pain. People romanticize the ’80s, but there was a lot of death. What I always say is: the truly romantic period was the late ’70s to 1982. That’s when AIDS began, and overnight, the atmosphere completely changed. People celebrate that brief moment of freedom in the early ’80s. I was lucky—I caught the tail end of it. I moved to New York in 1978. I was still a teenager. ALONE (laughs).

SHVEKA: I wanted to ask about the relationship between you two because it seems like you’re very good friends. How did you merge during the curation process?

SCHARF: Well, I’m always skeptical. It took a while to convince me, but Shai was so enthusiastic, I couldn’t say no, and we started doing it, and it became very exciting.

BAITEL: Kenny was indeed skeptical, but I knew I wanted to do a large show for him. He’s a giant. He’s the last voice from a historic time in contemporary art; his contributions will be studied for generations. In art, there’s often this sophistication that can feel patronizing, skipping over huge parts of society. I always say—and this is also Kenny’s philosophy—art belongs to everybody. There will always be great artists who cater to the elite few. But Kenny reaches millions, I wanted to emphasize that. I also felt there was injustice in the art world. For years, there wasn’t a proper large-scale survey of Kenny’s work in a museum space that matched his impact. In the end, I found a way to convince him. And like Kenny said, we became friends in the process. Honestly, it’s impossible not to fall in love with Kenny. He’s adorable. I love good people. I told him it’s the first out of many. I hope for this show to travel to as many museums as possible because it carries a great message of optimism, of goodness, while at the same time, it educates the audience on this important chapter of art during what I described as the East Village movement. It is the greater chapter of emotions in art. We really have become close friends through the process, and I know this friendship is for the long run.

SCHARF: That’s right, baby!

SHVEKA: Did Kenny let you take the lead, or were you both part of the curation process?

BAITEL: Every item is Kenny’s fingerprint. I can suggest ideas, but in the end, the voice of the artist has to be the center. The curator is a facilitator, a translator to the audience. For instance, the emotions are divided into segments, and each segment has a color. I went to Kenny for him to give me a color for every emotion. He also gave me the soundtrack for every segment.

SHVEKA: Who composed the soundtrack?

SCHARF: Scott Ewolt. He is the composer and editor of the music. He composed specifically for every emotion. He’s a visual artist, but he’s also a DJ. He works on the soundtracks for a lot of the environments I do.

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

SHVEKA: As Shai mentioned before, you believe that art is for everyone. It’s also a fundamental ideology of street art. Can you talk more about the decision to collaborate with fashion designer Kim Jones for Dior?

SCHARF: Fashion and my art always came together. When I was a young artist, I was always incorporating my work on t-shirts and objects. Art had no boundaries of where it belonged, and of course, fashion can easily combine without effort. I had my very first show in 1979 at Fiorucci, a store that is no longer here. I was making clothes and selling them at different fashion stores; they were all handmade. To this day, I’m still making one-of-a-kind clothes. I often use silk screen in the canvases, and instead of washing it, I’m like, “let’s throw it on some t-shirts.” I always dreamed of collaborating with the major designers because I not only want to make quality, but quantity is also a great thing. So, having these collaborations is perfectly natural; it’s what I’ve been doing for decades.

SHVEKA: I think it’s safe to say that fashion houses are somewhat obsessed with collaborating with artists.

BAITEL: There’s something curious about fashion houses reaching out to artists in greater numbers this past decade. What was curious about the approach of Kim Jones is that he was trying, similarly to Kenny, to bring the quality of the Parisian couturier in a way that the audience can relate to. Kim understands the power of artists that originated on the street; he has a very sharp eye for identifying what can actually work. Not every brand aligns with the artist in a way that results in collections that are successful, both artistically and commercially.

SCHARF: It was the highest-selling collab between an artist and a luxury brand in history. Kim really studied the art. That’s why it worked. He did it so well that I didn’t change anything they showed me.

SHVEKA: How do you hope people will experience your work? When visitors come to the exhibition, how do you envision them receiving and emotionally engaging with what they see?

SCHARF: I offer many levels to the viewer, but I never want to dictate how the viewer interprets. If the viewer wants to delight in the joy and color and shape and surface, that is great. But if the viewer chooses to see more, I offer that too. It’s all up to the viewer how far they want to go and think about any other concept besides what I offer on the surface.

SHVEKA: Do you feel a certain responsibility for the people influenced by your art?

SCHARF: Lately I’ve been saying, “I'm really sorry.” (laughs)

SHVEKA: Do you have any favorite reactions of people when they see your art?

SCHARF: I just like to see people looking and really studying it and taking their time, because then it lets me know that it’s keeping them for more than a second. Anything anyone’s going to say is going to be nice. I would love to eavesdrop and hear people say bad things. (laughs)

Coutesy of Clara Melchiorre

Emotional is on view through October 8, 2025, at MAM Shanghai, 4777 Binjiang Avenue, Pudong New Area, Shanghai

It Has Its Own Presence: An Interview of Ceramicist Kathy Butterly

Photo credit: Alan Weiner



interview by Maisie McDermid



Kathy Butterly, sixty-two, is one of forty-one women whose work is being showcased at The Grey Art Museum’s exhibition, Anonymous Was A Woman. The show celebrates the recipients of the grant, anonymously awarded to mid-career women artists living and working in the United States. Butterly’s ceramic sculptures—Heavy Head (2002), Chinese Landscape (2005), and Garter (1996)—are three of the 251 works on display until July 19, 2025. 

Butterly, born in Amityville, New York, splits her time between New York City and Maine. “If I didn’t have Maine as an outlet, I don’t think I’d still be in New York,” she said over the phone from her home in Maine. Butterly did not come from an art family—one of the reasons she initially believed she would study interior design over an art like ceramics. But once she began studying at Moore College of Art and Design, where she met American sculptor Viola Frey, she discovered her passion for combining painting and sculpture. While she sipped juice from a wine glass and I coffee from a ceramic mug, we talked about the evolution of her work, her Anonymous Was a Woman grant, and the different functions of the interiors and exteriors of her lively sculptures.  

MAISIE MCDERMID: When did you make your first sculpture? And what do your earlier works feel like to you now, compared with the works you’ve made in your recent career? 

KATHY BUTTERLY: Technically, my first sculpture was at Moore College of Art. That’s where I got the bug to work with clay. It’s so interesting because I’m the same person. I’ve just experienced a lot. But when I look at the work, I know it’s mine.

I was really inspired by Marsden Hartley and George Grosz. These were my punk rock years, so my work was really kind of aggressive, like illustrative carvings and storytelling on the outside. Now, I don’t necessarily want to tell a story anymore, but I want to express the vibe of what’s going on in the world right now. I’ve evolved from describing ideas to just putting out a vibe. This is a feeling. It’s more condensed and more about abstraction. I’m tightening the parameters more and more. Right now, up in Maine, I’m trying to get rid of as much excess baggage as possible. 

MCDERMID: How did it feel to present your work professionally for the first time at Franklin Parrasch Gallery, versus previously showing your work in classroom settings? 

BUTTERLY: I was so excited. Franklin Parrasch had contacted me, saying he wanted to meet me. He asked if I could bring in a sample of my work, and I did. Then he offered me a show for the next month. And I was like, What? Yeah, there’s no way. He told me I should really think about it, so I went home and thought about it. 

At the time, I was living in Hoboken, New Jersey, with my now-husband, then-boyfriend, Tom Burkhart. I was living illegally in an old factory building on a futon next to my kiln, and I would work as a waitress to earn money and teach summer camp for kids in Brooklyn. I thought, You know what? I’m just going to go for it. So I called him up, and in one month, I put together seven pieces. But I didn’t sleep. I literally slept next to the kiln. I actually brought one piece to the opening warm, like you could still hear the glaze crackling a bit. 

MCDERMID: As the Anonymous Was A Woman Grant defines itself as an unrestricted grant of “$50,000 awarded yearly to fifteen women artists over the age of forty at a critical junction in their career,” how was 2002, the year you received the grant, a critical junction in your career?

BUTTERLY: Back then, the award money was $25,000, which is probably equal to $50,000 now. But you didn’t apply. Somebody nominated you, and they were anonymous. You had no clue you were being nominated, and then you had no clue you were going to get the award. 

I had a one-and-a-half-year-old and a three-and-a-half-year-old, and I was at the park with them when my husband told me there was something on the answering machine. He was like, “You have to call this number.” I went to a pay phone on the street and called the number. I don’t remember who answered, but they said, “Oh, you’ve been awarded the Anonymous Was A Woman grant, and it’s $25,000 unrestricted.” And I just started crying. It was so important. I definitely needed the money, but it was also recognition of my hard work. And what came from this, for me, was monumental. After receiving the award, Laura Hoptman was curating the Carnegie International, and she invited me to be part of the international. It changed my life.

MCDERMID: Is there a community amongst the recipients of the Anonymous Was A Woman grant?

BUTTERLY: Before, there was not because we didn’t know who Susan Unterberg was. She remained anonymous until she revealed her identity. She then organized a picnic at Madison Square Park for anybody who had ever received an award. There were a lot of amazing women in the park that day—painters, sculptors, filmmakers, and photographers. It was the first time I ever met Susan Unterberg, so I slipped her a little note, like a thank-you note. After that, we got in touch, and we hung out. We’re friends now. I consider her a dear friend.

MCDERMID: Could you briefly walk me through your three pieces in the Grey Art Museum exhibition? Did you choose them, or did the curators request them? 

BUTTERLY: The curators requested them. These pieces are all from around 2002 because they wanted to honor the period from when I got the award. They wanted to showcase Heavy Head (2002) because I made that piece right around 2002, which was right after 9/11. It represented the fear that was in my head—all closed up, not an open vessel. You know, having two children and living in the lockdown zone in lower Manhattan was terrifying. 

The other pieces—Chinese Landscape (2005) and Garter (1996)—started from a pint glass shape. They’re from a very generic form, and what I try to do is cast it and then manipulate the form to find meaning in it. They’re kind of like my kids; they both came from exactly the same place, like me and my husband, my body, yet they’re so uniquely different. With Chinese Landscape, I was thinking about going somewhere other than being in my head; after 9/11, it was about going someplace else.

MCDERMID: I like the way you spoke about the gendered elements of your work in an interview once before. You said, “The works are an extension of myself. It’s from my point of view. Because they’re abstracted, I also think they’re open to interpretation. But, yes, they’re very female, and I’m proud of that. Especially starting out in the time that I did with ceramics.” Could you elaborate on how femininity appears in your work? What does that look like to you? 

BUTTERLY: A lot of those early pieces were very fleshy and very sexual; it was when I fell in love with my husband. And I don’t believe in holding back. I just make what needs to be made. My thing is that we’re universal. Everybody has the same feelings; we just don’t talk about them. 

Another thing that gets spoken about pretty often with my work is that it’s physically small. But when I’m working on it, it’s my universe—that four or five-inch area. It’s a metaphysical experience for me. That’s my world, and that’s my love affair. Or sometimes I’m having a fight with my work. But that’s the piece, and I have to make something that feels really right and genuine. I want my work to feel as though it’s supposed to be here, that it has every right to be here. It has to have an internal spirit to it, or, you know, a life force. 

It’s so interesting to me—this idea of using a form, such as a vessel or cup. It’s a space unto itself. It contains space that’s nowhere else in the world. That’s its space. It’s part of our world, but then it contains its own world. And there are many times within a piece that I’ll really work on the interiors. 

MCDERMID: This intrigues me—the interior of a piece. Usually, when looking at a sculpture, I focus my attention on its exterior.

BUTTERLY: With Garter and Chinese Landscape, oh, my goodness, they are equally about inside and outside. Chinese Landscape is luscious. There’s a pool of glazed water at the bottom. The green is all clay that I applied from taking a tiny pin and poking it like thousands of times, until it created what looked like moss. And then I glazed it. 

So after 9/11, when my head was closed and the form was so closed and full of fear, I opened up. I felt like I didn’t want to be fearful; I wanted to expose everything. That’s when the insides of the vessels became as important as the outside. 

MCDERMID: Your pieces to me feel very alive; I mean, the creation process of a ceramic sculpture itself feels very lively with the heat and reaction elements in the kiln. Can you tell me about how you feel life in your works? And how do you decide when a piece is finished? 

BUTTERLY: Sometimes you just know when a piece is done, and it’s a surprise. I’m trying to fire my works less, but I’ve been known to do anywhere from 10 to 35 firings in the kiln. So, it’s an additive process, and it’s very intuitive. I keep adding colors until the piece feels right, or I’ll carve those tiny little beads. I don’t know if you’ve witnessed any of the beads, but there are these tiny, little beads that are hand-carved in place with a tiny pin. So it’s really labor-intensive, and it’s a labor of love. It’s meditation, in a way. In this world, I’m finding that sometimes I need something to focus on that’s just a bead, you know?

Up here in Maine, I’m getting ready for two shows. I’ve been up here a month and a half, and I’m just carving forms. I was working on nine projects recently at one time, and they all kind of have this conversation. There are different things to be done on different ones at different times. And I would find myself like, Is this done yet? You know, Come on, get it in the kiln. Let’s get ready for glazing. And then, in my heart, I’m like, No, I probably got, like, two more days to work on this. So then I would have to go into another one. 

I’m not in a rush, why? What’s the point? The point is to be present and make something with intention and honesty—to go forward and learn more, to get fully absorbed into what I’m experiencing, and to give 100% to the piece I’m working on. To get it to the point of not needing me anymore because it has its own presence. 

Diane Arbus and the Webs We Weave

Diane Arbus, Constellation, 2023–2024, The Tower, Main Gallery, LUMA Arles, France. All artworks © The Estate of Diane Arbus Collection Maja Hoffmann/LUMA Foundation. Installation Photo © Adrian Deweerdt

text by Kim Shveka

Diane Arbus’s photography has long unsettled and fascinated viewers, defying easy interpretation. In Constellation, the newly opened exhibition at The Armory, curator Matthieu Humery brings a second life to her work; not to explain or categorize, but to invite quiet, intimate dialogue between the viewer and the photographs. Featuring 454 photographs from the artist’s archive, including many rarely seen, the exhibition defers any chronological or thematic structure, favoring a layout without linear direction, making every encounter entirely unique and unpredictable. The experience is haunting, dissociating the viewer from the fact that they’re in an art show, and instead allowing them to sink into provoked emotions, completely immersed in an entirely human experience, dissolving the distance between audience and the subjects.

In our conversation, Humery shares what it means to curate with restraint, how working with a posthumous body of work introduces both freedom and distance and what it felt like to place each image by hand in the space, listening for their rhythm.

KIM SHVEKA: Arbus’s work has often been misread or misused, sometimes seen as too voyeuristic. How did you approach this complexity in your curation?

MATTHIEU HUMERY: What I really wanted was to find a way to present her entire body of work without interpreting each image individually. I deliberately avoided passing any kind of judgment, neither my own nor anyone else’s. Instead, I wanted to create a system that would allow all 454 images to be seen together, in a way that encourages the viewer to explore freely and draw their own connections.

The structure of the exhibition forces a certain kind of encounter: one where the visitor must navigate the work for themselves, discover things on their own terms, and confront the images through personal experience. That process of self-directed exploration invites a different kind of understanding—intuitive, intimate, open-ended.

In this context, the photographs that are sometimes labeled as voyeuristic may appear in a different light. Rather than being intrusive, they might reveal something more fragile, even tender. Seen within the full constellation of her work, they begin to feel less like transgressions and more like windows into something deeply human. That’s the complexity I wanted to preserve, the sense of a gaze that doesn’t impose meaning, but instead looks back at us.

SHVEKA: You worked with hundreds of unpublished photographs. How did you balance discovery and restraint in your selection? Do you find it easier or more challenging to curate art by a deceased artist? 

HUMERY: I didn’t make any distinction between well-known and previously unseen images. My approach was to dismantle all the usual categories, to mix the series, the themes, the formats, and to avoid any chronological or hierarchical structure. I deliberately sought to blur the boundaries, to let the images coexist freely, regardless of their familiarity, their subject matter, or their scale.

As for working with a deceased artist, I’m not sure whether it’s easier or harder, but it is certainly different. There’s always something that escapes us. Death introduces distance: it forces us to reflect on a body of work that is complete, and yet whose interpretation remains permanently open. In a way, once an artwork has been created, and even more so when the artist is no longer here, it escapes its maker. The work survives, but it does so on its own terms.

SHVEKA: In building this exhibition from Neil Selkirk’s archive of posthumous prints, how did you navigate the tension between honoring Arbus’s artistic autonomy and interpreting her legacy through your own curatorial lens?

HUMERY: As I mentioned before, my intention was never to interpret the work, but rather to create the conditions in which each visitor could encounter the photographs and make sense of them on their own terms. I believe that’s the most respectful approach one can take with an artist’s work, especially with an artist as complex and singular as Diane Arbus.

By resisting a curatorial voice that explains or contextualizes too much, I hoped to preserve her autonomy, to let the photographs speak for themselves, and to allow the viewer the space to look, to feel, to connect, and ultimately to decide. In that sense, the exhibition is less about offering a definitive reading than about opening up a field of possibilities

SHVEKA: The use of mirrored walls behind the photographs creates a powerful effect. Can you speak about the decision to include the viewer in the visual field? What did you want to make visitors feel? 

HUMERY: The viewer becomes part of the fragmented portrait of Diane Arbus reflected in the mirror. They are not only witnesses to the work, they are also participants in it. Within their field of vision, they see the entirety of her oeuvre without ever fully grasping its boundaries. They themselves become one of the elements of the constellation, just like each of the photographs reflected around them.

In that moment, the line between the image and the viewer disappears. The visitor is no longer separate from the work; they are inside it. And I find that idea poetically very powerful.

SHVEKA: The exhibition deliberately avoids a set path or narrative, creating infinite routes with free guidance. (I encountered several women clutching the show’s notes like a treasure map as they were on a scavenger hunt looking for the artist’s self-portrait or her image of Jayne Mansfield.) What was the intention behind it? Were you afraid to intimidate visitors with this “organized chaos” approach to the design?

HUMERY: I deliberately wanted there to be no fixed path through the exhibition. Each visitor should have their own experience that is unique and unrepeatable. It’s a bit like walking through the city: you never know who you’ll come across, and you’ll never encounter the same people in the same way twice. That sense of unpredictability felt essential.

I also wanted to evoke the wandering, the drifting that Diane Arbus herself experienced as she walked the streets of New York, camera in hand. Maybe at first the layout feels disorienting compared to a traditional exhibition, but I think you quickly adapt. You stop trying to “follow” something, and instead, you begin to look. You begin to discover. And that, to me, feels much closer to the spirit of Arbus’s work.

SHVEKA: What responsibilities do you think a curator holds when deliberately designing disorientation, especially with a body of work that potentially unsettles?

HUMERY: I don’t believe it’s necessarily a curator’s job to offer comfort or clarity. Art isn’t meant to reassure, it’s meant to provoke, to raise questions, to unsettle. If a sense of disorientation leads the viewer to truly see, to slow down, to engage differently, then it’s not a risk, it’s a necessity.

Frankly, I find the idea of protecting the public from discomfort more disturbing than any so-called “destabilizing” artwork. We live in a world that is profoundly disorienting, politically, socially, and emotionally. If an exhibition reflects some of that complexity, it’s not a failure of design. It’s a mirror. So no, I wasn’t afraid of disorienting the viewer. I trusted them. And I believe that this kind of experience can be not only challenging but transformative.

SHVEKA: You’ve highlighted showing the “extra-photographic dimension,” that equilibrium beyond the images. How do you see risk, chance, and exploration coming out from the viewer’s movements around the room? 

HUMERY: The relationship between the intra-photographic (what is captured within the frame) and the extra-photographic (what lies outside of it—spatially, socially, temporally) is central to this exhibition. The space is conceived not as a neutral container but as an active field of interaction. The movement of the viewer becomes an extension of the photographic act itself, a continuation of Arbus’s own wanderings.

By eliminating any prescribed path, the exhibition encourages risk: the risk of getting lost, of not understanding, of encountering an image at the “wrong” moment. But it’s precisely through this destabilization that exploration becomes possible. The visitor must engage physically and cognitively, not only looking at the images, but navigating the relations between them, including their own place within that field. 

Wim Wenders visited the exhibition and told me he wished he could come back and photograph the visitors themselves, wandering, looking, hesitating. For him, it was like a mise en abyme: the images looking at the people, the people becoming images. And I think he’s right, that dynamic creates a subtle tension, a kind of living echo between the photographs and those who come to see them.

SHVEKA: Was there a moment while going through the images or installing the exhibition that brought up strong emotions or something unexpected?

HUMERY: Yes. I placed each of the 454 photographs myself, physically, alone, directly onto the walls and structures. I didn’t rely on any digital tools, no simulations or previews. Just the images, the space, and time. For three days, I hesitated, adjusted, stepped back, and moved forward again. And then, quite suddenly, everything aligned. As if the images began speaking to one another (or precisely not speaking to one another but speaking to me), without effort. It was as if the exhibition revealed itself. That moment was almost transcendent. Quiet, yet deeply moving. I felt a kind of communion with the work (with her work) that I hadn’t anticipated. To be so immersed in it, to feel it take shape around me, was a rare kind of privilege. A moment outside of time. And as the rhythm of the images settled into place, one after the other, I found myself thinking, quietly, gratefully, of Marvin Israel.

Diane Arbus: Constellation is on view through August 17 at the Park Avenue Armory.

Phoebe Bor and Sam Macer: A Conversation between Two Young British Designers

Phoebe and Sam, 2025. Photographed by Luke Soteriou In Macer’s studio in London.

interview by Poppy Baring
portraits by Luke Soteriou

Despite the oh-so-competitive fashion industry and the unpredictable nature of the creative job market, young designers Sam Macer and Phoebe Bor demonstrate that there are many different ways to achieve results in this turbulent world. Both designers, who have been friends for several years, have forged their own way and achieved great success. Bor, who has recently graduated from Central Saint Martins (CSM) and is currently experiencing all the attention that comes from an outstanding degree collection, discusses her experience of university, her inspirations, and how she feels about the industry that awaits her.

Sam Macer, who completed the Central Saint Martins foundation course alongside Phoebe, was not accepted into the undergraduate degree programme. However, before finishing his year of studying, his final project, which was a beautiful performance piece involving setting a skirt on fire and letting it burn, received a lot of online attention, giving him the platform to grow on his own. Five years down the line, Macer has dressed stars such as Rosalía, Julia Fox, and SZA. 

Both artists discuss their experiences in a way that only friends can. They have a very candid conversation concerning the pros and cons of the type of environment somewhere like CSM creates, their different ways of working and how they have, and continue to remain inspired and authentic. They provide great insight into what it’s like being a young designer; whether you’re just entering the industry or already fully immersed.

POPPY BARING: How did your friendship start?

PHOEBE BOR: We met on our foundation year, I think it was on our first day and there were a group of people standing outside and Sam was there. I introduced myself and we became close straight away … I think we all just went to the pub that evening and then the rest was history, but I found out later that Sam actually thought I was someone completely different for about four months.

SAM MACER: There was another girl that I thought was Phoebe. After three months of being friends, I asked Phoebs about her dad’s jewelry business and she said my dad’s not a jeweler. 

BOR: He just thought I was someone completely different. But yes, we hit it off on the first day.

BARING: What would you say are your different inspirations and ways of working?

MACER: I think you probably look more inwardly, it’s more personal but my work is not, I don’t think I draw on anything personal for my work. So I’d say that is the biggest inspiration difference. 

BOR: I think I am generally more inspired by personal experience. I grew up and spent a lot of time in the South African bush and I learned a lot through that about nature’s natural materiality. I drew inspiration from the similarities between that and animal textures and started making comparisons. There were so many similarities and links and that inspired me.

BARING: For your final show and with sourcing all of those materials, how is that funded?

BOR: There are opportunities to be sponsored. I got sponsored by a young company in Japan. You reach out to people or people come and find you, but a lot of it you have to fund yourself. There are also scholarships on offer, but that creates a big difference between the ability of people. So, for example, the LVMH scholarship is twenty thousand pounds, so some people have that to play with and some people don’t. So yeah, it’s definitely not an even playing field. 

BARING: You both have created amazing art but have been down different paths, how do you think being accepted or rejected by a prestigious institution shaped your confidence, creative approach, or professional path?

MACER: I guess my process wasn’t really a choice. I think it’s relatively common for people to take a year out and reapply to start again the next year, but I didn’t really have the patience or didn’t feel like that was going to be worth me taking out a whole year. So then, it was just a big process of teaching myself everything and learning from there. There has been a lot of learning on the job, making mistakes whilst actively working. 

BARING: Even before graduating from the foundation, I remember a teacher not liking the fire idea. Would you say at that point you were already beginning to do your own thing?

MACER: It was definitely an intentional move. I think they were more scared about the danger of it but at that point, I knew there was nothing set up for the future, so I think part of the thought process was I needed to do something really impactful, like borderline shocking, just to make a statement to build a foundation to work off. So yes, I was definitely thinking about that in the making of it. 

BARING: Now being five years on your own in this industry without being taught, do you look at that as a positive?

MACER: It was definitely the best thing that happened to me. I learned that craft and execution are really important in my work and having seen Phoebe at university and knowing her experience, that really isn’t actually a taught thing. Even at university, there is still a lot of teaching yourself, especially at places like CSM where they really push the creative aspect of it rather than the craft and technical side of making. So, I don’t think I would have got on well there, I don’t think they would have got what feels important to me.

BOR: It is a very different process. I definitely struggled to find my feet hugely in the first few years of CSM. You get so distracted because there is so much around you. So much noise and then I felt like my placement year (spent working with Harry Pontefract) really helped me, hugely. Just going into industry and having that as a way of learning. I much preferred learning in that capacity and took that mindset when I went back for my final year. I think that that helped me develop my own way of working. 

BARING: Do you think those different directions suited you as artists innately or do you think you adapted to the situation you found yourself in?

MACER: I think it makes sense for me as a person. I’m quite reclusive and private anyway. I’ve said to Phoebe I don’t know how she manages to work around that many people. I think it’s impossible being around that many people creating to not have their input coming in. Being able to build my own world here [in his studio] has served me well, but there’s a big part of it—for example this collection, I’ve been working on for probably about a year already and it’s just that collection and me here without any kind of affirmation along the way. That’s quite an intense process because you can get super in your head, seeing the same things every day. Quite often, you find yourself spiraling and going, well that's shit, I don’t like that, or that's boring, or I’ve moved on from that. So, I think that contact part of it is missed and that's quite a valuable thing.

BOR: I couldn’t do what Sam does. I would really struggle. I definitely appreciate the structure and I don’t think I could do without it. I still want to continue having that structure, I enjoy being around other people and it was really important to me to have other people’s input at the same time because you can take it or leave it. There’s a freedom to it, you don’t have to take on everything that everyone says but to have someone reacting to something is really important. It’s that constant ping pong, back and forth in your head and it keeps the blood flowing and the mind ticking over a bit. So, I take my hat off massively to Sam because to go through the process without that would be hard.

MACER: I think working in the industry at the most normal level will fit pretty perfectly in the middle. Where there’s not as much intense engagement as you have at university but also it’s not as isolated as just working on your own thing. If you’re working in a house, it would probably fit perfectly in the middle. 

 

Phoebe's work, 2025, Photographed by Charlie Biglin.

 

BARING: With so much competition and with that all being right in front of your face on social media, which to some extent is a necessary part of your job, how do you remain productive, original, and confident?

MACER: It’s fucking hard. It’s really hard. I find it really impactful seeing people’s stuff all the time. The brain is going too crazy and I think there’s a lot to be said for just really staying in your own lane with the blinkers on either side because I think as soon as you start looking left or right then it’s easy for the car to just fly off the motorway. 

BOR: I would say that I find it quite freeing to believe that in the fashion industry kind of nothing is original anymore. You have to break free from the idea of, oh that’s a jacket that’s been cut before.

It’s about curating stuff in your own way and matching stuff up that makes sense to you. Sometimes the new thing is bringing part of yourself to something that’s already been created. That’s original in itself. Having worked on design teams as an intern, your eyes are open to the fact that that is what a lot of places do, they go through archives and they go through vintage and people send vintage down the runway too and that’s allowed because you’re pairing it with something you’ve made and maybe that’s the fresh thing in itself.

BARING: How do you feel before and after these big moments? I can imagine It’s a big build-up of emotions, what’s the build-up and wind down of that like?

BOR: My biggest moment has definitely been my final collection and I was so nervous. We have an internal show and then we have a press show. When I found out that I was closing the internal show, it just blew my mind because I just thought about myself in the first year and I would have never in a million years thought that that would be the case.

It’s really overwhelming. At CSM, there’s a lot of pressure when you realize what a different opportunity it provides. They invite so many people from industry to that show and it is put on such a pedestal. If you are successful, there is a huge amount of attention and it is quite scary. I had never had that kind of recognition from people before and the immediate reaction was, oh when’s this going to stop, when’s this going to run out, I need to do something else now to keep the momentum, I gotta keep my legs running and moving and trying to hustle out of it. So, you think it’s going to be a big relief but it never stops, but we love it.

BARING: What are your biggest fears or anxieties going forward into a very competitive industry and how do you overcome them?

BOR: Technology. Me and technology, we don’t really mix too well. In big houses, there is a lot of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign all these things and I’ve never felt that that has been my creative practice, I never lean towards it, I’m not inspired by it hugely and have had the freedom to be like that up until now. I guess because at Saint Martins you are allowed to create in whichever way you choose, but when you go into a company, you have to mold yourself into the way that they do things, but I guess I enjoy the craft and using my hands. 

MACER: My main anxiety is probably just sustainability of my energy because there’s so much failure and the work that you see publicly is probably fifteen to twenty percent (max) of the work that I do. There are so many let-downs and peaks and troughs of emotions within such a tight period of time and it’s hugely taxing. I’m definitely still learning the methods of processing it. As soon as I finish a job, I try to maintain my energy by almost forgetting about it and acting like it’s never going to happen because there are too many moments of getting huge opportunities that never come to fruition. 

BARING: I imagine the highs and lows become more intense as you put more into it. How many days do you work? 

MACER: I haven’t taken a day off this year. Monday to Sunday. For example, working with people in America, you’re expected to be awake when they are awake. There is no time off, it’s always go. There is a big work guilt. There’s also that thing of once I go on holiday, you’ll get a million jobs. It’s everything, you put all your energy into it and I don’t think there is a huge amount of reciprocal respect there, with the people you’re working with I think it's often treated as quite disposable. If you go on a music video shoot for example, there will be a whole room full of racks of clothes and you know four looks are going to be made out of that, so your chances are always slim, you’re always hedging your bets with it.

BARING: Even in terms of payment, I understand the being paid in exposure idea, at least at the beginning, but has that shifted for you now?

MACER: It’s probably only come about recently in the last eight or nine months, (through) recognising the amount of time I’m putting into it, and just holding respect for what I’m doing. I think the working for free for exposure thing, it’s often not an equal payoff considering the money and energy you’re putting into it. 

BOR: I mean I’ve done this whole show and there’s been exposure in quotation marks, which I’m so grateful for and has opened some doors for more “exposure” but at what point do I know that I’m valuable enough to be paid? You have to make the decision for yourself and that’s a massive risk as well because then comes the thing of maybe no one wants to pay you and then what. You feel like, am I just going to sink to the bottom?

Phoebe and Sam, 2025. Photographed by Luke Soteriou at Macer’s studio in London.

BARING: Has there been anything that has surprised you about the industry so far?

MACER: You hear these generalizations about what the fashion industry and the characters that exist in that world, and probably from an outside point of view you think those are slight caricatures, but I think it’s very much a reality. It’s just as cutthroat as people describe it. So, the biggest learning curve is really holding your ground and respecting your work as much as you can because no one else is going to respect it or treat it as well as you are. You have to grow a very thick skin because there’s a huge amount of failure.

BOR: The most important thing is, you have to be in love with it. You have to be excited by the opportunity and the risk. That’s what’s got to keep you ticking, it all has to be enjoyable, you have to love the drama a little bit because it’s never going to go away, but you feel like you’re part of something beautiful and bigger. 

The most shocking thing I’ve found is the complete lack of money at the bottom end of it. In most other industries, working for people the hours that you do, you would be paid. And it’s not even just your work, they pick your brain and that’s just expected. It’s not that the people I have worked for are any different from others in the industry but they feed off your commitment and you have to prove yourself. It’s a huge privilege to be able to do it to be honest because it’s not kind to people who can’t afford to do it.

MACER: It’s a huge problem that is right at the top of the industry. I can’t afford to pay my interns and there is no way I can switch that up and be like, “Okay, we’re going to change the system, I’m going to pay you.” because that means I need to be paid more by the people I’m working for and they need to be paid more by the people above them. So, it’s really hard to make that change from the bottom and make it more accessible and inclusive. 

BARING: What do you think other designers do well to gain exposure, do you think there is a deciding factor?

MACER: I think you can apply this to anything in the industry, there is no formula. There is no rule book to say if you want to be in this job, follow steps one through ten and you’ll end up in that position. But that’s the exciting thing about it because you can forge your own path but it makes it more like the wild wild west, you’ve really got to figure out your own shit.

BOR: You have to have your own formula. If you have someone else’s formula, it’s not going to work, or it might work for a second but it’s definitely not going to last. 

MACER: There’s also so much dependence on time and place, if what you’ve made really hit a nerve—like the Conner Ives t-shirt, the Protect the Dolls t-shirt, that was so politically aligned in timing that it really blew up and created so much social traction. I guess that was just a very smart intuition thing from his point of view.

BOR: I know people bang on about it, but it’s genuinely about authenticity. You can tell so clearly the difference and that’s coming from a place where for a long time I didn’t have it. It is original when you’re authentic and when it’s not it can be very very obvious. There is something to be said for shock factor these days. Sometimes people go very big and that is also seen as impressive. But when you do that, there’s a danger of it not being sustainable. Then again, if that’s authentic to you, it often works.

Phoebe’s work, 2025. Photographed by Grace Vigrass.

BARING: What’s a piece of advice you would give each other, based on your own experience?

MACER: If I were in Phoebe’s position, I would just try as many things as possible and really not overthink what you’re doing. Just throw yourself at anything that comes your way. That’s probably responding to what we were talking about earlier at university. The most valuable thing about it is the freedom to play. That gives you so much chance to dive deep into what feels right with what you’re making, rather than thinking of everything as being part of public (consumption) and being perfect.

So, if I were in your position, I would explore and experiment and have fun.

BOR: I would probably say have faith in yourself, because you work so hard. Keep working like how you’re working and it can’t go too wrong. 

I would say Sam hugely motivates me, I mean we spend a lot of time together and watching him work as hard as he does is so inspiring, genuinely. It’s so so impressive and has just broken boundaries of what one person can do and allowed my mind to explode with what I’m capable of. It’s given me confidence to do all the things that I’ve done. I see you doing so much and it’s like, wow if you really sit down for seventeen hours a day you can get a lot done. So I just would say, “Stop beating yourself up so much and have faith in your work ethic and craft.”

Also, don’t be so picky with stuff. He’s a perfectionist, we are very different In that way. I'm less of a perfectionist.

MACER: I was thinking that with the SZA job, there was a lot of stuff that took me around two days to perfect that is very much not apparent in any of the videos. 

BOR: Yeah, people can’t tell in those situations so it’s actually not necessarily always worth the agony you put yourself through. 

MACER: Yes, you have to think about the bigger picture.

 

Phoebe and Sam, 2025. Photographed by Luke Soteriou in London.

 

The Erotic Gaze: Ireland Wisdom on Intimacy, Immortality, and the Art of Looking

Painter Ireland Wisdom speaks with longtime collaborator Carlye Packer about the sensual rituals of portraiture, the psychic tension of play, and why painting from life is an affair of devotion, desire, and death.

portraits by Austin Sandhaus

In this intimate conversation between gallerist Carlye Packer and painter Ireland Wisdom, what begins as a reflection on their creative partnership unfolds into a meditation on intimacy, eroticism, play, and mortality. Wisdom, whose portraits are painted from live models in prolonged silence are charged with a psychic intensity. She speaks with Packer candidly about her relationship to the body, desire, and the mythic tradition of being seen—and of seeing. As they revisit their early collaborations and look closer at Wisdom’s new Dance Macabre series, the dialogue dances between the sacred and the scandalous, from Goya to Dorian Gray to Georges Bataille. As friends and colleagues, they muse about works that are made like someone chasing the moment before it is lost. Whether you are a sitter or simply a viewer, you are invited to enter that entanglement with her.

CARLYE PACKER: Okay, so it is a pleasure to be interviewing you. We have known each other for over ten years, and started working together about three years ago when I did your first major solo exhibition at my old gallery location on Sunset, which was the original American Apparel flagship store. That exhibition was presented in October of 2022 and was an exhibition of how many portraits? Twelve?

IRELAND WISDOM: Twelve portraits and two still lifes.

PACKER: Yes—all set against a black Goya-esque background and all painted from live models, right? 

WISDOM: Yes, I was trained in Florence on how to paint from life, using an old technique that started with Leonardo da Vinci called “sight size,” which is painting a figure or anything really in the scale of life. It was a technique that was sort of brought back to life by John Singer Sargent in the 19th century. So I have continued carrying out that really old tradition, I continually choose to paint from life with my models sitting in front of me.

 
 

PACKER: A lot of your paintings tend to be very sensual, with direct eye contact, mostly nude or semi-clothed. As a viewer, there is obviously a very deep connection between you and the subject being painted—what is that relationship to your subjects and your relationship to painting them and their relationship to you as they are being painted?

WISDOM: Well, desire has always been linked to themes of love and intimacy, a yearning between two figures. In choosing a model and them accepting my request to paint them, there is a sort of bond of intimacy established. 

PACKER: How is it that you choose your models?

WISDOM: So, usually it just comes from an impromptu feeling of inspiration. Either it's a close friend that I've known for years that has been a consistent muse or it's another type of instant attraction to an unknown person—someone that just kind of wows me, who grabs my attention, someone who feels iconic, timeless, very slay. It’s a very Dionysian impulse. I’m drawn to the essence of something or someone that just feels memorable and usually I’m physically attracted to them as well, which is why a deep sensuality comes out in my portraits; a kind of intenseness that you can feel within their eyes and their facial expressions, a sort of combination of hunger, lust, devotion or appetite.

PACKER: What actually happens in the process, when you're in-person painting someone?

WISDOM: There's a really interesting dynamic between the artist and the sitter, a very genuine experience that is hard to put into words. It’s like trying to capture the powerful feeling that is the human condition, that of being desired and of desiring another person—it’s like trying to establish a lost object, or a dream once you awake, or the tension between how someone appears externally, their unconscious mind, how I see them, how I want them to be seen, how I want them to be immortalized and how they want themselves to be immortalized, and the tension between those things are all in play—all while they are looking me in the eye, and I’m looking back at them.

PACKER: It’s giving very Titanic.

WISDOM: Yes. (laughs) It’s very titanic, but it’s also very Dorian Gray. It’s an erotic sort of adventure—I mean the experience of being immortalized in oil is a very particular and deep experience. The model basically sits in silence—in a meditative state—which feels like a rare experience these days—to be observed and captured over many hours, over many days—in slowness—especially in this digital era. 

PACKER: I have sat for you for a portrait and it definitely felt like a weird out-of-body affair.

WISDOM: It is a sort of affair, there’s something scandalous inherent in this tradition of painting from life. It’s an expression of energy flows and an obsessive concern with the erotic, with myth, with self-mythologizing, the sacrifice of giving one’s self, the nature of excess. It’s an entanglement of energy, a giving and a taking from both sides. I usually choose to paint my subjects looking directly at me, so when it's finished, the viewer looks at the painting and the subject is looking directly at them. The viewer then becomes a part of this entanglement as well.

PACKER: I think one of the best examples of this is your reclining nude portrait of Marco, in his Danskos, with the papaya split open. I feel like when we exhibited that painting, people wanted to know who he was, what your relationship was, and why does he look so good?

WISDOM: (laughs)

PACKER: Someone had actually described, when viewing the painting, that it made them feel hungry.

WISDOM: (laughs) Yes, definitely. It’s giving appetite.

PACKER: Most of your paintings elicit those questions for people. Like when we exhibited the portrait of Yeha (“The Keyster”) at Felix this year, people were so curious to know more.

WISDOM: What did they want to know more about?

PACKER: Everything, really. Whenever I exhibit your work, it demands a sort of curiosity from the viewer. 

WISDOM: Yeah, I feel like “The Keyster” was a great infusion of reality and surrealism. Or rather sort of an infusion of the psychic tension between play and its ambiguities. 

PACKER: In what sense?

WISDOM: Well, she has her arms open, pointing towards two different keyholes. It kind of symbolizes these basic, everyday decisions we have to make. How it all comes down to which one we pick? And she is standing there, being playful about the decision making process, which is something I think is important for us to remember—it sort of goes back to Bataille's ideas about play—like how he believed that death reveals the impossible and that play is a way of seeing this. 

PACKER: Well your new series of paintings is very overtly death-oriented.

WISDOM: Yes, this new series is focused around the Medieval genre of the Dance Macabre, or the dance of death. In the past this was illustrated in a poetic yet literal way, the idea that all are equal before death. Obviously, they were dealing with the black plague back then. Now, in my current series, I’m using a lot of similar imagery, but thinking about death not necessarily in the ending-of-life way, though that as well, but rather as the series of endings that we all go through that make way for new cycles to come. My own personal take is about one having an ego death and dancing with it.

PACKER: Which circles back to the playfulness that is in most of your paintings. 

WISDOM: Yes, I find that play is one of the most important things, the muses do keep musing.

PACKER: Who would be your ideal next muse?

WISDOM: I see people all around me that I would love to have sit for me. Julia Fox would be nice, I don’t really know why, probably because I just read her memoir. But I also saw this old man walking today, when I was walking to meet you, and asked for his number, he was serving homage to Jusepe de Ribera. Maybe one of the presidential portraits, not in the near future, but in the far far future, when I’m much older. Or the Pope, that would be iconic.

PACKER: Would you paint the Pope nude?

WISDOM: Only if he let me.

Islands Within: The Multiplicity of Kilo Kish

With her latest EP, Negotiations, Kilo Kish confronts the emotional toll of digital culture and reclaims space for nuance, rest, and plurality in response to an industry built on speed.

 
 

interview by Summer Bowie
portraits by
Dana Boulos

Despite the ever-shifting expectations of digital culture, American artist of sound and screen Kilo Kish continues to carve out a space entirely her own—one that defies genre, challenges structure, and insists on emotional honesty. With her latest EP Negotiations, Kish turns her gaze inward and outward, interrogating the increasingly blurred boundaries between human and machine, performance and authenticity, burnout and resilience. Through textured soundscapes, fragmented narratives, and a visual aesthetic that’s both nostalgic and hypothetical, she invites us into a world where self-care is a form of resistance.

How do we nourish the spirit while navigating systems that rarely pause for breath? Kish speaks candidly about the emotional labor behind her output, the philosophies that anchor her worldview, and the freedom she’s found in embracing multiplicity—of identity, of media, and of meaning. What emerges is a portrait of an artist in motion: reflective, adaptive, and uncompromising in her pursuit of truth through art.

SUMMER BOWIE: Your new EP, Negotiations, is all about the slippery contemporary landscape of rapidly evolving technology, emotional instability and the struggle to escape our algorithmic silos. Are there any specific life experiences that inspired its conception?

KILO KISH: This EP is focused more on the music industry and the social expectations of artists in 2025 and how they can lead to burnout without proper self-care and protections. With this one, I thought a lot about these creative systems imposed and the internal creative systems in the body, heart, mind, and spirit that require the same nourishment to perform. Just wondering to myself, where is the nourishment going to come from in the future? How do we build ourselves strong to survive and thrive creatively? In thinking of stamina and productivity, what first came to mind was robots, autonomous factories and storefronts, and systems that don’t require rest. So, the visual and creative world was built from that. 

BOWIE: Your visuals—album covers, fashion, and videos—often evoke a futuristic yet nostalgic feel. How do you develop the visual language for each project, and what role does mood or time period play in your aesthetic decisions?

KISH: I didn’t want the impression to be so futuristic or on the nose, I always love bringing in the conversation about technology or the present in settings that don’t necessarily evoke it, so we chose this ’90s office building. I build the world first and then the music, so I’m always clear that the mood of the music and the visual world will be harmonious. When making films that go with the music, I’m already really clear on the characters and ideas that I want to employ, so then it’s just finding collaborators and explaining the world to them. 

BOWIE: What does a typical creative cycle look like for you—from idea germination to completion? Is your process more intuitive and chaotic, or do you map things out structurally from the start?

KISH: It’s very intuitive. My approach to storytelling is purely an internal dialogue and a spiritual practice of just listening. I only make work when I know I am supposed to make it and that comes from hearing from god or my own questions about my path. The first step is just listening—I’m always living and listening to what is next and where I should go. Journaling helps. But I’m always working on multiple projects, so while I am doing one I may get a clue for something else and write it down. I’m always gathering references, so when things pop up that may work for the new project I build out digital spaces for that. As I finish one project, I eventually have all the clues I need to begin the next one. That usually consists of rough ideas, questions, visual references, art direction, rough treatments—but a sense of the world is built internally, and I have a direction. Once I know the world, I start the production process of actually making. So I’m always making at least five to ten projects but in various stages of completion. But a lot of it is just listening, getting quiet enough to have enough alone time or internal practice to feel what wants to come forth next. I’m often wrong about order or timing, but it always works itself out. 

BOWIE: You’ve seamlessly blended music, visual art, and fashion in your career. Do you see these disciplines as separate expressions, or are they different languages telling the same story? How do you navigate where one ends and the other begins?

KISH: I think it depends on the project. They work in tandem to create a more expressive world or story, to me it’s all intuitive and they’re all important to sharing ideas. It all feels very natural to me to play in these different spaces, in expressing this nature to others over the years there were always outside requests to slim down, or streamline who you are, now it’s a bit more accepted, which is great. But before, so much of my time was spent trying to explain how or where things began and ended, which was the “focus,” and I just confused myself ultimately. I saw a coach who helped me to detangle it and I see these extensions now as islands, all of them exist as parts of me and my way of telling stories, and there are bridges between them at times, and these configurations can change, but they are all me, and all existing in me always. There are islands I haven’t discovered yet. I’ve grown more comfortable holding this version of myself as truth. I really like this song by Empress Of called “What Type of Girl Am I?” It’s a question I’ve asked myself tons of times too. 

BOWIE: In addition to your 2021 video and track “American Gurl,” you also curated an exhibition of short films of the same name with co-curator Zehra Ahmed, first at Hauser + Wirth and most recently at MOCA in Los Angeles. Can you talk about the genesis of that project?

KISH: Zehra had featured some of my video work in her womxn in windows shows previously. We first worked together more closely when I did the Midnight Moment with Times Square Arts. The concepts from American Gurl felt so expansive and like there was a lot more to explore so Zehra proposed creating a film exhibition together, kind of blending what we both already do, and so we started working on bringing that to MOCA some years ago. The Hauser show and the Gantt Center show were pleasant surprises in between that initial idea. We have an upcoming guest curation at the Academy Museum this summer as well! Zehra and I gel well creatively, and we’ve found a beautiful niche that’s been really rewarding to bring to the public. 

BOWIE: In works like American Gurl, there’s a conversation around digital identity and the hyperreality of modern life. What’s your perspective on how technology affects our sense of self—and how do you channel that in your art?

KISH: There’s this constant questioning of the self against other things, and these other entities: people, systems, spaces, etc, are constantly in our view and held against our bodies. At this point, detachment from that source of information, inspiration, or entertainment is difficult for lots of us. Although, when explored with purpose it can be very rewarding, I love scrolling through pages and pages of reference or researching things that pop into my mind. But the thing is, you never really know what you will come across or how it might affect you, so I try to give myself breaks or grace around processing time online. I think I aim for freedom and this attitude of being above it all, but in our industry, perception is important and it exists whether you choose to commune with it or not. 

BOWIE: Your music often challenges traditional pop structures, mixing spoken word, noise, and ambient textures. What draws you to sonic experimentation, and how do you balance abstraction with accessibility?

KISH: I guess I just want everything, all the time. It’s part of the “problem” of my work and what makes it unique. I try to balance things that seem to be in opposition or find the threads that connect them. I think boredom with who I’ve been before is a huge motivator for me, I like evolution and watching ideas change over time. But really, I’ve always just identified with otherness, like, “we could do that, but what about this, we don’t know what happens if we do this.” I just love being an explorer, of our blip in time, of the inside, and the outside.  

BOWIE: Much of your work explores identity, consumerism, and modern alienation—often with philosophical or existential undertones. Are there particular thinkers, books, or theories that have significantly shaped your worldview and creative output?

KISH: I’ve always been a very spiritual and purpose-driven person, so years and years of meditating on god have informed this approach to life that says, we all have a purpose and we’re meant to explore, give, and live as humble and as noble as possible, sharing the truth and gifts of our spirit with the world, seeing the body as a channel for ideas to come forth. Like in another life, I could have definitely been a nun, I like the idea of being in service to all but yourself. But too much of this, this martyrdom of the artist part that’s always in the background, was responsible for much of the burnout I touch on in Negotiations. At the same time, I am a product of my environment and my world that says, “Grab up as much as you can for yourself and become the biggest version of yourself you can be.” I’ve read so many self-help, productivity, meditation, stoicism, healthy living, spiritual texts, etc. I have this fixation on what it means to live a good life. I think learning to balance these elements and giving grace for what is left unknown is what I’ve been focused on recently. I constantly return to the Denial of Death (1973) by Ernest Becker and Concerning the Spiritual in Art (1911) by [Wassily] Kandinsky. But much of my practice is intuitive and listening to myself and what comes forth. 

BOWIE: Many of your lyrics feel like internal monologues, offering listeners a peek into your thought process. How do you decide what emotional truths to share, and do you ever feel the need to protect parts of yourself from the wider public?

KISH: I do, but not so much in the art itself. Music to me doesn’t always have to be about the songwriter, so you can hide a little in that space if absolutely necessary. There is this reality and fiction existing at the same time and we expect that too. I think I definitely protect myself elsewhere, in my personal life, or even meeting people in public, even if I just performed for tons of people, I can be really shy afterwards. Also online, I’d rather just present the work than present myself to camera daily. 

BOWIE: As someone who often moves outside of genre norms and mainstream expectations, how do you maintain your creative independence in an industry that can reward predictability? Have there been moments where you had to fight to stay true to your vision?

KISH: To me nothing really feels like a fight. It either just has to happen or not, and you’re on board, or you’re not, and I’m just following that flow in the dark a lot of the time. It can be stressful at times, though, waiting for things to unfold completely, but I know the decisions I need to make to serve the purpose of the project. I think there are many paths to winning, some just require carving out. Everything I have set out to do I have done bit by bit, and if I haven’t, I’m not done yet. It can be daunting and demoralizing for sure, because repeating yourself or your angle time and time again begins to change the meaning behind the words. There is this interview with Venus and Serena Willams’ dad where an interviewer keeps questioning them about a statement one of them made in confidence, eventually their dad stops the reporter, reminding him that the more times you question someone on something they hold true, they begin to lose confidence around that idea. Believe them the first time. I think this business can do that, wear you down, or make you feel small for wanting a different option or another path, or confuse your value or worth with that of numbers. Imposter syndrome is real and definitely plays a role, but I’ve learned to accept that my perfectionism is ingrained even if it’s unattainable. It try to give myself grace in that when I remember that everyone is grading by different measures. 

BOWIE: Looking ahead, what kind of artistic legacy do you want to leave behind? Are there unexplored mediums or themes you're still yearning to dive into that might surprise your current audience?

KISH: I just want to continue to build worlds that people can live and explore themselves in—sonic, video, written, visual, performance. Creatively, I just want a lush, rich, expansive life that pulls from all elements. I would like to be prolific in that sense, not overthinking things, just exploring and doing. I’d like to direct a bit more, short narrative, or maybe make a play or opera. I would love to make more performances that involve music and dance. This year, I’ve done more creative work for others and that’s been rewarding. I designed a book called City of Angels for my good friend Jasmine Benjamin, about LA style. I want to play with nature, make physical spaces, grow food, and build landscapes. There’s still so much left to do. 

Everything Has to Come At the Right Moment: An Interview of Francisco Costa

From Calvin Klein to sustainable skincare, the maternal gaze is a guiding principle for Brazil’s prodigal son.

 
 

interview by Summer Bowie
portraits by
Keith Oshiro


Francisco Costa’s path from the rarefied world of high fashion to the heart of the Amazon is a story of return—both to his geographical roots and to a practice that prioritizes community care by design. Born in the small town of Guarani, Brazil, Costa was raised by a visionary mother who ran a garment factory that empowered hundreds of local women and modeled what would now be considered a quietly radical form of sustainability.

Shortly after losing his mother during his adolescence, the budding young designer moved to New York to study fashion at FIT. An early and formative experience working for a Seventh Avenue garment manufacturer who held licenses for major designers, including Oscar de la Renta, led to Costa eventually working directly under de la Renta, becoming part of his atelier and learning the foundations of luxury design and craftsmanship. This apprenticeship was pivotal—it exposed Costa to the world of refined, couture-level design and helped him develop the precision and discipline that would later define his own minimalist aesthetic.

In the late 1990s, Costa moved to Gucci, where he worked under Tom Ford. This period helped sharpen his sense of modernity, sex appeal, and branding. Best known for his decade-long tenure as the Women’s Creative Director at Calvin Klein, Costa became a defining voice in modern reductionism—an editor of excess, who found beauty in restraint. But even then, his instinct was to reuse, reimagine, and reconnect with materials in deeply personal ways. All along the way, his mother’s ethics of care and resourcefulness continue to shape Costa’s worldview.

With the founding of Costa Brazil, he turned his attention from clothing the body to nurturing it. A pivotal trip to the western Amazon introduced him to Indigenous communities and powerful natural ingredients like breu, a sacred resin with antimicrobial and spiritual properties. Guided by partnerships with organizations like Conservation International, Costa built a brand that honors the land, its protectors, and the rituals that sustain both.

In every sense, Costa Brazil is an extension of its founder’s ethos: pure, considered, and deeply connected to place.

FRANCISCO COSTA: I love that you have all those books behind you.

SUMMER BOWIE: One of the best perks of running a magazine is that we’re constantly receiving beautiful new books that allow us to really sink our teeth into all of the art that we’re exploring. It’s quite a privilege.

COSTA: Isn't that fun? So let me show you my little treasure, because I'm obsessed with books, so I built this little library. This is my pride and joy.

BOWIE: You recently published your own gorgeous book, 555: Revisiting The Fashion Archive of Francisco Costa (Rizzoli, 2023).

COSTA: It's really sweet, that book, because I don't like to look back so much, but I encountered myself in the Calvin Klein archives and I said, how can I actually put this to work? So, I started talking to a few photographers and suddenly I had twenty-one photographers that wanted to shoot the project. It's great because it's also seeing the clothes on and out of context. To me, that works the best.

BOWIE: There's something that feels much more genuine when you look at the collections this way, rather than in a campaign.

COSTA:It wasn't about getting the ‘fashion’ picture, you know what I mean?

BOWIE: I think people forget that you were the first designer in the US to stop using fur. The fashion industry, however, is still an environmental disaster and is currently having this big return to real fur. Did any recent industry trends have anything to do with you making that transition from fashion to sustainable skincare?

COSTA: No. In fact, it goes all the way back to my childhood. I grew up in a very small town in Brazil, and my mom had started this business, which was a children's manufacturing company. All the women that worked in town worked in her factory. She had 725 employees in a town of about 3000 and supported a very sustainable way of living. For instance, whatever textile would remain, she would donate to smaller communities in the rural areas, and she would teach the women how to make quilts. There was always a connectivity with the way she would empower the women with new skills and materials. When I started creating this brand [Costa Brazil], the minute I started engaging with manufacturers, I thought, I don't want to just put my name on something that exists. It’s the same way I created my collections—most of my textiles were created by me. This was a very sustainable approach, though I didn't even know it at the time. I would go to a mill in Cuomo, and they often took me backstage, which I loved. I would go into warehouses filled with yarns—things that have been sitting there since the ’50s—and I always found myself turned on by reinventing, by recreating, reappropriating. With my Fall 2011 collection, I went through knitwear companies in Scotland and in Northern Italy, took all the remnants they had, and I boiled everything. I created a whole new fabric.

BOWIE: So, your mother was really the genesis of both your inspiration in fashion and sustainability?

COSTA: And community care. She was very involved in the community. She was involved in the church and she was civically minded. The mayors of town over the years would come to my house. They used to have meetings there, which was bizarre because she was also so concerned about the wellbeing of the people who worked for her. She really had an impact on me. When I started creating Costa [Brazil] it was that transition, but it wasn't, because for me, it was a process. I was still at Calvin when I started thinking of creating my own brand and I thought it would be a lifestyle brand. I would have furniture linens or what have you, because I love lifestyle. But then, I kept on editing and editing and editing until the Francisco Costa idea ended up becoming Costa Brazil. All of a sudden, the direction changed into beauty because I was really heavily inspired by Piero Manzoni. (Francisco pulls out a book and shows a picture of Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit can). This is what inspired my packaging. 

BOWIE: Oh, yes, of course. The shit cans.

COSTA: You can see how it inspired the candle packaging. Obviously, being on the cusp of Arte Povera, he used not only humor, but elements of highs and lows. That was the genesis of it all. When the name changed from Francisco Costa to Costa Brazil, it felt very radical, but it wasn't about me anymore. It was about creating a brand that spoke about the coast of Brazil and something that could be amplified to many regions: the coast of the Amazon, the coast of Rio, the coast of whatever. It could tap into locations that give that sensibility of the wholesomeness of Brazil. When you say the word ‘Brazil,’ it takes you in so many different directions, but often a very happy place, a curious place. People imagine Brazil being this Xanadu, and so it just felt like it really worked that way.

BOWIE: Costa Brazil is clearly deeply rooted in nature and Brazilian heritage, but you also currently chair the America's Council at Conservation International. What does that work entail?

COSTA: Well, I was working with the Special Olympics in Brazil, designing some of the uniforms. Then, I ended up on the west coast of the Amazon, where I stayed with a tribe called the Yaminawá. They are one of eleven tribes of the same ethnicity in that region. The people there are so gentle and beautiful, and being in the forest itself is beyond magical. 

While I was there, I was introduced to this resin called breu that they use on a daily basis in many of their rituals. At the time, I was already affiliated with Conservation International, but I engaged a lot more as they helped me identify communities within the area, which were already under cooperatives. C.I. and the Brazil Foundation were very important partners that were able to guide me into sourcing everything properly. So, that helped me build this web of people in the Amazon, which I could go and visit.

I also ended up in a state called Amapá, which is near French Guiana and when I got there, I met a single three-generation family that does all the sourcing for three ingredients. I also found Kaya in another region, which has a coconut-like structure. It looks surreal and ancient and the oil is filled with super powerful proteins.

BOWIE: What are the applications of breu within the Yaminawá community?

COSTA: It's a sacred resin. While it's fresh, it's very white and pulpy, and then when it oxidizes, it becomes this rock. After we analyzed it in a lab, we discovered that it is also a mosquito repellant. The Yaminawá often throw those rocks into several different fires throughout the land, but I had no idea at the time that they were doing it to repel mosquitoes. They keep those fires burning day and night, and then prayer is part of it too. If a child is upset and crying, they will have the child inhale the smoke from the resin. It's known to be very relaxing, a little bit like palo santo. It has those esoteric properties. It is also antimicrobial. Discovering something with all of these incredible qualities felt like a dream. It was a lot like discovering a linen that had been sitting in a warehouse for fifty years.

BOWIE: I’m wearing the face serum right now and it has a really wonderful natural fragrance but it’s completely unscented. It feels very light and fresh without drawing too much attention to itself.

COSTA: The serum is the only sku that we have that's not oil based, but you have big potent ingredients in there. Of course, hyaluronic acid being one of them, which is not a Brazilian thing. But then, you have guarana. Guarana is a tiny little seed that's really powerful. It's very well known in Brazil, because they make soft drinks out of guarana. It has an energizing characteristic to it. So, if you feel a tingling, that’s the guarana activating the skin. And then, it also has camu camu, which is pure vitamin C. We curate our ingredients in the best way possible. It's not about the marketing aspect of the brand, it's about the function of the active ingredients, the product itself.

BOWIE: That really mirrors your approach with fashion, because you are so known for your minimalism. You’ve always chosen materials that speak for themselves.

COSTA: I think I’m more of a reductionist than a minimalist, because I love everything. But, as part of my design aesthetics and my way of living, I always like less. I like to be surrounded with a lot of objects, but I don't want to see all of them all the time. Everything has to come at the right moment. I switch my whole house around all the time, which makes my husband crazy. But the editing is so important. Every maximalist moment is followed by a minimalist moment. So, you have to see it all and then you have that cathartic moment when you reduce it all down to what’s functional.

BOWIE: There is something so cathartic about the editing process. How far have you reduced your living space? 

COSTA: Well, when COVID hit, I was in Florida where I had just bought an apartment, but there wasn’t anything in it yet. I ordered two beds before I moved in and that's all I had. I stayed there for the first eight months of the pandemic with almost nothing. It's very hard for me to live without books, though. By the end of the eight months, I had tons of magazines and books.

BOWIE: What does true luxury mean to you today? Especially in the context of sustainability?

COSTA: True luxury is having time. Not having to be somewhere or to do anything. It is a total luxury to be able to edit your life. We are luxury because even though we are a small brand, we are a refined brand. The ingredients are almost unattainable. So, to bring a little bit of the Amazon of Brazil into your home, it's a luxury. And we go through so much to share those ingredients ethically. This work is serious.

BOWIE: How do you balance the tension between haute beauty and environmental responsibility?

COSTA: The beauty business is very interesting to me. There's actually a lot of protocols, and I respect those protocols, but I don’t know if everyone else does. I had zero protocols in fashion. Fashion is very abusive and it’s also very unsustainable. To think that I turned nights and nights with everybody working like insane people. And for what? Just because I wanted to change half of the collection? It’s irresponsible. But, fashion is like a pressure cooker. It makes you insane, because you're not just pleasing the retailers, you have to please everybody. And you're very vulnerable. It's never enough. 

In beauty, at least I know the limits. The way I look at sustainability is the people. How do we protect and empower them? This three-generation family, for example. It’s fundamental that these people can live their lives and continue to manage the land. The Indigenous people are the protectors of the Amazon and there are millions of communities throughout the region.

Another consideration has to do with protecting and empowering the consumer. That means creating a quality product that is functional and beautiful with packaging that's genuinely thought out. This is the most difficult aspect for a designer. So, there are parts of the packaging that are not sustainable but they serve a function. When I created the plastic octagonal cap, it was because it needs to have a grip. We’re talking about oils. That's a protective consideration to prevent the glass from breaking.

BOWIE: Do you ever see yourself returning to fashion in a more traditional sense? Or is beauty and wellness where your heart is now?

COSTA: I love fashion. It's just that fashion doesn't love a 60-year-old man. Fashion is for the young and it should be. I have no interest in going back to fashion because I have nothing to prove. But if I wasn't so busy running this business, I probably would create a couture collection. There's nothing more sustainable than that, you know? The oldies, like Balenciaga, only cut the fabric if somebody ordered a dress. So, there's zero waste. I would've loved to be more playful in that area, or to make a difference in a large corporation with the restructuring of its supply chain. But not just to be a designer showing another eight collections a year. If I could make a difference on a large scale, under a group, I would do that in a heartbeat.

 
 

Artist Karice Mitchell Deconstructs the Black 'Playboy' at Silke Lindner in New York

Karice Mitchell
Paradise (Triptych), 2025
Archival inkjet print, custom frame, sandblasted glass, vinyl


text by Karly Quadros

“I love using familiarity as a way to ask unfamiliar questions,” says Karice Mitchell.

Drawing from Players magazine, often dubbed “the Black Playboy,” Mitchell’s photo-based works explore the no man’s land between exposure and illegibility, frankness and mystery, modesty and obscenity. Through her closely cropped diptychs, triptychs, and modified images sourced from the pages of this landmark magazine of Black erotica, she explores the self-definition, personal expression, and resilience of Black women. Economy of Pleasure, her latest show at Silke Lindner and her first solo exhibition in the U.S., hones in on the early 2000s: the era of the video vixen, digital downloads, and lower back tattoos. Sand blasted over intimate images of a woman’s shoulder, a hoop earring, a pristine pump and a French pedicure are words pulled from the magazine’s pages and models’ nommes de guerre: angel, sensation, paradise.

After a frustrating moment of censorship when she was commissioned to do a public work of art in her native Vancouver, British Columbia in 2023, Mitchell returned more committed than ever to her project exploring the representations of Black women in adult media. While it may seem salacious, the work itself is deeply sensitive and interior. There is recognition between women who have worked to claim their bodies as their own through ink, jewelry, donning clothing, or shedding it. The work is seductive but withholding. Notably missing are the Players models’ faces — rather than exposing these women to judgment and interrogation once again, Mitchell’s work gives the audience only glimpses of a personality and a life lived. Her work is an interrogation, a negotiation, and a reclamation. The rest is on the viewer.

KARLY QUADROS: Can you talk a little bit about yourself, your practice, and how you got here?

KARICE MITCHELL:  I live in Vancouver. I'm an assistant professor full-time at the University of British Columbia. I teach photography there. That work does inform my practice in a lot of ways.

I'm really interested in one publication in particular: Players magazine, which started in the early seventies and stopped in about 2005. It was dubbed as the Black Playboy at the time.

I did my master’s thesis during Covid, which was a terrible, weird time to be making art. I had moved back home, and I didn't have access to camera equipment. I was always a photographer, but the pandemic was a time for me to reassess. What can I do that's readily accessible and within my means? 

I started going to used bookstores, and that's when I found Players magazine. At the time I had no idea what it was, but the images were intriguing to me. So I started making collages with the found imagery, and then after doing some more research for my thesis, I found that it was this really crucial publication for its time in terms of facilitating Black representation. The first editor-in-chief was a Black woman, and she really cemented a particular direction for the publication.

It has a really interesting history that intersects with politics, music, culture, and it was something that was reflective of its time. The women that were in the magazine, that were posing nude, there was a certain kind of allure to them. It felt distinct. It felt cultural, feminine, and very familiar in terms of the women in my family and their rituals of adornment, as well as my own. I was really interested in mining that subtext throughout the images in order to speak to its specific history.

QUADROS: That’s fascinating to hear that the first editor-in-chief was a woman.

MITCHELL:  Especially for that kind of a publication, which we often attribute to facilitating or being simply for the male gaze – which it absolutely is. But something in my practice I'm interested in doing is looking at the images and asking, “What am I picking up on through my engagement and act of looking?”

QUADROS: Have you ever tried to reach out to her?

MITCHELL: She passed away a couple years ago. Her name is Wanda Coleman.  There's one interview that she did. I forget when it was published. It seemed very early 2000s. She talks about the complexities of starting the magazine as a woman, the tensions that were present at the time. But she did also say at the time she had carte blanche to do whatever she wanted. 

It facilitated this very distinct vision for the magazine. She left after a couple of issues, unfortunately. Then the magazine started to go into all of these different directions that I think appeal more to how we understand pornographic visual content today.

But I'm interested in those pivots and in the kind of shifts. With Silke’s show, a lot of the images were from the 2000s, which is seen as being the era that is the most “dirty” or “trashy.” But is there room, maybe, to filter some kind of agency with these images as well?

Engaging with these images from the early 2000s, I see so much of video vixen culture or those modes of representation and femininity – a lot of body modification. There’s this pivot where there’s this very bold risk-taking in terms of the ways in which Black women were adorning themselves. There’s longer nails. There’s a lot of tattoos.

QUADROS: Maybe we can speak a little about adornment – jewelry, acrylics, tattoos – in that era, and how they related to Black women, their bodies, and Black culture more broadly.

MITCHELL:  This is something that I think about all the time, as a Black woman. In a family or a lineage of other Black women, a lot of us are born into these rituals of self adornment. When I was born, the first gift – and this is something that I still have – you get a gold necklace. And it has your initial. It has a stamp affirming who you are. That kind of practice is so familial and feels really precious to me. 

I think about my aunties in the early 2000s, their acrylics and like the sounds that they would make and what they would look like when they were speaking. It's something that I picked up on as a very young child and in a lot of ways has informed the way that I take up space today. 

I think about my mother and corporate settings. She immigrated to Canada from the UK in the ‘90s. One of the things she would say, when she moved to Canada, was that everybody wears sweatpants. “Why don't people dress up when they're outside?” That proclamation of the way she represents herself, especially when she had to navigate the corporate world as a Black woman, was so important to her self-preservation.

Today what we're seeing is a lot of those trends being watered down and bastardized in the context of social media. What does it mean to stake a claim to something that is so authentically true to yourself, and then also watch it be denigrated, but then praised on certain bodies?

QUADROS: There’s this never-ending cycle of cultural innovation and then rejection, often by a white mainstream because that style is “in bad taste” or “too much” or “too Black.” But then  there’s this eventual assimilation that we’re seeing happen now, especially with the early 2000s, in a way that feels very uncritical. 

MITCHELL: I'm in Canada so it's a bit different, but I’ve been witnessing America swing this pendulum into a very sex negative, puritanical, evangelical view and positioning of sex, this anti-pornographic rhetoric. But if we rid pornography, that's not gonna rid us of patriarchy, white supremacy, and misogyny. It's always going to be there. 

I also think about that ongoing rhetoric that is trying to demonize sex but then also permit it only in these weird, codified mainstream ways. It's all of these different contradictory things happening. 

QUADROS: With your artwork, like where do you fall in that?

MITCHELL: In a way, it's complicating. I see my work as interventions to ask questions. I don't ever wanna say that the work is solving all the problems. That's not what I'm gonna do at all. I don't think art should do that. 

When I initially started doing this work, I would have to follow this historical lineage around unearthing the kinds of traumas and violence that had been enacted against the Black female body. That's something that is oftentimes now not being taught in schools: the wars, the transatlantic slave trade and how the Black female body was this vessel of reproduction, labor, and this particular kind of violence that is misogynoir. In a way, I'm sitting with that.

I think my work and my interventions and my interpretations are trying to find the pleasure, find the joy, find the desire and the sexiness and in these subtle suggestions. I think I'm trying to imagine something otherwise. I love using familiarity in a way to ask unfamiliar questions.

QUADROS: This question of the archive and what to glean from it and what to leave, that's something that like Saidiya Hartman writes very clearly about. 

With your work, you're taking us very close. Your work is intimate, almost interior. I find that really interesting because that's the way that sexuality is often expressed: erogenous zones, small touches, little moments like that. The things I love about my body are, for instance, these freckles I have right here on my face or my little tattoo. Your zooming in quality takes away some of the more objectifying quality.

MITCHELL: It’s kind of reorienting, or maybe a different way of looking. In the 2000s era, it was raunchy. It was there for a particular kind of gaze that I'm trying to reject in my own way.

I compared [my work] to when you're at the club, and you're in the girls' bathroom and all the women are like, “Oh my god, your hair, your nails, your outfit. Love it, love to see it.” And that's maybe the kind of approach. It’s like women taking some form of control given the kind of nature around the making of the images. So I love calling attention to those little details.

QUADROS: I love this idea of the girl's bathroom too because it makes me think of the “much-ness” of the work. I don't wanna say “too much-ness.” But there's something where the subjects can't be fully contained in the print. The images are so close. The words are spilling out onto the gallery walls. Could you maybe talk a little bit about how you engage with the frame and the idea of containment? 

MITCHELL: The text has been a new step in the work, and I think it came out of me looking at the covers and seeing the way that on the cover of a magazine, the woman's shoulder would be covering a little bit of the text and like the body on the cover would be like spilling over in these moments. The text is also very particular, and it's very objectifying in a way, but the body is disrupting it. I was really interested in that small moment of disruption of the way this publication is trying to define the body.

It's all text found in the magazines themselves. Some of the pseudonyms of the models – like Angel and Candy and Sweetness – there's this kind of sugary quality to the names that I absolutely fell in love with. I really like this idea of persona and character and the way you represent yourself. What is your character? What is your armor? What do the nails and the hair and the earrings look like? How can I make this spill over into the work in this larger sense? 

QUADROS: Persona comes up a lot in photography with subjects, right? You said you teach photography, so I imagine that's been a large part of your practice for a while.

MITCHELL: It becomes this generative site to determine how you want to represent yourself. I do think more complexly about representation as a whole, especially considering art and the art world, the kinds of representation that are deemed as “good” and then “not good” and feeding into this neoliberal understanding of representation, that just because more Black people are behind the frame, that's a good thing. But are we questioning the kinds of representation we're redeeming as being accessible, as being mainstream?

I think that pornography and committing to this archive in my work, has made a lot of people cautious. Like, why are you walking this line? But Black women were there, and I think that deserves our attention to some degree. That representation is there, so how are you gonna wrestle with it? I'm really interested in the gray area of representation.

QUADROS: Something about representation too is that it’s literally built into or excluded from the technology, right? Cameras originally weren't really constructed with darker skin tones in mind. It's really only been in the past couple decades when we're starting to see directors of photography, cinematographers that can actually handle darker skin tones. Like I just saw Sinners, and it looks spectacular. But it took us a while to get there.

MITCHELL: Oh my God. That movie. It's funny you actually bringing up that movie because I think the use of eroticism in that movie really stuck out to me. Like people assume that couldn't occur given the obviously violent systems in place, but for like sex and eroticism to still bleed out – I love it. It was so good. 

QUADROS: And female pleasure, right?

MITCHELL: That’s right.

QUADROS: I saw that at Brooklyn Academy of Music, which is a little historic movie theater around here, and it was a sold out showing. And that was a crowd that was like hollering laughing. There was a man behind me that was audibly horny. (laughs)

MITCHELL: I love it. Like, we were horny during that time. It's the humanity, right? It's humanizing to acknowledge that was absolutely the scenario and the case.

QUADROS: I guess one thing that I was wondering about though, with your photos, obviously, like they're very closely cropped. There's not a lot of faces. How do you think about anonymity with the source material and your work?

MITCHELL: This is something that I'm still thinking about. I think a lot about other artists’ work like Lorna Simpson or Mickalene Thomas who go to the Ebony archive or the Jet archive. They include the faces of the women in their work. And I do think there is this reason to be specific or to outline that specificity within the archive to show the particular faces of the women that were there. I find that can be a way to humanize the subjects of that particular time or within that era through image making.

My work is about the women in the archive, and it's also about other things. So I think anonymity becomes this way of trying to speak to the other things that I'm interested in. I've played or toyed with the idea of faces, but for me, I think I'm interested in a kind of body politic and maybe that's the draw to then focus on the body, but it's something that I'm still figuring out.

QUADROS: Is there anything you think people fundamentally misunderstand about your work?

MITCHELL: Yeah. People are always like, “Why aren't you behind the camera?” And I'm like, “Girl, it's not about me.” I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's about the images.

There's this constant demand when you're dabbling in terms of this representation to make yourself fully legible, right? To make the subjects fully legible. I think that's why I'm pushing back against this use of the gaze or use of the face because there's this constant expectation that as a Black person, you have to show up in a way that's fully intelligible, oftentimes to a particular kind of white, patriarchal gaze. And in a way, I think this is maybe an exercise of refusal in that. 

The initial hesitation with the work is because it's pornographic. Not to deny the way in which porn does contribute to fetish, contribute to particular kinds of understandings of racial ideologies or gendered ideologies. I think that's where the hesitation does potentially lie. But I don't think the answer is to continue to disregard it or to silence it. 

QUADROS: Do you still take photos? Do you still have your own photography practice?

MITCHELL: I do still take photos. Actually for a public artwork that I did last year, I was behind the camera and I took a picture of myself. Because it was a public installation and it's like in Vancouver, BC, they rejected the work without a reason. It was just a proposal of my hand, satin, and some pearls, which was in reference to the archive. But they rejected it without the possibility of resubmitting.

It felt like a good decision on my part to implicate my own body in that process, rather than the images, because at least then it's a rejection of me. I made the decision to be behind the camera because then I have full control, in a way.

Then after the rejection, I was like, Would it have mattered if it was me or somebody else? I think just the idea of a body there for the sake of itself, is what people just didn't like, because it's a public work. I didn't look very different from any type of ad that uses sex to sell something, to be this capitalist thing. But as soon as it's reclaiming it as something else, it becomes a bit of an issue.

QUADROS: Wow. I'm so sorry you had to deal with that.

MITCHELL: It's okay. We still rose. We still did something. They're operating out of this fear that people are going to say things about the work, and they don't wanna deal with the backlash around that. 

QUADROS: I don't know how it is in Canada, but now in America, you can't even make public art about Blackness or really any marginalized identity without fear of losing your funding. 

MITCHELL: It's crazy that simple visibility is deemed as a threat. It was really eye-opening. I was like, “So this is where we're at.” And, mind you, this is the way that I navigate my day-to-day life. This is how I have to exist, how I have to navigate the world. And somehow in this deeming it as unacceptable – what do you have to say about me and like other people that look like me? What is being subtly suggested there?

A Conversation with Amanda McGowan and Mattie Rivkah Barringer of Women's History Museum


text by Karly Quadros

It was February 2024, and one model at the Women’s History Museum show couldn’t stop falling over. Determined, she trundled down the runway only to trip once again. The culprits were obvious: two enormous, cumbersome brown boxing gloves attached to the toes of classic stilettos. “Take them off!” cried members of the audience, a mixture of fashion insiders and queer iconoclasts. Still, the model made it to the end and hoisted the gloves in her hand, triumphant. K.O.

Unlike most New York footwear, the shoes of Women’s History Museum are not designed with functionality as a priority. In a city where pedestrians reign supreme and comfort is a must, the shoes of fashion label/art duo/vintage store curators Amanda McGowan and Mattie Rivkah Barringer are here to tell a story. Whether they’re white wedding heels bedazzled with a clatter of bones and colorful pills or gold boxing slippers rendered into precarious platforms by two wooden pillars, the shoes of Women’s History Museum exist in the sweet spot between strength and softness, power and precarity, barbarity and beauty.

Vintage remains an essential reference point for the duo. They maintain a carefully curated secondhand designer shop on Canal Street, sort of a modern-day SEX, stocked with everything from ‘80s Vivienne Westwood and ‘90s Gaultier to Edwardian furs and linens. In a similar style to early Alexander McQueen, Barringer and McGowan mine fashion references of the past – Victorian riding boots, rocking horse platforms, 70s crocodile skin clogs – for highly stylized fashion performances that entice as much as they reject traditional categories of beauty. The result is something that feels entirely 2025 in all its shredded, everything-out-in-the-open glory. Throughout Women History Museum’s nine staged collections, they return to similar references: animal prints and pelts; competitive sports, particularly boxing; and New York City, with the coins and shattered glass that cover the sidewalks. The clothes bare skin and barb it too.

Shoes, in many ways, remain the ultimate fetish object. They’re exalted, often the most expensive part of an outfit, yet they spend most of the day in contact with the filthy sidewalk. They’re civilizing, often constricting, and conceal the foot, which remains almost as hidden from public life as the body’s most nether regions. Shoes have often been used to control women as with painful and restrictive footbinding practices, yet their erotic potential is undeniable, as with the long, sensuous lines created in the body with a clear plastic pleaser. It’s no wonder that they served as the basis for Women’s History Museum’s latest show at Company Gallery, on display until June 21. Autre caught up with Barringer and McGowan to talk stilettos, surrealism, and the seriously sinister parts of living – and walking – in New York City.


KARLY QUADROS: Can you tell me about the inception of the show?

AMANDA MCGOWAN: We started working with Taylor Trabulus at Company many years ago.  Not very long after we started, she wanted to do a pop-up shop with us.

We were gonna maybe do an art show with her in the city at some other gallery, but there was drama and it didn't work out. Then she got promoted at Gavin Brown where she was working at the time, and basically she out of nowhere gave us this big art show opportunity there in 2018. After Gavin Brown ended [in 2020], she went to Company Gallery and we did another solo show there, and then they signed us on as artists. We've been working with them since Covid, like 2021. 

This show was actually their idea. It was their idea to do an overview of all the shoes that we've done over the past five years because we actually didn't realize how many we have done. There’s a lot and they're all different. Some have been seen in an art context. Some were in fashion shows. But in a way, they work as standalone art objects, so it made sense to show them in that way. 

The displays that we created for the show, those platforms, were actually wall works that we did for the show at Company in 2021. We made all these prints on paper and then we did these collages imitating ads because that show in 2021 was about recreating an abandoned mall space. The panels were to mimic advertising or storefront environments.

QUADROS: The shoe is such a deceptively simple concept, but there’s a lot that emerges when you see them all next to each other like that. At Autre, our last issue just went to press and the theme was ‘desire.’ We actually had Mia Khalifa on the cover wearing your paw shoe.

MCGOWAN: I saw that! We were talking recently – speaking of desire – about how there is such a sexual element to shoes, a sensuality.

QUADROS: They’re the ultimate fetish object.

MCGOWAN: They are. There’s something about seeing the shoe alone too, not on a foot, which is its own fetish.

QUADROS: Can you talk a little bit about how fetish and sexuality play into your design practice here in the show and elsewhere?

MCGOWAN: I feel like clothes have such a relationship to those topics because there’s such a rapport with the human form, with the body. I feel like it’s one of the reasons it’s not considered an art form because it has this feminine and bodily quality to it that makes it segmented away from formal art world consideration for most people.

MATTIE RIVKAH BARRINGER: There’s just so much loaded with fashion mentally for people. Women are expected to be sexually available or sexually pleasing in a patriarchal society, and clothing is such an interesting way to interfere in those types of codes and signals and take ownership over being specimenized in this way as a woman. 

MCGOWAN: Inherently, clothing and shoes are binding the body. There is this kind of BDSM quality to clothing, and shoes specifically – there’s something about a heel controlling the foot, constricting it, the animal claw within the shoe. There’s something very animalic about human feet – this kind of unruly, weird part of the body – and aestheticizing and controlling it with this beautiful shoe. 

We use a lot of animalic references in the shoes as well. There’s something about female sexuality and animal prints, animal symbology that I feel is somehow connected. Specifically in the fashion industry and in art history, the connection between the animal and the sexual and the woman is so saturated in the imagery. It also, I think, has been interpreted in contemporary feminism perhaps as a degrading comparison. We’re interested in that comparison because I feel like there can be a degrading aspect of it, but then there’s also this other countercurrent where it is kind of positive: I think of Jungian psychology, the positive anima where you’re in this positive relationship acknowledging the animal side of yourself as a human animal. Something about that to us is interesting or empowering to think about. 

And yet, at the same time, we’re trying to point out the possibly negative ways that humans can be animals towards each other in a very cruel world. There’s a lot of very dualistic things about the whole animal reference that is interesting to us in our work.

QUADROS: It’s interesting because fashion is one of the major things that separates humans from animals. We adorn our bodies; animals do not. There’s something maybe post-human about it – does that resonate with you?

BARRINGER:  I feel like throughout time, women and animals have been exploited and used in a lot of ways. So there's also that connection where there's something inherently feminine perhaps about animals too.

MCGOWAN: Everybody does participate in adorning themselves whether or not they consider themselves interested in fashion. It's an activity that is distinctly human.

BARRINGER: In its more negative permutations, the actual industry and making of clothing has a cruelty that we could attribute to like the animalistic behavior of just devouring and consumption.

QUADROS: Some of the shoes – for instance the ones with the bent and broken hooves – recall the sculptures of Meret Oppenheim. I also think of the cloven toe of Margiela tabis, which I’ve seen elicit really strong reactions from people who aren’t invested in fashion. Can you talk a little bit about your exploration of abjection, the uncanny, and yuckiness in your work?

MCGOWAN:  There's such a fine line between femininity being beautiful and being abject.  Within the patriarchal reality spectacle, if a woman has too much makeup and you can tell that she's wearing makeup, it's grotesque, but if she's wearing the type of makeup that really makes her look natural or youthful, then she's beautifully feminine.

We’re very interested in this historical time travel – what the codes were at one time that are different from now and how different depictions and ideals of femininity throughout time contradict the ones we have now.

BARRINGER: Also living in New York City is so abject. We’re very close to abjection all the time. There’s something very medieval about being in New York City. When I’m making something that I think is beautiful, it makes sense to have something abject as part of it in a weird way because it feels like that’s the world that I’m in. It feels more true.

QUADROS: Do you guys have any gross or crazy New York stories?

MCGOWAN: My God, where do I begin? The first show that we did that was a big production last February, somebody punched Mattie in the face on the subway, literally going to see the venue.

QUADROS: Oh my God, I’m so sorry.

MCGOWAN: I feel like New York City has gotten so crazy. It’s like an open air institution.

BARRINGER: I’m surprised that I haven’t seen a dead body yet in New York. I feel like the area we’re in feels so charged from a past time. Looking into New York history, that area used to be like the financial district. It was a port because it’s right on the water, and there was crazy stuff happening there throughout time. You can feel that history.

QUADROS: I feel like that’s certainly reflected in New York fashion right now. Your clothes feel really interested in the messiness or the intensity of the city.

MCGOWAN: I think it feels more, like you’re saying, like the reality. We’re in a time where you’re very confronted with reality. There is a need for fantasy as well, which we try to do, but we also need to acknowledge the reality at the same time.

BARRINGER: Fantasy needs to be mitigated with something that feels more honest to us.

QUADROS: New York is so known for its extremely functional shoes – power suits and sneakers, squishy foamy Crocs. They have to be functional since it’s a city ruled by pedestrians. Meanwhile the shoes in the show are distinctly less functional: towering wooden platforms, Victorian-style shin braces. What do you think of when you think of New York footwear? How do your own designs work with or against that?

MCGOWAN: Mattie has always worn platforms since I’ve known her for the past fifteen years.

BARRINGER: I find platforms easy to walk in, but I just have always wanted to be taller. I’m five foot three, so I always wanted to be tall.

MCGOWAN: She always wears Vivienne Westwood rocking horse shoes, which for me, I probably wouldn’t be able to walk around the city in them, but for her, they’re comfortable. 

BARRINGER: I like being above street level when I can ‘cause it feels very beautiful. I feel cleaner somehow.

QUADROS: My dear friend who lived here for a long time told me when I moved here, don’t wear open-toed shoes unless it’s a platform because a rat will run over your feet.

BARRINGER: (laughs) A hundred percent. My husband, he’s from Singapore, so he likes wearing open-toed shoes, and he only wears flats. He’s the only New Yorker that I’ve ever seen who wears sandals on the ground.

MCGOWAN: I do think there’s an obsession. For me, I wouldn’t wear heels all the time in New York. We’re interested in the fantasy of what shoes could be. If I could make a shoe that I could wear every day, not in a practical way, what would it look like? That’s how they also become an art object because they’re not really functional things. These ones have a bit of a defensive quality, like they have a weapon built in basically.

BARRINGER: We felt so enveloped in the New York atmosphere. We were really looking at the buildings and the statues. This post-human thing where you are becoming the city, the metal and the hard building materials felt like something that we were really talking about with the clothes we were doing in the last year.

QUADROS: In many ways, it’s the exact opposite of the ballet flat, which has recently come back.

MCGOWAN: And it’s not comfortable either. I used to wear ballet flats all the time when I was younger, and my feet always hurt.

BARRINGER: There’s no support.

MCGOWAN: I’m always frustrated with shoe options. My whole life, I’m always dissatisfied with what’s available and what is functional but attractive. Even though there’s a lot of shoes, a lot of them are not great in different ways.

QUADROS: What have you settled on now?

MCGOWAN: I wear Marithé Francois Girbaud vintage shoes because there’s something about the split soles, the rubber shoe, it laces up the front. It’s a supportive ankle situation. Something about the way that those shoes are made are so comfortable to me but they’re also attractive. Like they don’t look like grandma.

The boys in New York City will stop me all the time and be like, “Bro, your shoes are so sick.” And I’m just like, “They’re just comfortable.”

QUADROS: When you’re sourcing now, where are you looking in terms of beauty and inspiration?

MCGOWAN: It’s almost like we’re thinking about archaeology or something. Our practice of souring materials and vintage can feel quite archaeological and specific, looking for, I don’t know, maybe a narrative or an untold story. I think for our next collection we’re thinking about archaeology as this search for self and identity through clothing and also thinking of these as artifacts or monumental objects.

I don’t think we’re going to do an actual fashion show. We’re going to do a lookbook in tandem with an art exhibition, so we’re also thinking of clothing that’s going to stand on its own and not really have to be in movement.

BARRINGER: We always think of ourselves as weird time travelers from a time that didn’t exist. Like historical futurism.

QUADROS: The Fifth Element. Spaceships, but also the pyramids.

BARRINGER: Exactly. There’s so much history and so many stories, people’s individuality that we don’t know about throughout time.

QUADROS: So you’re not doing New York Fashion Week then?

MCGOWAN: We are not this year. We might release a lookbook around Fashion Week, but we’re not doing a show until next year. We’re burnt out. We’re very interested in doing more shows in the future. We really want to take time to do a show in Paris in the future. So we just need to regroup and take time. 

Fashion moves so fast, and it’s not always realistic to create things at that level when you’re self-funded. It’s just us and our interns. It’s not like we have a giant team. For us, this has been the most rigorous fashion schedule that we’ve shown on. It’s been three shows within the space of a year.

And doing runway is a lot. It doesn’t look like it’s as much work as doing an art show or an exhibition, but it’s actually so much harder in comparison when you don’t have endless resources to pour into it. It’s one of the hardest types of creation because there’s not only the functionality of the garment, there’s the live element. It’s basically working for six months on something that’s gonna be seen for twenty minutes. You have to have so many relationships and people involved. In New York especially it’s hard to find venues. It’s a whole thing.

QUADROS: Fashion Week is in a weird place right now too. Your show in particular had a lot of buzz, a lot of really positive responses that what you’re doing is something unique.

MCGOWAN: Thank you. And we don’t wanna abandon New York. I think a lot of our inspiration and identity is very linked to this place, but it’s an experiment that we want to show in Paris. We’re also interested in French fashion history and that lineage. So it feels like a personal goal.

Image courtesy of Company Gallery