F71-3


There’s a lot of scientific reference in your work. What do you think science brings to art and what does art bring to science?

I think they really feed each other. To be successful at anything, even science, you’ve got to be creative. But there’s a rich history of art that responds to science, going back to Leonardo da Vinci, the way he was was obsessed with perfecting anatomy. Many artists have responded to technological invention. Duchamp was deeply influenced by X-rays. And me, well, I’m inspired by the imagery that comes from genetic research; DNA forms, protein forms, amino acids.

What is it about those forms that resonate with you?

 DNA and protein forms, they’re very potent signifiers to us culturally, especially the image of DNA we’re all so familiar with now. DNA suggests the scientist’s ability to control nature and there’s something really cool and fascinating about that. At the same time it’s really kind of frightening. And I’m drawn to that polarity. I’m also drawn to the formal aspects, the visual aspects of proteins. Their shapes are decadent, exquisite and elaborate.


Lacey and baroque?

Yes! Seriously lacy and baroque!


So when did you start using these forms in still life?

It started with an interest in food and trying to think about its visible and invisible aspects. The visible being the traditional representation of food utilizing the history of the still life, and the invisible aspects being both the cultural aspects and what’s going on underneath the surface; the physiology and genetic structure.