Ori Aviram
Ori, you began your journey into art during your military service, using clay to create portraits. What was it about that specific medium and context that sparked your interest in art?
I don't think there was anything special about the clay or the context in which the protrites were made that ignited my passion for art. It is true that working with the hands with the clay and the contact with the material were new and powerful experiences, but I think what was the main thing was the creative process. It was the very act of turning a square block of clay into a human face that left the deepest impression on me, and it was the feelings and experiences that the process evoked that first made me think of becoming an artist.
Another thing was the time, the works were done while on standby, which is a kind of time in parentheses, delayed time. A magical time. Maybe that also had an effect.
You've had a diverse career path, transitioning from military service to philosophy and cinematography studies, and later into the communication industry. How have these experiences influenced your artistic perspective and approach?
First of all, I would like to clarify that my military service was not part of a career, but a mandatory service that exists in Israel.
In my philosophy studies I focused on the theory of aesthetics, a fact that reflected my interest in art and indeed influenced my views on what art is and what its values are.
Working in the media industry only made me appreciate fine art even more and want to pursue it. I avoid using the tools of the world of advertising and television because these are other worlds that operate with financial motives and can "dirty" the purity of art.
Another thing, since I've produced films, I avoid making videos, a hybrid field that I don't think will survive in the long run.
Your shift from producing and editing to painting was gradual. What were the key moments or influences that led you to pursue painting as a full-time career?
From the time of my military service I thought I would be a sculptor, and I continued to sculpt all the years I studied and worked in advertising and television. At a certain point I started to teach myself to write and experiment with oil painting, but I still saw the goal in sculpture. Only when I moved to live with my second wife in her apartment that was not suitable for sculpture, I bought an easel and dived into oil painting. This was the point where I realized I had found my medium. The color of the oil is very plastic and you can sculpt in it, and especially the richness of the colors and the potential inherent in them, I fell in love.
Your artistic statement emphasizes a strong focus on color and its sculptural capabilities. Can you elaborate on how you perceive color differently from other elements of art like line or composition?
Color is my great love. Color expresses a huge spectrum of possibilities and emotions.
I do not use color flatly as in the realistic painting. I can layer a lot and play with paint as a material, sculpt it, shape it, rake it, carve it, stack it.
For me color is the main thing, line and composition are secondary. They exist but subject to the color that is the center.
The color is the emotional heart of the painting and since the emotion is the main thing for me, the color is the main tool.
You often choose unconventional materials like old books, bibles, and even monetary notes as canvases. What draws you to these materials, and what do you aim to communicate through this choice?
What all of these have in common is the paper. I like to clean the brushes of the paint by diluting it with medium and using the diluted paint for painting purposes. This is where the use of old books developed. I like old paper, it has much more character than new paper, which is also more expensive.
And the result is very interesting, in addition to drawing a conceptual dimension that arises from what is on the paper. The result can be very surprising.
In general, I am interested in text-image relationships, and painting on Bibles or art books creates spaces of meaning that are not created by painting on ordinary canvas.
For me it's a kind of fun that accompanies the main work on the canvases, and what started as fun has turned into something that stands on its own.
Early in your career, you were drawn to figurative painting with themes centered around the bible and mythology. What inspired this initial focus, and how has your thematic interest shifted over the years?
Mythology and the Bible are central themes in the history of painting. I was exposed to them hundreds and thousands of times in many museums, in many countries, before I became a painter myself. The Bible is very familiar to me simply because I am Jewish. So it was very natural to deal with these issues and integrate through them into the heritage of painting.
Along the way, my painting became more and more expressive, and in recent years I started to engage in abstract painting.
These were natural changes that did not really happen on purpose but rather reflected the search for my personal and unique line.
Recently, your work has moved towards abstraction and basic forms. What triggered this shift in your artistic focus, and how do you approach the abstract in comparison to the figurative?
Two processes led my transition from figurative to abstract painting. The first included initial experiences in the abstract that were made while working on figurative and narrative paintings, mainly at the stage of cleaning the brushes from paint with the help of a medium, and mainly on paper substrates. I also painted small abstract canvases, alongside the main work.
These attempts were intuitive and lacked the theoretical depth that was added later.
During a conversation with a curator in which we discussed Picasso, I raised the possibility that in two hundred years he will not be the great representative of the twentieth century as he is now. The curator was surprised and said that if so it would surely be Malevich or Duchamp.
I didn't know Malevich then and when I returned home I started reading about him, a reading that lasted for several years during which I dived into the depths of the matter, how the abstract developed, why, the role of Malevich and Kandinsky, etc.
During this period I painted more and more abstract paintings, of increasing sizes. I was very interested in the basic forms and the relationships between them, but I did not deal with a precise geometric abstract, more with organic-expressive.
In general, it can be said that my abstract paintings are expressive.
The main difference in the approach to abstract works compared to figurative works is in intention and planning. In figurative work there is a goal, there is planning, you know where you are going. In the abstract, everything is more open, there is not much planning and no final image, the work develops from within itself, which leads to talk, there is much more spontaneity.
On the other hand, it is walking on uncharted ground, and sometimes the progress is slower.
In general, it is safe to say that the abstract is a kind of game, as opposed to the figurative which is something serious, supposedly more mature.
The process of creating series appears to be a significant aspect of your workflow. Could you discuss the advantages this method offers you and how it influences the outcomes of your artworks?
I like working in series because you choose a theme and then each work is another variation on the main theme.
There is a certain comfort here, you don't have to think about choosing a topic every time, it is already given.
Most of the series are paper works, for example a large series of drawings of hearts or circles, but there are also series on canvas, both on the above subjects and series on the subject of Nobel Prize winners or war heroes.
Series are a tool for researching a certain topic, compared to a single work, a series has width, space and time, like the difference between an article and a book. One work is not enough for a complex subject.
You mentioned the "gap between intention and outcome" in your work. Could you share an instance where this gap particularly surprised or challenged you, and what you learned from that experience?
The tension between intention and result is something I've lived with for a long time and my relationship to it has undergone several changes.
In general, it can be said that initially there was a lot of frustration, but over time an acceptance came and today I even enjoy this tension. Over time, a recognition of the independent existence of the material and a sense of respect for it developed.
If once I could fight against this gap of intention and result, today I accept it and even use it.
Spontaneity definitely plays a big role in my work. There are paintings that develop in complete spontaneity, without any planning, something leads to a another from the beginning to the end.
Even in more planned paintings, there is room for spontaneity, I don't think its place is absent from even one work.
I can't recall a special example etched in my memory of the gap between the intention and the result, in every work this gap exists. What I have learned over the years is not to be frustrated by it but to accept and enjoy it.
As someone who believes in the strong presence of art history and tradition in contemporary work, how do you balance innovation with tradition in your own art, especially given your interest in abstract and modernist influences?
This is a difficult question and I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer it, but I'll try.
I believe that every field, not only art, will be flat without reference to the past. Just as a person without history or memory is lacking in something.
And on the other hand, what is done is done and life continues to flow forward.
In my painting I try to do things that I have not done, and that have not been done, not because innovation is a significant value to me, it is not, but because otherwise I will be bored and will not bring joy to my work.
And I'm not talking about big innovations, manifestos and revolutions, I'm content with another point of view on an existing subject or a unique personal emotional expression.