Tag Archives: charles thomson

Asinine Building Blocks of the Demented Coward

Asinine Building Blocks of the Demented Coward

Me a Doll interview. 25th April 2024. Emma Pugmire interviews Me a Doll (aka Edgeworth Johnstone) at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club, London, UK.

MAD: Before we start, Me a Doll’s are heavily influenced by Neo Heart’s The Fembot Oracle.

PUG: And now to start the interview. How do you make the Me a Doll’s?

MAD: It’s different to how Neo does it. I don’t know exactly what he does but it involves a photography technique I don’t know much about. My method’s beginners level GIMP, which is like free Photoshop. The source images are stills taken from nude self-portrait dancing like cigarette smoke videos I made in Black Ivory superimposed over each other. There’s way less digital editing than I think it looks. Just 4 or 5 commands repeated however many times, then chopped in half and made vertically symmetrical, I guess like Neo does.

There’s also this varying contrast with horizontal bands, like the stripes on the sides of the Jompiy paintings. 

PUG: What are the contrast bands?

MAD: It’s where I couldn’t get a level that worked for all parts so I divided it up like the Jompiy sides. You have to view Jompiy by slow hand rotations. They’re 3D sculptures. 

PUG: Where do the names ‘Jompiy’ and ‘Me a Doll come from?

MAD: ‘Jompiy’ sounded and looked right. Pure Aesphonly. 

PUG: What about ‘Me a Doll’?

MAD: In the first one I look like a doll. The first of the experimental’s, but I also like it sounding like ‘Me Adult’. It’s said that art’s re-learning what you knew as a kid. Making Me a Doll’s is what a kid might do. You know how ripping people off’s generally seen as a bad thing? Like copyright or stolen valour. And how kids couldn’t care less. It’s me as an adult taking direction from me as a kid, not you as an adult. Kids don’t worry about who did what, they just do what they want and have no problem being honest about it. And can’t understand why anyone else would have a problem with it. They haven’t had the territorial greed educated into them yet.

PUG: You didn’t want to make them different, but loosely inspired by the Fembots?

MAD: I wanted to make them like a kid wants to draw Mickey Mouse. Not their own interpretation. I want to draw Mickey Mouse like Walt Disney did.

PUG: You’ve divided the Me a Doll’s into two categories. The experiments and then the final series. When did you know the experimentation was over?

MAD: After about fifteen that were more like deviations. Then it was back to the carbon copy attempts for the final series. The experimentation was as much getting comfortable with the software as anything else.

PUG: Going from painting figuratively into more abstract and digital art is quite a change in direction. What led to it?

MAD: It’s just the natural tides of what you end up doing, when you don’t do the same thing all the time. Every so often you come across work that makes you sit up and go galloping off somewhere. Fembot led to Me a Doll. With Jompiy it was a co-worker at Wave running an art class on salad spinner spin paintings she saw on Instagram. It’s like being jumped on and having your cataracts torn out. Like when I first heard Nirvana, it wasn’t ‘I really, really like this song. This is my new favourite band.’ It was incomprehension. Going through the Fembot Oracle led to a similar re-evaluation of visual art for me. I had them strewn out over the floor and knew it would lead to something massively different to what I would have guessed I’d be doing next. Then the same again when we started making the salad-spin paintings at Wave. It’s like ‘Shelve everything else. I’m doing this now and for the foreseeable future. Maybe see you in a couple of weeks.’

PUG: Would it be fair to say you’ve moved away from the Stuckist idea that figurative painting is the medium of self-discovery?

MAD: I don’t know about self-discovery. Art can get tied up in stuff like that if people want but my paintings aren’t anything to do with learning more about myself or any psychological therapy, introspection and all that. It’s not about serving society and making the world a better place, or a lot of what’s in the Stuckist manifesto. I couldn’t care less about anything that’s essentially ‘the outside world’. It’s often like painting feels obliged to justify its reason for being and have some sort of use, or provide some sort of service. Art doesn’t need to explain itself or do anything for anyone. I’m not really much of a Stuckist if you’re talking about the manifesto. Probably why I keep writing my own for The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists. I’m not a Stuckist, I’m a The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist. We’re not as similar as you might think. Not you, obviously, but you know.

But about painting and self-discovery whereas conceptual art blocks access to inner worlds, I don’t think it’s true anyway. It’s just a perspective that could just as much be reversed. Stuckism ignores The Theory of Relativity. Not that I know what The Theory of Relativity is but judging by the title, a big Stuckist missed opportunity to have been even funnier, I think. I think things are funnier when they’re true. Especially in art where you’ve got everyone trying to take it all so seriously and put things on a pedestal. Anyone can project what they want onto art, join whatever dots and convince yourself you’ve worked it all out. People do it all the time. Enough make a living out of it, but I find it all just so rubbish and dull to join in with. Pretending you can tell good from bad when it’s all just perspective, your tastes, maybe down to what you had for breakfast. There’s no facts in art.

PUG: For you, it depends on the individual.

MAD: It’s “I don’t like conceptual art. So what?” Dada vs Expressionism, so what? Stuckism vs Conceptual art. The big to-do around Guston going figurative. It’s like green’s my favourite colour, you know. People that like blue are wrong because it’s cold and primary. It lacks the complexity, the emotional intellectual depth of green. Green’s a special blend of primaries working in symbiotic harmony. Relationships, conflict and ultimately, resolution mirroring the human condition, finally at one with itself. Green contains no red because red means danger in nature. It’s a warning suppressed in our feral being, elevating green above both orange and purple. Orange and purple represent conflict and war. Green’s the nirvanay reward for the intrepid artist who dares take risks at the expense of commercial success. All my paintings are green. There’s nothing else in them, just green. Primary colours block access to inner worlds. They’re juvenile, bright and shallow immature sugar-rushes. Asinine building blocks of the demented coward. Would you rather have a house, complete with bathrooms, at least one kitchen and a garage, or a brick? People that like blue lack the sensitivity, vision and understanding people that like green have. They’re lost in a cul-de-sac of idiocy. Actually, brown’s the best colour because it has all the primaries and therefore allows for a more holistic and unfragmented appreciation and range of human experiences. Although, on the down side, it’s the colour of shit. But let’s park that to one side for a moment and take the time to wonder at its splendour. To look inward and discover ourselves through the appreciation of brown. You say “shit”, we say “chocolate”! Ben Shapiro said words to this effect about classical music’s superiority to pop. It’s hysterical because he’s being totally serious. Actually, there was a better one from around the 1950’s on American TV where this bloke was laying out the case for jazz being superior to, and more sophisticated than pop. Suit and tie, short back and sides, looking like a newsreader. He had one of those velvety deep Orson Welles voices that made everything he says sound clever. All his ducks in a row. All logical and water-tight. Sounded great apart from being complete nonsense.

Must have been equally great for Picasso, having an esteemed critic like John Berger telling him his paintings needed themes, and that this is where his recent work had faltered. A fully educated and qualified art critic, no less. Telling Picasso where he’s going wrong with his paintings. A shame Berger couldn’t have painted a few of his own, to show Picasso precisely what he meant.

The problem with words and art is that words are like these big fat clumsy fingers trying to pick up atoms. Like trying to get to a number with fifteen after its decimal point using only five and ten. You can spend all day going round the houses but you’re never going to get there. It’s the wrong tool for the wrong job.

PUG: These rabbit holes you go down with things like the Fembots, they seem to act as a catalyst for your next project. 

MAD: It’s like when I first saw your work, when you pull out these postcards at Stuck in Wood Green, or Luminosity, or reading ‘Monsieur Tourette’ and thinking ‘I’ve got the work for this.’ The Fembots were another example of ‘This is happening like this, with or without anyone else.’ Tuning into the Ron Throop studio and not having a clue what you’re about to see. Fembots have that spirit about them.

PUG: What paint does Jompiy use?

MAD: It’s the cheap tempera they have in schools. The solid parts are Lascaux Artists acrylic. £180 for four tubes but the other stuff didn’t work. Instead of the tempera, I could have got this acrylic and fluid medium but it’s like with expensive oil paint and looking too blingy. Like we were talking about on our weekly Instagram Live broadcast that starts at 8PM GMT every Thursday on account edgeworth.blog, I’m better off with the cheap oil paint. The expensive ones have too much pigment. The opposite being true of acrylic.

PUG: Do you like the accidental? That it’s unplanned and you don’t know what you’re going to get.

MAD: Sometimes, but you never know. If I only properly get involved at a later stage it opens up another load of options because I’m starting off on the wrong foot. With Me a Doll I’m working into an existing form from the start because the beginning phases are pretty much automatic, just with different poses and starting colours. It’s different from a plain white surface then straight into hand eye control.

PUG: So it’s like the starting point sets you off in another direction.

MAD: And then other things stem from those and so on, repeatedly. I’ve always got  these different projects like Aesphonly, Jompiy, Heckel’s Horse Jr., all spawning from different parent activities. The wider you cast all these projects, the wider the scope of what you can get out of it. Me a Dolls, like the masks could be paintings, posters, videos. I’ve started a set of these A4 red carbon paper line drawings from the Me a Doll printouts. One thing leads to several others. Art begets art.

Time feels short when you consider these things and where everything can go. Why I’m so keen to build Black Ivory. I need a hub that relates it all, and us all together. The Emma Pugmire section. There’s Charles and Ron. Ron and I have collaborated his words into my woodcuts. Billy and I collaborate, which connects to Heckel’s Horse Jr.

Charles and I have done a few joint paintings. Me a Doll’s probably as close as you can get to collaboration. You and I are in a band. Rose singing and harmonica, Ron on guitar, then we have a go, then Charles reads his poetry. Ron does another book for which I paint the cover. We record another album in the studio Billy and Huddie record theirs, for which Ron does the cover. It’s this incestuous passive income you get from just being in and amongst other people’s work and the seemingly infinite spin-off’s each individual movement has. Even within Jompiy, each series relates to every other. One has the masking tape from another. One uses excess paint scraped or smudged from another.

PUG: Was that the reason for starting Black Ivory?

MAD: At first, I didn’t envision Black Ivory being anything beyond a print club. But it started looking like a brand that finally relates to what I do and suits what goes on here. The Stuckists are anti-anti-art. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists are indifferent-anti-art. Heckel’s Horse is a side project. Heckel’s Horse Jr.’s a side project of a side project. We’re not an Indie Rock band but we’re nothing closer, so let’s make something closer ourselves. A well-fitting common denominator.

There needs to be a collective noun, if that’s what it’s called. Is it abstract noun? Like weddings and car boot sales. Nouns you can’t touch. They had a term for it at school. Whatever it is, there needs to be one for us. And now there is, Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. A roller-off-the-tonguer for our bit of the Venn diagram. We just needed a name and a website. Glance at Black Ivory and you get a sense of our work. Glance at any of the other groups or partnerships I’m involved in and you get 5% at best.

PUG: A place to keep it all together.

MAD: Our lonely wandering icebergs have crashed into each other and we now join forces in sticking this elephant flag in the snow and proudly declare our newly formed nation ‘Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club.’

About that cross-pollination thing, Black Ivory did a Jasmine Surreal exhibition and interview. Years ago Shelley and I went round hers, like around 2010 and filmed her cat puppets, and then there were these videos she and Charles did at this other place in East Finchley where these student film makers called ‘Pleb’ set up this, what looked like disused office spaces. At her flat, after when I was editing, I put a song I recorded with this singer over the top, then Jasmine and I performed at ‘Pleb’ this singing and morphed guitar Charles said was words to the effect of near-hypnotically mesmerising. I think Jasmine was playing guitar and singing abstract noises, as far as I’m aware the first time she’d ever held a guitar. I was knelt on the floor morphing the feedback. I don’t know if Charles has the footage.

PUG: Looking at the Me a Dolls within your other work, do you think there’s such a great division between abstract and figurative?

MAD: Me a Doll‘s end up figurative but when I’m doing them they’re just shapes and colours that need creating and correcting. Same for all my work really. Jompiy’s look abstract but are figurative. A table’s 99.9% gaps between and within atoms. I’m a figurative artist whose works are 99.9% abstract. My lyrics are just abstract phonetic noises that get shoe-horned into whatever the best fitting words are. It’s only the abstract aspect of it that I think matters. Anything else is either just distraction or an excuse for the music being bad, so I try to avoid giving them any too clear meaning. There’s nothing worse than a great lyric, but then a completely meaningless string of arbitrary words would be just as distracting. It’s why I tend not to like symbolism, humour, politics or satire in art. It all comes across as a bad excuse.

PUG: What did Neo think when you showed him the Me a Dolls?

MAD: I guess what I did. I don’t know, but essentially positive and interested. Everything I hoped. Then I went home and made a load more. 

PUG: Inspired? 

MAD: Yes, but I’m not sure what difference being inspired makes. As long as you start. Artists worth their salt shouldn’t need inspiration. Ron and Rose visit from Oswego, then comes a painting binge. Or Monday’s at Billy’s. If I’m in music mode, for example, then I go to Chatham as a weekly reminder that I’m still a painter. Talking with Neo about the Fembots and Me a Doll solidified some ideas and led to, what could be a Me a Doll video, or a Me a Doll painting. But it’s not like otherwise I’d have done nothing, or even something lesser, necessarily.

PUG: Do you think there’s a big overlap between these methods and your music?

MAD: Yes, it’s all the same thing in different forms.

PUG: How does it feel going from making paintings to using digital technology?

MAD: I get sick of one, switch to another till I get sick of that. They must use different parts of the brain and burn up different attention spans. I rarely paint all day, for example. It’ll be a couple of hours. But Elbow Sisters videos like Gan Mao, Like I Need it Now, Tian Tang, Wu Li An Le and probably a load others took ages. We’d have recorded a song within an hour of me writing it, then five straight hours editing the video. I was writing songs almost just so I could make the video.

PUG: There’s been a lot of fuss online about AI and digital art recently, and what it means to painters, musicians etc. Do you agree that digital art’s a threat to painting?

MAD: It’s only a threat to shit painting. But not even that, it’s just something else to do. Like making pasta or watching Hollyoaks. It’s like saying Conceptual Art’s anti-art. I just see it as not-art, which is no criticism. There’s this assumption that by refusing to accept something as art, you’re criticising it. Jompiy‘s conceptual art. It just happens to be art too. The Stuckist Turner Prize Demo’s anti-art because I could have spent that time painting. Doing this interview’s anti-art.

PUG: I think these are wonderful (looking through the Fembot Oracle cards) ‘Alignment’ look at that one. That one’s beautiful. And this one, ‘Majesty’. Considering these alongside the Stuckist manifesto…

MAD: It’s not just that without Neo, nothing like it would exist. But the drive to make it happen without any real precedent. You can glance and write them off as tarot cards or pretty patterns. He knew that and still put the hours in. There’s the Stuckist manifesto about hiding behind ready made objects and blocking access to inner worlds, then pats itself on the back for taking risks by painting, the safest most lauded and over-rated way of making art in history. I respect artists like Neo who stick to their guns regardless, and as a result create work demanding more than just the cursory glance you’re only likely to get these days. If the Fembots were around 80 years ago the Dadaists would have been all over them, and subsequently a lot more people today. One day the Fembots will get the artistic credit they deserve, but unfortunately not before being officially validated.

The same with Jompiy. I know people will write them off after one glance because there’s no obvious precedent for them. But it’s always the same. You just have to smile, nod and make out like you get and respect what they’re saying. If Cezanne can put up with them, so can I. Just have to remember our audience hasn’t been born yet.

PUG: It’s terrific. They’re very spiritual. (still looking through the Fembot Oracle cards)

MAD: It’s funny how it gravitates us towards each other. Like joining dots. Cosmic forces pulling Ron and Rose from Oswego, you, Billy, me, Charles, a lot of what I just said about Fembots and how rare that is, Luminosity. These things getting drawn into each other’s paths and us into them. Or even if it’s just savvy internetting by people with a lot of spare time, it’s outside the regular channels to those which brings us birds of a feather shuffling into each other’s nests, precariously perched on our siamese iceberg brotherhood nation of solitary nomadic ramshackle explorers, tired of smashing our captive golf balls hopelessly at the distant stars beyond.

PUG: Have the Me a Doll’s got individual titles, like the Fembots?

MAD: They’ve got names. Each is associated with a particular date because I was going to make 366 and do a calendar, which got up to and including February. The Me a Doll’s don’t suggest an inexhaustible number there can be any point in making, like with painting. It might just be that the sixty odd I’ve done so far end up being the lot.

PUG: Do you think you would have started painting if you hadn’t seen Picasso?

MAD: The only reason I started painting was I thought it’d be easy money. I saw an old school friend, Sacha Jafri, on telly apparently making a fortune being an artist. I was working as a Photo Lab Assistant at Boots and playing in 2 out of 3 Rule, resigned to the fact that the band’s never going to pay. Even if we got signed and all that, it didn’t seem the musicians were making much. 28 feels pretty old when you’re in an unsigned band without a regular drummer, and whose singer’s just moved back up to Leeds. There was no back up plan so I guessed I’d work at Boots for as long as people needed their photos developed, which was already drying up. Then I’d have to retrain as something else to finance the music. After that I’d retire early, get a twenty year old’s hair cut for my sixty year old’s face, put on a coffee stained Bowie T-shirt and bore everyone in the pub with stories of how I nearly made it. I had no interest in art or writing and the only paintings I’d done up until this point were the ones I did at school, which showed no promise at all.

So I saw Sacha Jafri on telly. We were in the same year and ‘house’ at Haileybury Junior School in Windsor. You went into one of four houses at Haileybury. Jafri and I were in McCormick-Goodheart (everyone just called it Goodheart), the yellow ties. The green ties were Athlone, the red were Romney and another one I can’t remember but were dark blue. Anyway, how hard can it be? Do a load of sloppy paintings, walk into a central London gallery with a few dry ones under my arm and let the rest take care of itself.

PUG: And then you did your first painting.

MAD: I did my first painting, a man in a turban, and was instantly addicted. At the time I probably couldn’t name you five painters. Picasso, Van Gogh, maybe a couple of others. I didn’t know what I was doing, but this expanse of clear virgin land opened up ahead. It was quit-my-job time, which I eventually got round to four years later. Would have been sooner had I not got married in the meantime.

PUG: And then you started looking more closely at Picasso?

MAD: And the other big names. Eventually got my Mount Rushmore Four whittled down to Picasso, Klee, Cezanne and Miro.

PUG: I like ‘Mount Rushmore Four’.

MAD: Who’s in yours?

PUG: Max Ernst would probably be there, but I tend to look at it as art movements. I’d say Magritte for those two (pointing at her two paintings on the studio wall ‘Halo’ and ‘In Balance’) and have the idea of absence of meaningful government, so I do the opposite to you. I start off with an idea and sort of look for the artists to back up and take it from that.

MAD: What about music?

PUG: I have my favourite bands like the Manics, Ultravox and The Cure but I wouldn’t narrow it down. And then I’ll take a phrase from a song like a bit of poetry and then do a painting from it. Jompiy are quite a lot like Damien Hirst’s spin paintings.

MAD: I liked his figurative paintings that Tate didn’t include any of, in that solo show that had virtually everything else he’d ever done. I think Tate will be showing Heckel’s Horse before long.

PUG: What makes you think that?

MAD: It would be poetic. Darth Vadar comes to his senses and everyone’s rescue. There’ll probably be some new maverick Director that comes along and wants to make an easy name for herself.

PUG: How about a Heckel’s Horse Jr. show there instead? I liked the Heckel’s Horse Jr. book.

MAD: Thanks. They’re currently available to all our Fan Club members on Tiers 2 and 3. If someone was interested in finding out more, all they’d have to do is simply visit https://blackivory.org/fan-club/

PUG: Is there anything planned for Heckel’s Horse?

MAD: As far as I can tell, it’s on the back burner till whoever’s in charge decides the time’s right for a show. Billy’s been trying to push things along for years, pretty much since we started doing them.

PUG: You need this new Tate Director.

MAD: We need someone to forcibly step in with the interest, clout and balls to act irrespective of any commercial consequence or fretting what the art world and its clientele think. Like some benevolent Stuckist ex-hedge fund manager who says “Let’s do a show because of all that stuff in the Stuckism manifesto.” The stuff I like.

PUG: Like a hostile takeover. Might Heckel’s Horse Jr. being published speed things along for Heckel’s Horse?

MAD: Apparently the opposite. It might put them off, but whatever. It shouldn’t be all beholden to any audience thing. There needs to be a punk movement in Contemporary Art. Like Black Ivory but slightly more influential. None of this prissy “We’re not allowed to do this, we’re not allowed to do that. The clients might not like this, the clients might not like that.” I don’t know anything about how the art world functions but there’s an obvious staleness and near-universal obedience to it. Then you get things like Stuckism or our semi-Stuckist-splinter-group Black Ivory that opt out of the “Audience as target” idea and charge head first into disgrace and rejection. Heckel’s Horse is stuck because it isn’t Stuckist.

PUG: It’s not sharing your work with the public. And all those things in the Stuckist manifesto.

MAD: It might be different if they weren’t all six foot tall. Don’t exactly lend themselves to being hung up in the front room. I think they asked the bass player from the Manics what it was like walking around dressed up in band gear, round their local working-class mining village in skirts and makeup, and he says “We just wanted to be hated.” That’s what the world needs. A proper counter-culture punk art gallery that seeks out and exhibits counter-culture punk art irrespective of anything else that has a platform big enough to find the world beyond the artists involved and their friends. A Stuckist gallery but with work reflecting Stuckism.

I like that about Stuckism. I’m not a big punk fan but Stuckism seems to have a lot more punk about it than a lot of stuff calling itself punk. The seemingly repellent and toe-curling bridge-burning stuff Stuckism does. Imagine if some gallery told Charles not to do the Turner Prize demo because of some art world thing they wouldn’t like about it. It’d be a red rag to a bull. Anything of value to be taken from punk’s found in Stuckism. I suppose the last place to look for punk is in all the stuff that looks like it. Who’d think to look into clowns outside Tate?

PUG: I’m sure they’ve already been in touch with Charles.

MAD: When I see photos of Stuckists prancing around in clown costumes it’s appealing because you know what everyone’s going to make of it. Security guards telling us to get a life, hoping the council will come round to sweep us up. Stuckism builds walls between themselves and the people everyone else is so desperate to be approved by. Security guards! But isn’t that what the establishment really want? They all seem to want to be the naughty kid, but only a few have true naughtiness in their blood. Picasso was naughty. Warhol was naughty. Hirst and Emin are pretty naughty, aren’t they? Banksy’s naughty. Caravaggio was naughty. Gauguin was a child-murdering racist paedophile. That’s pretty naughty. Basquiat, naughty. Van Gogh, naughty. Dali, naughty. Michaelangelo, naughty. Pollock, naughty. Modigliani, naughty. Rothko, naughty. Schiele, naughty. Dada, naughty. Stuckism, naughty. Street Art, naughty. Bacon, naughty. Freud, naughty. Kahlo, naughty. Gilbert and George, naughty. Baselitz, naughty. Heckel’s Horse, not naughty.

Galleries want you to be teacher’s pet. Museums want you to be naughty.

PUG: The same for music, writers, poets. What can Black Ivory do to save Contemporary Art?

MAD: We’ll stack a load of Heckel’s Horse Jr. paintings against the walls. A few in the front room with the sofas, tables and chairs and whatnot. I’ll be walking round with a full teapot. Invite some friends round and do it as Stuckism would. Leave the evidence on our YouTube channel as Van Goghian proof for future generations that today’s Contemporary Art wasn’t just the text book crowd.

PUG: Stuckism was quite punk influenced but the art world’s still largely what it was beforehand, and didn’t really respond at the time anyway. Chart music’s now even worse than it was immediately before punk. It seems these radical shake-up’s are all just temporary blips, at best.

MAD: Stuckism bothered though. The rest’s up to them. Like leading a horse to water. Even the anti-establishment are only considered successful when the establishment accept them. The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists should do a manifesto, it’s not our job to be audience. Stuckism‘s not for our benefit, it’s for yours. We don’t need the art world. We don’t need the Turner Prize to show us what a decent painting looks like. I’m only talking about it not shaking up the artworld or not, nothing important, but like we’ve both done loads of Stuckist Turner Prize demos, published a Stuckist Turner Prize manifesto, as far as I know, the Turner Prize is still going strong. So what? Did the demos fail? Are our paintings worse now? If nothing else, it’s nice to get out the house. Usually it’s like, choose a team: brand A or brand B and kid yourself there’s a difference. The establishment’s happy and the hipsters think they’re cool and anti-establishment. Stuckism chooses neither, which I see as the only real anti-establishment.

PUG: A new punk Tate for Heckel’s Horse.

MAD: I did some assistant work for Jimmy Cauty years ago, on these glittery riot shields. I think around 2016. The tracksuit bottoms still have the gold glitter and PVA stuck to them. I can’t remember if I was talking about Heckel’s Horse or something else, but Billy and I couldn’t have done too many by then. It might have been something else, but I tell Jimmy we’ve done all this work and nothing’s getting published, and he says ‘So, when’s the bonfire?’ The man who burned a million pounds. Ten years later, here we are, same situation. Thankfully, as far as I’m aware, still no bonfire. So overall, things are going great for Heckel’s Horse. All the paintings are still probably in existence.

PUG: Just a lot more of them now.

MAD: I’ve got this image of Heckel’s Horse paintings being taken at night to some secret billionaires island off the South Kent coast and chucked on a blazing fire with a load of men in white suits standing round drinking champagne, each with a cigar between their teeth going ‘Ha! Ha! Fuck you Edgeworth!’

PUG: Then there’d just be the Heckel’s Horse Jr. ‘s left and you could sell them for millions.

MAD: You’re a genius.

PUG: All those paintings will end up in a show at some point.

MAD: It’s been eleven years. Could be another twenty, thirty. I had this paranoia, they’d pretend they were by Billy and cut my name out. If Billy and I aren’t around. Even if I’m still around, who’s going to listen to me? 

PUG: Do you reckon?

MAD: I don’t even know who it was, but some lying piss-face decided it would be alright to pretend these monoprints Billy and I collaborated on would be better sold off as ‘by Billy Childish’ and not by both of us. So that’s what happened. Like a click of the fingers, “Bye bye Edgeworth.” Pretty unimpressive, I thought.

PUG: Didn’t you say anything?

MAD: No, what’s going to happen? Better to say nothing then moan about it ten years later. It shouldn’t be on me to object if they’re doing it on purpose. It’s like with the Me a Dolls and kids not worrying about who did what. There isn’t a problem when no one lies and you’re up front about the truth. But to be so directed by how they suspect people will react to Billy and I working together. The whole scenario’s a bit of a mess where I think we all come out looking bad.

PUG: I suppose at the end of the day, it’s on them.

MAD: Exactly. You’d think they’d value their reputation more. I’m sure if Billy had collaborated with Tracey Emin on those monoprints, they wouldn’t have decided to find the truth so confusing. But you’ve got to choose your battles, and this one screamed “Not worth it!”. It’s worth knowing how others see you though, and come publication time, the kind of people they really are.

PUG: So it’s not like Damien Hirst and his assistant’s painting butterflies.

MAD: No. Damien Hirst’s different. It’s all declared and everyone knows the deal. There’s nothing dodgy about it. It’s not like some slippery gallerist-type shifts the goalposts after the work’s done, like they’ve got some licence to change the truth. Damien Hirst buyers know what they’re buying. The artists ‘assisting’ Hirst are aware of this from the start. It’s all above board, just like when I was working with Jimmy Cauty as his assistant. There’s no deception. I’m sure when someone buys a work sold as ‘by Billy Childish’, signed only by Billy Childish they expect it to actually be by him. A lot of them, but for a thin prussian blue outline, I did at home in Muswell Hill. So anyone seeing others I did using this quite distinctive thick painterly technique I came up with, will likely assume the ‘by Edgeworth Johnstone’ ones are me copying Billy’s technique. Until I see any by another artist that look similar, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a type of monoprint of my invention which they’ve taken from me, and given the credit to Billy. Not to mention making me look like a copycat when I’m not.

PUG: Didn’t they ask you about it first?

MAD: No, I just get emailed after with some flakey excuse. Apparently they wanted to keep the Heckel’s Horse work special and separate. At the time, I didn’t realise by ‘special’ they meant ‘locked up in a storage container never to be seen again’. If you’re some no-name pushover like me, I guess they think it’s alright. It might all have been a lot more innocent than it looked from my end, but if they’re like this with some few hundred quid monoprints, what’s it going to be like with these crates of 6ft paintings that are worth a fortune? Not exactly reassuring to think of Heckel’s Horse in these people’s hands. They look all professional and high-end from the outside, but behind the scenes, apparently not so.

PUG: Maybe you should have said something at the time?

MAD: But that would be stressful and unpleasant for me, so why should I? I’m not the one with any obligation if I haven’t done anything wrong. And anyway, I can stand up for my work without them. Publishing this conversion, for example. Nowadays, even plebs like me can put the truth on record. Power to the people. I don’t need them to address a problem just because they created it.

It’s also not wanting to flatter them with the idea they’re even worth bothering with. Why engage with problem people when you don’t have to?

PUG: It’s a strange thing to happen. Couldn’t have been very nice.

MAD: I think Margaret Thatcher, a big role model of mine, said “Only take action when you absolutely have to.” And she didn’t take any shit. It’s not like I was upset as much as disillusioned. My friends and I know the truth. The rest of the world can pretend what they want.

PUG: Welcome to the art world.

MAD: A lot of why I started doing Heckel’s Horse Jr. was to get the Heckel’s Horse story out the door. The reason I wanted that so much was because I didn’t want them lying about it later. And apparently there’s a Heckel’s Horse book in production that’s been going on for over a year now, so we’ll see how that pans out. A lot of what we talk about with Heckel’s Horse doesn’t end up happening, but now Heckel’s Horse Jr. ‘s up and running, my gut feeling’s that it’s all time Heckel’s Horse Jr. can make the most of anyway.

PUG: So you should be thanking them.

MAD: I guess so. A lot’s been done already. Billy and I, essentially, want to get Heckel’s Horse paintings in front of people. Billy‘s spoken about it in interviews that I’ve super-glue-referenced into the Billy Childish wikipedia page. L-13 have done a load of prints. Things are going pretty well. The less behind-the-scenes Heckel’s Horse is, the harder I guess it is for the truth to get fudged later. Especially if Billy and I aren’t around by the time anything happens.

PUG: You’ve always got Jompiy.

MAD: Yeah, my solid backup plan. I don’t need to worry about Jompiy getting nicked.

PUG: And the Me a Dolls. How about an exhibition of the Me a Doll’s? Are there physical versions of them?

MAD: No. I’d like to have 3D printed sculpture’s like space suits and the interior would look like a strip club, or like Top of the Pops with the coloured fluorescent lights and dry ice everywhere. I used to have a load of those lights in Black Ivory. We did some music videos with them.

PUG: Are the Me a Doll’s meant to be physical beings? Some of them look very abstract at first.

MAD: They’re creatures you might find in deep space or at the bottom of an ocean. Maybe microscopic. Maybe on another planet. All living amongst each other in a peaceful community. Oblivious to any environment, or form of existence other than their own. Some are clearly predators so can’t be that peaceful. One of them was probably a university brainiac who came up with his own radical, flowery political ideology that sounded great on paper and could be sold to the young majority who didn’t have the life experience or maturity to see through it. They all voted for this nutjob when he realised all he had to do to win the election was get filmed eating organic porridge in a green T-shirt and the whole thing spiralled into a genocidal bloodbath. 

PUG: Are you going to do a guidebook to go with the Me a Dolls, like the Fembot Oracle?

MAD: I wrote a book years ago called Shin Detonator. It’s a novel about a mole-like community living under a school playing field. The one at Windsor Boys School before they built an astroturf football pitch over it in the early 90’s. They travel around via these tunnels with threads in them, which sometimes get pulled and raised to the ground causing all sorts of havoc. It’s where the Goat Tap lyrics come from. Thinking of that dank unlit community of creatures humans unknowingly live amongst isn’t too unlike Me a Dolls. I’d like to write a book that, at least starts out, like Shin Detonator about Me a Dolls. As I’m talking now, it’s clear this is going to happen, so yes, there’s going to be an accompanying novel. I doubt it will be a guidebook, but I had no idea what Shin Detonator would turn out to be when I started.

PUG: So it’s not like your book will be guided so much by Neo’s, like the images are.

MAD: I don’t know. It’ll take shape as it goes.

PUG: On that note, thanks Edgeworth.

MAD: Thanks Emma.

Stuckism For Your Ears

Stuckism For Your Ears footage at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club, March 2024.

The first of its event was held an Edgeworth Band gig at the Beehive music venue in Bromly-by-Bow in East London on September 1st 2023. Tragically, less than a minute was captured on film.


Footgage of the Stuckism For Your Ears gig

Featuring Shuayb – dancer & Headcase drummer

Stuckism For Your Ears rehearsal

The second Stuckism For Your Ears event was held at Black Ivory in March 2024 and included performances from Stuckism co-founder Charles Thomson, Rose and Ron Throop (Ron founded a Stuckism group in Oswego, New York USA) and Edgeworth Band. Watch for a cameo appearance from founder Stuckist member, Eamon Everall:

featuring Eamon Everall, founder member of Stuckism



Heckel’s Horse Jr. interview at Heckel’s Horse Jr.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Heckel’s Horse Jr. interviewed at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club, Muswell Hill, London. August 9th 2022 by Charles Thomson, Stuckism co-founder.

Click HERE for the official Heckel’s Horse Jr. webpage.

Heckel’s Horse Jr. (aka Edgeworth Johnstone) interviewed by Charles Thomson.

August 9th 2022 at “Heckel’s Horse Jr.” The first exhibition of Heckel’s Horse Jr. paintings, held at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club in Muswell Hill, London. 

CT: I’d like to start with your name.

HHJ: For the purposes of this exhibition, my name is Heckel’s Horse Jr., but I’m aka Edgeworth Johnstone.

CT: So, we are here at the exhibition in…is there a name for this galley?

HHJ: Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club.

CT: Right, so do you want to say anything about the gallery, the situation, before we get on to the paintings?

HHJ: This room until quite recently, was white. You probably remember it as being painted white. And I decided to paint it black. As I was painting it black, it occurred to me that it took on quite a nice atmosphere. And it reminded me, for some reason of the Stuckist manifesto. So I decided it would be a good idea to host a load of exhibitions here. The first of which was a general Stuckist show…Actually, I don’t know at what point I decided to do multiple shows. I think it was actually after the Stuckist show, I thought I should start doing solo shows. And I’ve got a load of your work, so you were the first solo. And then I thought ‘Well. there’s no limits.’ because it doesn’t cost anything to do. So we can just do as many shows as we like of Stuckism, and it all started off from just painting the walls black. 

CT: I must say, I think this is great because people I’ve heard over the years often say ‘Oh, I can’t do a show.’ And I say, ‘Well, you’ve got a flat, haven’t you? You’ve got a house. You’ve got a bedroom. You’ve got a gallery.’ In fact, when I first started out, I did three print shows in America at various galleries in New York and Los Angeles. I knew people and they kindly renamed their living quarters a gallery for a week, and had some of my…So, we’ve got the gallery, which is an example to everybody in the world. Especially people that can’t get a gallery exhibition.

HHJ: You’ll do a better job of it anyway. They say ‘If you want something done properly, do it yourself.’

Heckel’s Horse Jr. aka Edgeworth Johnstone interviewed at his solo show, title Heckel’s Horse Jr,

CT: Did you know my mother?

HHJ: I spoke to your dad once very briefly, but not your mother. It’s funny because your dad thought I was Seb.

CT: That’s my son.

HHJ: Because, for some reason I picked up the phone in your house. I don’t know how it happened. It’s funny the ‘If you want something done properly, do it yourself’ thing because this is my way of showing the Heckel’s Horse work. It’s to just do them myself and then I can show them.  

CT: And this segways neatly into Heckel’s Horse. Shall we say who Heckel is to start with?

HHJ: Eric Heckel, one of the German Expressionists, who Billy in particular…I mean, I like Heckel as well, but Billy’s a big fan of his.

CT: Note to the audience: Billy is Billy Childish. Who we’ll come on to in a moment. 

HHJ: We started some group a few years ago 2014-15 and I think Billy came up with the name ‘Heckel’s Horse’ for the group. But at the time Billy and I were painting all these paintings together which we called ‘Childish Edgeworth’ because that was us. And then Steve, who works with Billy, came up with the idea of calling our partnership ‘Heckel’s Horse’. 

CT: Why horse?

HHJ: I think it refers to a picture that Eric Heckel did that I think Billy’s particularly keen on. To be honest I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

CT: You mentioned German Expressionism. Erich Heckel was a member of Die Brucke group, founded about 1905. Perhaps Ludwig Kirchener was the leading light of it and packed up after 5 years or so from disputes. But there was another German Expressionist group at the beginning of the twentieth century called ‘The Blue Rider’ which people might confuse with Heckel’s Horse. They might think the rider was on Heckel’s Horse but that’s not anything to do with it?

HHJ: No, as far as I’m aware.

CT: I should say for the audience who don’t know, Billy, being Billy Childish, who’s known for various things, particularly his music. He’s been namechecked by quite a lot of famous people including that guy from The White Stripes. Bjork, is it? 

HHJ: I don’t know about Bjork, but there are a few.

CT: A number of different people who are quite well known. He’s also an artist. A writer. He’s probably known as Tracy Emin’s ex-boyfriend if the truth be told, which is unfair because he’s got a lot more achievements than that. And actually, that fact that she once said to him ‘Your paintings are “stuck, stuck, stuck” because he was painting and she exhibited her bed…or she hadn’t done it by then but the sort of thing she was into. And he wrote that in a poem and in 1999 he read the poem to me and I said we should call ourselves ‘Stuckists’, and then the Stuckists art group was founded to promote figurative painting. That was 1999. You’ve founded a Stuckist group. There’s about 250 Stuckist groups in 50 countries around the world. 

Steve is the guy who runs the L-13 gallery near Clerkenwell/ Farringdon area of London. And the L-13 was named after a German Zeppelin bomber which destroyed some property in that area. I think the gallery was next door to the destroyed property. Anyway, that’s where L-13 comes from but it’s moved from that place. And they work together. Steve, at L-13 promotes Billy’s work. He also does stuff himself, doesn’t he?

HHJ: Harry Adams.

CT: There’s also Jimmy Cauty of the K Foundation. Burned a million pounds. Jamie Reid who did the Sex Pistols ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’ album. So that’s all the background that I didn’t really want to say, but anyway you got to know them. And you go down every Monday and work with Billy in his gallery. Billy’s gallery is a very large room that is in Chatham Dockyard.

HHJ: His studio, we’re talking about.

CT: Yes, I said ‘gallery’ did I? That’s his studio. You work there. Billy does very large paintings. 

HHJ: Huddie Hamper as well. He’s there every week.

CT: That’s Billy’s son. Billy does 8ft/ 10ft paintings in a couple of hours.

HHJ: Maybe not two but in an afternoon he’ll do a huge painting from start to finish.

CT: But the ones he does are a very different style. One could say he’s become quite academic. They’re drawn accurately, in terms of perspective and anatomy and so on. And they sell very well in galleries in Germany and New York but alongside those paintings there is another activity going on which he does with you. Would you like to tell us how that activity started and how it happens when you’re there together.

HHJ: Shall I start from the point where I was already in his gallery painting? Or I can start from where I first got in touch with him.

CT: Well start from the beginning.

HHJ: Now I’ve got to try and remember how it happened.  

CT: Well you went to L-13 the gallery and saw his shows and talked to him, I presume.

HHJ: Maybe a couple of words. Until he emailed me out the blue one day I’d said hardly anything to him. I’d met him a couple of times at L-13 but…he just emailed me. I think you said to me that you speak to him on the phone every now and then, to Billy, and you mentioned me. I guess he heard of me, probably, through you. I don’t know.

CT: I should say I’ve known Billy since 1979. We were in a group called The Medway Poets. Tracey Emin was a young fashion student and was going out with Billy. So yeah, we had had our ups and downs, but we’ve gotten on reasonably well for the last twenty years or so. 

HHJ: So I guess he probably heard of me through you and then he emailed me, and I ended up talking to him through email having not really ever spoken to him before. Only small talk at an exhibition and he said ‘You should come down one day.’ That was it. He wanted to see my paintings because I was showing him my work and he said ‘Oh, you should bring them down one day.’  So I did and he saw them and we had a chat and then he said ‘Is it quite a bother for you coming down here?’  he said one day. and I said ‘It’s quite easy.’ because I had a car at the time. I said ‘I can drive to Chatham in three quarters of an hour.’ And he goes ‘Well, you should come down the studio one day.’ So I went down the studio and I was working and he says ‘You know what you should do. You should get some big canvases’ because he thought it would be better for my work and this is funny because Billy didn’t know me and he just offered. It’s very kind of charitable. So he’s helping me out a ton and he says ‘You should get a load of canvases and we’ll put you up in my studio and I’ll give you a load of space because I think if you work bigger it’ll work. It will be better for your style of painting or whatever, because I was always working small because of my living situation. So I did that, but I think, before I got the canvases I turned up with a load of cardboard and I was doing a painting on cardboard that was a copy of a block print I’d done. It was a portrait of Picasso and it had a couple of birds on it. Sort of pecking his eyes out and stuff like that and he goes ‘Oh that’s alright but..’ he said ‘Can I…’. Did he ask? I don’t know. I think he probably did. He said ‘Wouldn’t it be good if it had a couple of lines.’ So I had three or four of these Picasso’s. They weren’t particularly precious or anything. They were on cardboard and he painted some eyes or a few white lines on them and it looked a lot better. And he goes ‘Ok, well that’s quite good.’ so then I start painting on these great big canvases. Like six foot canvases. And again, the same thing happened because it was very much kind of…Billy was kind of helping me sort of getting into a different area of painting so he would paint on them and the first one we did on canvas, that looked really good as well. So he goes ‘You know what, we should do a ton of…’ Well, he didn’t say to do a ton, but ‘We should do more of these.’ and we ended up just continually doing more and more and more because they’re so easy. They’re easy for me because I can just start and I don’t even have to bother making them look good. I just need to leave them in a good state for Billy. So I painted and he would come over and he’d do…and it was just so automatic and so sort of natural and they had a kind of look to them that neither mine nor his works do. They’re their own thing and it kind of snowballed and ten years, or nine years later, we’re still…to be honest since covid we’ve only done a couple. We’ve slowed right down recently.

CT: How many do you think you’ve done all together?

HHJ: I reckon between 150 and 200. 

CT: So you usually do one each visit, do you?

HHJ: Not anymore. No.

CT: When you were working before, at your peak.

HHJ: At our peak probably one a week. Probably averaged one a week.

CT: And you exhibited these at Pushkin House. What is Pushkin House and where is that?

HHJ: That was a group show. Pushkin House is in central London and is some centre for Russian culture. I don’t know exactly what their description is.

CT: Good job it’s not called Putin House. Anyway, sorry.

HHJ: I don’t know how that show came up because Billy and Steve tend to do the organising side of things and I hear about it later. 

CT: I just want to make the point that you have shown them there.

HHJ: We’ve been in three group shows. One was Pushkin House. That was the most prestigious of the three. We did one at Sun Pier House.

CT: That’s Chatham in Kent, near Billy’s studio. 

HHJ: And there was some show in Russia where they showed some Heckel’s Horse. Although I don’t think we were called ‘Heckel’s Horse’ at that point but some of them were showed over there. I don’t know. All I know about that…I looked on YouTube one day and saw my paintings being auctioned off, and no one told me they were selling them.

CT: This is the joint paintings was it?

HHJ: No, these were oil transfer drawings I did. I just saw on YouTube that my paintings were being sold, which was interesting. 

CT: So far so good. Now these are not actually Heckel’s Horse paintings. 

HHJ: No they’re not.

CT: They are your copies of…Oh, shall I, before I forget, are these Heckel’s Horse paintings for sale or are you keeping them privately?

HHJ: Keeping them. I’ve only done eight and I don’t really want to sell them.

CT: No, not these. I’m talking about the ones you did with Billy.

HHJ: I don’t know.

CT: Just for the viewers. We have a few millionaires knocking around.

HHJ: They’re not sort of…you can’t buy them online or anything and there’s no gallery showing them. But if someone was to ask I guess everything has a price.

CT: This is very amateur, by the way. Just in case anyone here thinks this is a professional job with a whole camera crew, sound recording, overhead lighting and so on and a van outside with masses of wires trailing out of it, it’s not. It’s just one camera on a tripod. Actually, they’ve probably guessed that by now anyway.

HHJ: I don’t think we were fooling anyone.

CT: We could pretend it’s a high end thing meant to look like a low end thing. Just to do a quick detour before we get onto the paintings, a detour about the video here. This is a homemade show. What about your videos? What’s the philosophy of the videos? How do you do those?

HHJ: Just film them. Put them on YouTube. Put them on social media. We’ve got an audience of like four people.   

CT: So it’s quadrupled since I last looked. That’s bloody good. You’ve gone up 400%.

HHJ: It’s kind of in keeping with the whole atmosphere of what we’re doing.

CT: Billy once told me that he did a gig in Germany and ten people turned up. They said ‘Look, we don’t expect you to play because you don’t have a proper audience.’ He said ‘You’re here. You’re the audience. We’re playing.’ And it turns out that one of them was an influential music journalist. 

HHJ: Yeah, you never know.

CT: Well does it matter? What’s the difference between having an audience of one and having an audience of ten thousand or a million?  

HHJ: Exactly.

CT: I mean, if you add noughts on the end. My experience of curating shows is that I do it because I enjoy seeing the paintings. Which is probably a selfish approach but means I don’t get het up and frustrated about who’s coming through the door and who isn’t. You know, if the people who are there enjoy it. Those four people really get something from it. You don’t know how it’s going to affect their lives and things tend to pick up later. When Cubism started there were only two people who knew about it. Picasso and Braques. Just two people. It’s grown a bit since then. 

HHJ: You never know.

 CT: So everything is homemade.

HHJ: Yes.

CT: Now, as I said, these are not Heckel’s Horse paintings. These are fake Heckel’s Horse paintings. Not fake perhaps. That’s not the right word. You have made your own copies of Heckel’s Horse paintings. These are your copies of the work you did with Billy. These are on cardboard. The ones you do with Billy are on canvas aren’t they?

HHJ: Linen, but yeah. Stretched Belgian linen. Well no, actually some of them are on canvas but most of them aren’t.

CT: For the viewers who don’t know the difference, it’s all the same. It just looks like a canvas, stretched. One is made from cotton and the other’s made from linen. But it don’t make any bloody difference does it really? Except for linen lasts longer than canvas. But the sails from Nelson’s Victory lasted quite a long time. They’re still there with lots of cannonball holes in them and stuff. They found them the other day. A couple of years. Or three years ago or so. Anyway, they’ve survived. Are the originals bigger?

HHJ: Yes, they are.

CT: How much bigger? Let’s take this one for example.

HHJ: That one’s a 6ft by 5 I think.

CT: This one’s about 40 x 30 or something and it’s your reproduction of a 6 by 5ft. So, quite a lot bigger. It’s like what, a quarter of the size? Why did you decide to do it this size?

HHJ: Just that’s what the materials are that I have. I didn’t need them to be big. 

CT: Why did you do them?

HHJ: Lots of reasons. I suppose the one main thing is I like them and I can do them. It’s not that I could….I definitely couldn’t do them without Billy, but I am sort of quite…

CT: No, sorry, why did you do these?

HHJ: Sorry, I’m not trying to say I couldn’t do the main Heckel’s Horse without Billy, when I say I’m quite interested to see what they look like when I just do them on my own. You know what I mean?

But also, I wanted to use this space to do the show. Some sort of thing for Heckel’s Horse because Heckel’s Horse…despite Billy and I always wanting to do a show, it’s never really been possible and I thought ‘Well, I’ve got Charles’s show up here.’ Which I did at the time. 

CT: That’s me by the way.

HHJ:  And the plan was, I think, for Jasmine to go next. 

CT: Jasmine Surreal. Yes, her paintings are down here actually. Next to me. 

HHJ: Jasmine Surreal was lined up next but I thought ‘I could take Charles’s work down now and get mine in quickly because I’ve got you, Ron Throop, Emma Pugmire, and I was thinking, ‘When am I going to do my show?’ because I want to get mine done. So I thought if I quickly took down yours I could do an Edgeworth Johnstone show. But then I thought ‘I’ve got no enthusiasm for doing an Edgeworth Johnstone show but what I would like to do is put up Heckel’s Horse paintings.’ But, obviously I can’t do that because they’re not mine. They’re me and Billy. So I thought ‘If I do them myself then I’ve got complete control and I can put them up.’ And I can not only do an art show but I can promote Heckel’s Horse, so more people learn about Heckel’s Horse and also for the artistic value in themselves. Hopefully do some decent paintings.

CT: So what’s this exhibition called? Who is it by?

HHJ: It’s called Heckel’s Horse Jr. and it’s by Heckel’s Horse Jr. A self-titled exhibition.

CT: Ok, so, let’s just take this painting. I’m familiar with some of the originals so I recognise these are the types of paintings you’ve been doing. The ones I’ve seen in Pushkin House, for example. But I don’t know them in intimate detail so could be fooled because they’re kind of like it. So if I put the original next to this, apart from the size what differences will I see?

HHJ: Not much. I have pretty much just copied them. This one, we did after a painting by Mikhail Larionov. We did quite a lot after Larionov who is a Russian painter from a couple of hundred years ago.

CT: Early twentieth century.

HHJ: Most people might know his…I don’t know if they ever got married, but his partner Natalia Gonchorova is quite well known. 

CT: Yes, is the highest selling female artist at auction, I think.

HHJ: He was Russian but there’s links with him and Picasso and that whole avant-garde crowd.  Billy and I did a load of paintings after Larionov and this is painted after the first Heckel’s Horse painting we did of a Larionov painting.

CT: Have you more of less copied a Larionov painting?

HHJ: No.

CT: Is it in the style of, or inspired by?

HHJ: Inspired by Larionov. So the Heckel’s Horse paintings that were done after Larionov are not copies. We use Larionov as a starting point but the end result looks quite a lot different. 

CT: I see, so the whole Heckel’s Horse project stem from Larionov’s inspiration?

HHJ: No we were already painting together before we started doing Larionov paintings.

CT: In the same style?

HHJ: Pretty much. I mean, we were already…

CT: So he just got hijacked and incorporated into it en route, and you moved on. Like a little bump in the road, and you carried on going?

HHJ: We didn’t stop, you know what I mean? We did them as well as. It’s like, instead of always doing a painting from, maybe a sketch or even just off the cuff, occasionally Billy would have this Larionov book and we’d go through it. We’d pick out paintings that we liked. But it’s not like we stopped doing Heckel’s Horse and we started doing something else. It wasn’t like a chunk of work in its own right. We just happened to do lots of Larionovs.  

CT: Yeah, but it’s not called ‘Larionov’s Lunger’ is it? It’s called Heckel’s Horse, so…Have you done the same thing with Erich Heckel’s work? Your own variants of that?

HHJ: I think we have. I think we’ve done maybe two or three. More Larionov’s than anyone else but we have done a couple of Heckel’s as well.

CT: It seems really that these people are just a catalyst for you to do your own work.

HHJ: Yeah.

CT: So if we get on to the paintings themselves. The first thing that you would notice about them is there is a figurative element. There’s often a person or people. Sometimes a horse. There’s a horse and person there. There seems to be a person in all the ones that are here. Is there a meaning? A narrative? A story? Or is it just a visual? Is it just that it works visually. Like you have a dream and you see things going on. Or are you thinking actually ‘This is a particular soldier.’ Maybe it’s Larionov in uniform, or something like that. Or maybe ‘He painted these Russian soldiers so we’re going to comment on that.’ Or maybe Kirchner of the Die Brucke Expressionist group was a soldier for a time. Does that come into it? Or is this me just projecting onto it things that I know. Am I meant to be doing this? Or is there a story that I should know, that you know. Or is it just a guy on a horse with a bit of a uniform?  

HHJ: As far as I’m concerned, there’s no real comment or meaning or requirement to know anything. They’re stand alone paintings that you don’t need to have any background knowledge to appreciate.

CT: Do you have any? Do you think ‘Ah yeah, this is reminding me of …’

HHJ: No. All I’m trying to do when I’m painting is do a good painting. There’s nothing else.

CT: Ok, well I’m going to challenge you a little bit on that because he is in uniform. It’s like a military uniform. Not like a contemporary, modern day soldier. Unless he’s dressed up in traditional uniform so you must have got that reference from somewhere. It’s not an accident. You can’t just do someone in a uniform without knowing that people wore uniforms.

HHJ: Well I’m just copying the painting.

CT: No, I’m talking about the original painting.

HHJ: What, the Larionov? It’s a painting of a Heckel’s Horse painting which was based on a Larionov.

CT: That’s what I’m getting at.

HHJ: And in the Larionov painting, that’s what the guy’s wearing.

CT: Yeah, so he knew he was painting a cavalryman.

HHJ: Larionov would have done, yeah.

CT: He definitely knew he was painting a particular soldier at that time in history. I presume it was just before the First World War.

HHJ: I don’t know.

CT: So he knew what he was doing but you’re not really bothered with that side of it at all.

HHJ: Not really. No. I mean, not at all. I like a painting to be a good painting. I don’t really mind the background story. 

CT: One of the things that’s said about figurative painting is that every figurative painting is an abstract painting. And you’re demonstrating that.

CT and HHJ are now holding one of the paintings from the show upside down in front of the camera.

CT: The reason I’ve done that…Kandinsky….well, he was doing these figurative paintings and he came in one day, and he saw this painting propped up with the most amazing colours. Completely abstract. And then he realised, it was one of his figurative paintings, of a landscape or something but that gave him the idea that he could just paint abstract without having to have a figurative work. A figurative image. And when you look at things in different ways. Like, shall we try it sideways as well? I mean, it works without even having to know there’s an image. Rather like Chinese calligraphy type paintings, where someone will do beautiful brush marks all over the surface and it’s that movement, that gesture that the brush makes which gives it the interest. And anybody that’s done something like that will know that you can do that brush mark and it can be very dull and prosaic, or you can do it and the variation, the pressure, and the dynamic and the direction it’s going in, the flow of the ink and so on comes alive. So I think it’s not just a question of painting the subject. It’s really how you paint it. I think, how you paint it comes from who you are. And I’ve thought about this quite a lot, before you have any art you have an artist and they’re going to leave their stamp on the painting. They can’t help it. If someone is a superficial person, they’re not suddenly going to find an amazing depth when they do a painting. If they do then they’re touching a deeper part of themselves anyway. But if they never access that deeper part of themselves, and unless it does come out despite themselves, if you like, their work’s going to be superficial. So every mark. Every colour. Every decision…I mean, conceptual art has very few decisions. Damien Hirst’s shark has one decision. I will get a shark and I will put it in formaldehyde. That’s the decision. Whereas take any of these paintings. Every square inch has got a different decision in it. There’s a red here that is slightly different to the red there. This band is a similar colour to that mark. That’s almost a rectangle of paint. This is a rectangle. A bit of a wonky one, but it’s a different kind of rectangle. I know I’m going on a bit here. You mentioned Jasmine Surreal. I did a big painting once. It was a ten foot painting. I’ve only done one that size. I wanted to get it out the living room but it’s got agitated brush marks all over it. Different colours. Different intensities.  And she looked at it and she said ‘Are you feeling more passionate, or anger there? And then you were feeling quiet…’ I said ‘You’re right.’ You could read the marks and the colours as if they were words and basically they are. We’re talking about language. It’s not one that our society, our culture is particularly skilled at reading. You know? We’re taught to read words but people are generally not taught to read images. Obviously sometimes they do it instinctively and they look at something and say ‘Oh, that’s good isn’t it.’ They’ve read the colour and the shape. Or they might say ‘That’s a bit bright.’ You know? The intensity is blinding. So there’s a primitive reading but not a very subtle and sophisticated one. And it’s like wine. You start out with a bad sweet wine and ten years later you turn your nose up at it because you’ve developed a palette. It’s like anything. The more you do it. Using words, for example. You don’t expect a five year old to have the expressive capability of Shakespear. It’s something you develop and become more sophisticated, more sensitive to, hopefully. If it’s going in the right direction. So what I’m saying is, in these paintings, there is a display of a lot of what I’m talking about. The feeling for the right colour, the right shape and the right place. 

Now to my mind, there’s a balance between what you’re painting and how you’re painting it. In abstract work obviously, it’s completely how you’re doing it because you’re not painting any specific subject and I think the interesting thing about figurative work is that tension between what it’s showing and how it’s showing it. Do you have any response to all of that?

HHJ: I don’t think people who look at paintings are aware of how much you’re considering as you’re doing them. Especially in my work that can look quite sloppy and I’m sure I’m talking for millions of other painters who…There’s a very deliberate move in everything you’re doing that’s totally beyond the concept. I know you started from saying Damien Hirst’s conceptual work was ‘Oh, it’s a concept.’ Well, who cares about the concept? You can start off with that, alright fine, but what I like in art all comes from that point onwards. And just that satisfaction you get from seeing things that look kind of balanced and correct in an abstract sense but it would have to be attached to something figurative for it to have any kind of hold on me. I couldn’t care less about abstract work at all. It has to relate to something in physical existence otherwise it just goes over my head, and I think there’s a balance there. I’m trying to do as much abstract work as I can in a figurative painting and having nothing else at all. Not having any concept, or meaning, or narrative. If you take all that stuff out you’re left with a more pure thing at the end of it.

CT: As soon as you do anything figurative you’ve got a narrative, whether you want it or not.

HHJ: I’m just trying to do stuff that just looks good. There’s not really any kind of emotion in it or need to express myself.

CT: At the end of the day, I particularly apply this to poetry, which I write a lot, which I’m doing at the moment. At the end of the day, what’s left is the poem and someone reads that, and that’s got to work. The poem has got to work. So I might write about my life in the poem and it might be something that’s particular to my life but it doesn’t sit in the poem because when you’re creating something I think there’s a dialogue between you and the thing you’re creating. It’s telling you what to do. This has happened to me quite a lot. With painting, for example, I’ve thought ‘Right, I’ve got a red there.’ I’m just speaking in general terms. Crude terms. ‘A red there. A green there. And I’ll put a nice yellow there.’  So I put the red there, and as soon as I’ve done that I realise the green’s not going to work and the painting’s saying ‘Hang on. This is your bright idea but look at it. It’s not going to work is it? Actually you need the yellow there.’ And then maybe, oh we need a blue up there and then later on the colour that I left out pops up down here, so it’s not lost. It comes up again quite often in a different form, so there’s that interaction. At the end of the day you’re creating something. You’re making something and if you’re sharing it, I think you have to consider who’s looking at it. Whether you do that consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, what’s the point of showing it? If you’re not creating something that someone can look at and get something from, there’s no point in showing them.

HJJ: I feel like I don’t even have a choice when I’m painting. It’s almost like, it needs to be that and can’t be anything else, so I can’t even consider ‘If someone else sees it they won’t like it, so I need to try and do this, or try…I’m really at the mercy of what feels like the right thing to do.

CT: I think we’re actually saying the same thing. I’m not saying you should adjust everything because someone’s going to look at it. Because actually, that happens to me. I sometimes have an idea and I think ‘I could do this painting and it’s just too easy. It’s just too simple. People are going to think it’s rubbish. I don’t want to do it but I really want to do it. People are going to think it’s rubbish.’ So I just do it and then they come along and say they really like it, but that’s just me because I suppose I have a sort of awareness to what’s going on outside me. 

HJJ: You’re doing what feels like the right thing to do anyway.

CT: Yeah, but sometimes there’s a block. Less so nowadays I must say, but in the past more so. You don’t have that. But you talked about doing what’s right on the canvas, and that’s exactly what I’m saying, that it’s telling you something. 

HJJ: I was thinking this two days ago: I was doing a painting of a fish under a boat. I realised that I don’t have any choice. This is going to be a fish under a boat. I know if I come in with my bright idea it’s going to screw it up. You’re just following orders really.

CT: The one that we pulled down from the wall and showed in front of the camera. I’m facing that so it’s the one that’s easiest for me to look at. There’s a man that seems to be wearing a hat and there’s an animal of some kind. Is it a pig of some kind? 

HJJ: I think it’s a dog.

CT: But I get a feeling from it. It’s not unpleasant. I think just a few lines can be very suggestive. The man’s face. There seems to be a certain thoughtful quality to it. He seems to have stopped and be thinking about something. That’s something everyone can relate to. And the animals there. Again, you can relate to that. It seems to be absorbed in its own life. Mooching around the ground. Sniffing the ground. The man seems aware of it but not really relevant to him at that point in time. And he’s in front of a building. Looks like his house. So you’d think it’s probably his home and maybe it’s his garden. That sort of thing. You get a feeling for the whole thing but that could be done in a very illustrative way. In a kind of Norman Rockwell or something, and you wouldn’t get the same feeling from it though. You wouldn’t get the same atmosphere and the whole sketchy thing suggests a liveliness. Conveys a liveliness. A sort of spontaneity which makes it living, whereas a Rockwell is a very skilled illustration but it’s kind of frozen in time. 

HJJ: It’s as different to what I’m doing as making cheese or playing football. I know that technically, they are both called paintings, but other than that there’s nothing. I think there’s a lot of…art’s such an overriding term but so’s figurative painting. There’s figurative painters that are not doing what I’m doing at all and that’s not necessarily a good or bad thing. Even within Stuckism. There’s painters like Jonathon Coudrille, for example. He’s absolutely brilliant at what he does but me and him, for example, I don’t know what’s going on inside his head, but I just see it as completely different.

CT: But you have been exhibited, more or less, side by side.

HJJ: Yeah.

CT: Stuckism, the art group mentioned earlier, which I had the idea of and founded with Billy Childish to promote figurative painting. But my idea of it, from the outset, was a very big umbrella. So you’d have very expressionist work. Very highly polished work. Cubism. Pop Art. Figurative Pop Art. Realist art. All different kinds of styles. It wasn’t a stylistic thing. What was important was that the artist had a strong sense of authenticity. Of honesty to themselves of their experience of life and have the skill to communicate that in their own style. And really Modernism is the history of people inventing their own rules and their own styles. Van Gogh invented his own rules, which was that things could be wonky and distorted and would be painted in a very agitated, and often swirling brush marks to express all the energy he felt in the universe. Whereas another artist, obviously Picasso for example, chose to fracture things. He didn’t, in his Cubist period have the same…well he had some of the same brush marks, but not the same effect at all. It was more or less fractured plains. He was interested in a sort of…dissecting something and putting it back together again. But it worked in his terms. If you look at any of the Modernist artists whose work is successful, they’ve invented their own domain to work in. That’s Modernism, then we come on to Postmodernism where people plunder it. Or Remodernism, where we value it and try to develop it. 

HJJ: Any good art is authentic. Van Gogh said ‘Anything done in love is done well.’ I read the Stuckist manifesto and I think ‘That’s how I write songs.’ Whenever I’m doing anything, it’s just that feeling of authenticity and nothing else. Then what you’ve got will be original because despite the fact that there’s eight billion of us, we’ve all got individual handwriting. It will be original by default. You don’t have to try and come up with some clever idea to separate yourself from the crowd, which is what I suspect is going on in a lot of contemporary art, and the art at the time of the Stuckist manifesto. It’s a contrived originality. When I look at Van Gogh’s work, I don’t see someone who’s struggling for an idea, or came up with something. I just see someone who’s doing what he feels he has to do, and by default happens to have just made something that’s original. So going back to what I said about Jonathon Coudrille, maybe I was completely wrong. Maybe we’re essentially the same thing, just manifested very differently. Essentially it’s just two artists doing their stuff and there’s no other way it can be done or said.  

CT: I used to do a lot of teaching poetry at schools, freelance. I went round schools and performed and so on. I told the children in the class, I said, I want you to write about the thing you’re a world expert on. ‘I’m not world expert.’ I said ‘Yes you are. What did you have for breakfast this morning? What did your dad say? What did your mum say?’ Oh, this, that and the other. ‘Well, you’re the only person in the world that knows all that aren’t you? What was it like when you went to school? What did you see? Who did you talk to? How did you get here? You’re a world expert on that.’ And then they start trotting out ‘Oh yeah’ and this happened, and that happened, and suddenly you’ve got this whole treasure trove of personal experience. Or you could say to someone ‘What was the worst thing that happened to you? What was the best thing that happened to you?’ They come up with these extraordinary things and it’s all there in, so called, everyday life.

I totally agree with you about this striving in art for, so called, originality. What it comes down to is, trying to find a material that hasn’t been used for art and calling it art. So you find a shark that hasn’t been done in art, so you call it art. ‘Oh, that’s original.’ You exhibit a bed, like Tracey Emin exhibited her bed. ‘Oh, no one’s done that before.’ They had actually, but never mind. ‘Oh, you’ve made a sculpture out of bread.’   You make a sculpture of your head out of your own blood and freeze it. ‘Oh, that’s new isn’t it. That’s new.’  Well, what’s the difference between the sculpture of a head in blood in a freezer, and a sculpture in bronze? It’s got the same contours. It communicates…’Oh, it’s a concept.’ But it’s not actually a very interesting concept. Ok, you get it. You get the joke, or the cleverness being ‘Oh, that’s clever.’. And then once you’ve got it, it’s ‘Oh, it’s just a sculpture,’

HJJ: You could spend all night just coming up with arbitrary stuff like that, that has no depth to it and is new. I’m sure no one’s stuck an ironing board on top of a carrot and spun it on the head of a daisy. Is that a genius idea because it’s new?

CT: It is now.

HJJ: We could come up with a list of 500 by tomorrow morning and it’s all just complete nonsense.

CT: Of course, you’ve taken part in Stuckist demonstrations against the Turner Prize outside Tate Britain for several years, and that’s been going on for about twenty years. It’s stopped now because I got fed up with it. I was actually given a conceptual art award by the Proto-mu group for the demonstration against the Turner Prize. And, of course, if we said it was a conceptual art piece you would have been treated very differently.  My hope was always that it would be nominated for the Turner Prize.  So our demonstration against the Turner Prize would be in the Turner Prize as one of the nominees and simultaneously we could be outside doing a demo.

HJJ: We’d have to be. 

CT: Against our demo that was in there.

HJJ: I think I made a quick video today and said that that’s the best nomination I’ve heard.

CT: Is there any more that we should say about this? Just….how does this relate to your other work? Does your work with Billy relate to your other work? I have actually referred to Billy’s other work but perhaps you could say how it relates to his other work.

HJJ: These, pretty much, felt to me like doing my normal work, even though I was copying the Heckel’s Horse paintings. The Heckel’s Horse paintings are completely different to my work because I’m not in complete control. If I’m not in complete control, even if I really like the work, in a way, I almost really don’t care. I’m not being derogatory to the Heckel’s Horse, but when I’m painting them I can do whatever I want and leave it to Billy to sort the problems out.  

CT: Perhaps his other work, which goes in galleries, is more demanding in some way. Discipline and control, because it is very controlled work. 

HJJ: I don’t know. The Heckel’s Horse one’s are a discipline and a control in a different manifestation. It’s one of those things where, even though they look very loose, if one brush stroke is wrong we’ll change it.

CT: But it’s the difference between someone doing accounts, where every figure has to be precise, and it’s like again, and again, and again. And the discipline of going down a ski slope.

HJJ: I don’t know how Billy feels when he’s doing his own painting. Sometimes things can appear that they must be that way, but the experience of doing them… 

CT: I wasn’t saying Billy’s was like doing accounts. I was just drawing a distinction between how you can have a distinction between different types of discipline. Obviously, going down a ski slope very fast, you need discipline, but it’s a different kind of discipline. All I was saying is that there’s different kinds of discipline. Going down a ski slope is, presumably for most people, more enjoyable. Not everybody. Paul Harvey does incredibly detailed, meticulous work, would drive me bonkers and he enjoys it. He thrives on it. It’s him to do that. He finds it very therapeutic. Very fulfilling. I’ve done, when I was at Foundation, I taught myself to do quite meticulous observational drawing and paintings. A lot of it was mechanical. And then I ended up thinking, why bother when you can take a photograph? I say that a painting is like a photograph of the inner world, and a phonograph is a painting of the outer world. Because you can’t take a photograph like any of these.

HJJ: No, but, like I say, there are people out there that probably find my work…doing that mind numbing…but when you asked about relating it to Billy’s work, I don’t really know. You would really have to ask him.

CT: No, I’m more interested in how it relates to your work because you’re here. I just thought there might be a little gem here about Billy and…what has he said about you doing this work?

HJJ: I only done these a few days ago. Actually, I did see him Monday…

CT: No not this. All your work together. 

HJJ: What, about my work in general?

CT: No, no, your collaboration. What’s he said about the work you do between you?

HJJ: I think both of us are really…I think we both said these are our favourite paintings of any paintings. Which sounds quite big headed to say, but it’s the truth.

CT: If Picasso said he’d done something original, that’s fairly accurate. I mean, is that big headed? That’s ludicrous. If he’s said ‘Oh, it’s nothing. It’s not going to have any effect on the world at all.’ That would be a load of rubbish. 

HJJ: Exactly, you can either tell the truth or not. If it comes across as big headed then that’s too bad.  

CT: I don’t think so.

HJJ: It shouldn’t come across as big headed because you don’t have a choice. If you think that, you think that. I think Billy and I both rate the Heckel’s Horse paintings extremely highly, otherwise we wouldn’t have done two hundred of them. We wouldn’t have bothered. 

CT: You said that you start them. You bash something down. Excuse the word ‘bash’, but you create something. You put down what you feel like. Marks, presumably you’ve suggested there’s a dog, or a figure and a house, or whatever, or maybe not all of those things, but some of those things. It’s not just abstract marks.

HJJ: No, I don’t do abstract. I always paint figurative. I never paint abstract. 

CT: So you’ve got some kind of figurative image there.

HJJ: Always. Yeah. 

CT: And you said he comes along and works on it, and pulls it together.

HJJ: Usually that’s how it happens.

CT: But does it happen the other way round? Or do you then ever work on what he’s worked on?

HJJ: Yeah, I do.  Most of the time…

CT: And then does he ever work on what you’ve worked on? How many times could that happen?

HJJ: There’s one painting we did of a bullfighter with a bull on top of him, and we went back and forth at least five times. We ended up painting the same painting at the same time. I think we were both at a loss and then we turned it round, we kind of went all over the place. I don’t think there’s been another painting like that one.

CT: Did it work out in the end?

HJJ: It always does. That’s the good thing. Like with my paintings as well. 

CT: But did you have favourite bits of the painting and then he comes along and obscures it? Does that happen?

HJJ: No, because I don’t…

CT: Or vice versa? Does he sometimes get a bit disgruntled? ‘Oh that was a good mark there, and you decided you’d paint over it.’?

HJJ: Not that he’s told me.

CT: So it requires a lot of tolerance on both sides.

HJJ: Well, I don’t care anyway. I’ve never done a painting with Billy and thought ‘I hope he doesn’t  touch that bit.’ because the thing is, whether it’s good or not is all relative to what’s around it anyway. So a good thing there is only good if everything around it…so you know it’s all going to change anyway, so I don’t really care what he does. And anything I do, if I really liked it, I could just try and do it in my individual work

CT: I think we’re probably getting towards the end of the conversation. Does it feel like that? Normally at the end I think people say ‘How do you see it going?’ Where’s the future?’

HJJ: For Heckel’s Horse Jr. I think I’m going to carry on doing more because these were so easy and I like the results. Heckel’s Horse? I don’t know because we’ve kind of stopped. We haven’t really done any in..I mean, we’re talking in August 2022…

CT: But you go down there still?

HJJ: I still go down there, but we’ve stopped doing Heckel’s Horse paintings.

CT: What do you do when you go down there?

HJJ: I just do my own work.

CT: Oh, I see.Why?

HJJ: We just haven’t been doing them. 

CT: So do you think Heckel’s Horse has reached its end? Or do you just think it needs a break and you’ll get back to it again?

HJJ: I really don’t know. I mean…

CT: Watch this space!

HJJ: It’s been so long. It’s August 2022. Covid was what? 2020?

CT: Let’s end by blaming Covid.

HJJ: It’s Covid’s fault and Billy and I will get back on it asap.  

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Charles Thomson interview at Mr. Stuckism

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Charles Thomson interviewed at his solo show, titled Mr. Stuckism

Charles Thomson, Stuckism co-founder interviewed at the solo exhibition of his paintings, titled Mr. Stuckism.

2nd August 2022 at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club in Muswell Hill village, London UK.

Interviewed by Edgeworth Johnstone of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists.

CT: We’re sitting here in one of my very rare solo shows. I think this is the first one that I wasn’t actually part of the promotion of it. This is a show that just happened because of the work in the collection of you, Edgeworth Johnstone and I think it’s the second exhibition you’ve done here recently. The first one was a mixed Stuckist show including Billy Childish, Joe Machine and other people. So this is the first solo show. You have got quite a lot of my works, obviously. I’m surprised how many you’ve got because I know there’s a whole load more all hanging up the stairs. Or there were. And they were early works done in black lines and flat colours. Whereas nowadays I’ll paint much more fluidly, where there’s no black lines and no flat colours. Sometimes the lines disappear. And I think you’ve pointed out, there was a kind of initiation into a new way, a more flexible and fluid way of painting.

EJ: Are any of these paintings particularly personal to you? In terms of both artistically and your own life.

CT: It’s very hard to answer that question, to be honest. I mean, I think, not really. Not personal in my life. I don’t think there are. Perhaps, in a way, that’s the most personal one, because it’s the toy cat of someone I was in a relationship with.

EJ: That’s of SP Howarth, up there.

CY: Yes, I know it is. I’ll tell you exactly where he was when that was painted. Actually I’m working with SP now, with poetry. He’s really stopped painting and he’s doing poetry and acting. He went to Camberwell Art College and achieved the distinction of being kicked out of the painting department for doing paintings. Because he was told it was an ideas based department. And when he said his idea was to do paintings, they said that wasn’t acceptable as an idea. And actually I got him a story in The Times newspaper. About half a page all about it because it was such an outrageous situation. That’s in the early days of Stuckism and SP, and it’s actually round a friends flat that was just off Tottenham Court Road, Khatereh, and she let us use her address in Purcey Road because it was a prestigious address for Stuckism. I think this was after the demo we went on, in Trafalgar Square, against Rachel Whitread’s plinth. Because on the plinth she did a full sized cast in resin and turned it upside down and put it on top of a plinth.Which was very clever and very stupid, simultaneously. And we did a demonstration about that. Stella Vine was one of the participants, much to her chagrin later on, when she looked back.And there’s photographs of it at a press agency. I think it’s Getty Images.One of them has got photographs of her standing there with her Stuckist placard.But she can’t deny it.When I wrote an essay for the Stuckist Punk Victorian book, for the Walker Art Gallery in 2004, we had a big show there which went on for five months, the first section of my essay was called the Battle of Trafalgar because it was describing this event which took place in Trafalgar Square. It was an opening event with all these celebrities like Melvyn Bragg and Nicholas Serota and some artists. There was a normal crash barrier for the public to stand behind, where we were standing. So the ceremony was over. It had been unveiled. People had gone off the plinth, where the microphone was. And I thought, ‘This is too good an opportunity to miss’. And I don’t like doing these sort of things, but I thought ‘Well, I have to do this. It’s my duty’. So I climbed over the top of the crash barrier. Got on the plinth and started addressing the crowd through the microphone about the shortcomings of The Turner Prize. And all these celebrities were standing there listening. They didn’t have any option, until somebody had the bright idea, eventually, after I’d been speaking for two or three minutes, of turning the power off. It was videoed as well. It was on some cable TV arts programme, I think. Then afterwards, I was in the crowd and suddenly I saw this figure coming towards me. Like a destroyer approaching a submarine. It was Nicholas Serota, who was somewhat irate. He was very disgusted because he said I had used somebody else’s work for my own purposes. I was quite taken aback, but I thought I’ll use an art historical reference, because that might placate him because he didn’t look very happy. And I said ‘It’s Dada.’ I can’t remember what he said exactly. It’s in the book that he basically snorted and stormed off again.There’s a nice photo of him and me together having our interaction.

Now, wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for the absolute total hypocrisy. Recently, and we’re now in August 2022. I think it was a week or two ago so it’s still available on YouTube. They repeated, the BBC repeated on iPlayer, an Alan Yentob documentary about Cornelia Parker, and towards the end of this documentary it got on to one of her works where she had wrapped Rodins’s ‘The Kiss’ statue in a mile of string. I think it was a mile, anyway loads of string. Possibly a mile. Because that was the amount of string that Marcel Duchamp wrapped up a Dada or Surrealist exhibition. Like cobwebs. Like string everywhere. I think that’s maybe why she used a mile of string. Well, hang on a moment. Isn’t she using another artists work to promote her own work? Which is exactly the accusation Serota had levied against me, with such vehemence and outrage, and now he’s letting, because he was in charge of the Tate. He’s letting someone else do exactly the same thing that was so bad when I did it. So that strikes me as being double standards. Actually, what happened on this Yentob documentary was that the Stuckists came into it because there was a Stuckist demonstration. Now I have to say that I didn’t know anything about this at the time and neither did anybody I know. But apparently this Stuckist, I later found out was called Piers Butler who had founded the Notting Hill Stuckists. Because all Stuckist groups are independent. They do what they want. So it was nothing to do with me, but he, on his own volition had gone in. He’d got lots of couples standing around ‘The Kiss’ kissing each other while he started snipping the string off. So that was another Stuckist demonstration that we got publicity from which was nothing to do with us. Well, when I say us, I mean nothing to do with me because I’m usually involved in Stuckist things. I don’t have to be but I usually am. That’s quite funny. It’s like when Tate Modern opened. Somebody did some kind of demo which people attributed to the Stuckists, or thought it was the Stuckists doing it. So we got publicity for not even doing a demo or someone else doing a demo. Which, of course, we had had lots of demos, about twenty years worth of demos outside the Turner Prize. People were so familiar and so used to us doing demos that one year we didn’t do a demo and The Telegraph reported that the Stuckists weren’t demonstrating. And another we turned up and said we weren’t demonstrating, and handed out leaflets explaining that we weren’t demonstrating because it was so bad we couldn’t be bothered to demonstrate. Which I thought was an amazing piece of sort of ironic, sort of conceptualism, that fact that we were handing out leaflets saying we weren’t demonstrating. My ideal, my dream was always that our Turner Prize demonstrations would be nominated for the Turner Prize. So we could have the demonstration actually inside the Turner Prize as one of the four nominees while meanwhile outside we were demonstrating against the fact that we were nominated for the Turner Prize. But this sort of thing doesn’t seem to get through. It doesn’t appeal

EJ: They wouldn’t think of that. That’s too good.

CT: It’s too good.What amazes me is that, if you say ‘I’m part of the art establishment. I think you’re wonderful and I’m doing this, kind of, whacky thing’ They say ‘Oh, it’s so whacky and funny and ironic and clever.’ If you say exactly the same thing, with exactly the same mentality but say ‘I don’t think you’re whacky. I think you’re a load of wankers and I think you’re talking out your arse.’ Then they say ‘Oh, it’s pathetic. It’s infantile.’

There was a bit of a run in with Sarah Kent who was the art editor of Time Out, because she wouldn’t feature any of our shows.And a journalist rang her up and said, and she said ‘Oh, well we can only feature one if four shows.’ and the journalist said ‘Well they’ve got five opening tomorrow.’ And we made a fuss about it which was great because it got in the Evening Standard that Time Out is censoring the Stuckists.Which gets better publicity than if they’d actually reviewed us. So I think that rather pissed off the editor because the next thing, Sarah Kent turned up and was sort of forced to review our shows, and obviously tried to rubbish them.And she said that I’d obviously been looking…because she talked about my painting of Sir Nicholas Serota behind a large pair of red knickers and the speech bubbles in the painting saying ‘Is it a genuine Emin, £10,000, or a worthless fake? Or an imitation, or something.A worthless fake. This pair of red knickers. To do with the fact that Tracey Emin had exhibited her bed with knickers and stuff round it. And Sarah Kent said that this was sort of puerile, infantile, whatever humour.Well a few weeks after that Tracey Emin was on television complaining that an installation that someone was exhibiting did not contain her genuine knickers. But they were substituted for another couple of pairs of knickers.So I think, far from being puerile, it was quite prescient. It was prophetic. It’s actually what happened. So if what I did, in saying that in the painting is a puerile sense of humour, isn’t then what Tracey Emin did equally as puerile in reality?

Another thing she said was that I’d obviously been studying the work of Michael Craig-Martin. Well, first of all, I mean, I’d never seen Michael Craig-Martin’s work, originally, when I started working like this because he wasn’t around. I mean, Patrick Caulfield was around. Liechtenstein was around. And actually my original use of black lines was based on Cloisonnism which was the use of outlines and flatish colours in the nineteenth century by Van Gogh and Emile Bernard, and later by Ernst Ludwig Kirchener of Die Brucke of the German Expressionists from about 1905. That was my inspiration. Certainly not Michael Craig-Martin. And the other thing was, hang on a moment, because one of my early paintings of Stuckism…actually, I’d actually done it at art college, when I was there at Maidstone Art College, so we’re going back to  1978. I’d done Seurat’s ‘Bathers’ painting in black outlines and flat colours. So the men in it, a group of men by the river…it’s in the National Gallery. So the men, there’s one with a white coat. I just left it white. Anyway, it’s black outlines and flat colours, which I then repeated later because someone wanted a copy and I didn’t have one so I painted it again. Now when Stuckism was launched in 1999 and it featured on the cover of The Sunday Times Culture and there was a page and a half inside, it had a big reproduction of this painting I’d done of Seurat’s ‘The Bathers’ in black outlines and flat colours. Well, a few years later, I think it was The Sunday Times again, featured Michael Craig-Martin doing a version of Seurat’s ‘The Bathers’ with black outlines and flat colours. So hang on. Who’s been looking at who? And as far as the kind of jelly drop colours that he uses. Those kind of bright pinks and yellows and reds and stuff. Again, I’ve got paintings where I’d use these same colours in 1978 at art college. That was way before, as far as I know, he was doing that kind of stuff. And I got those colours from punk art. From The Sex Pistols ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’ yellow and pink, flurescent pink album cover. Because that was the kind of colours that were around with, sort of punk visuals. It was like fluorescent greens and pinks and yellows. That’s where I got those colours from. I don’t know why I’m saying all this, apart from the fact that, why the hell not. Because some people might find it vaguely…. You seem to be finding it…you being Edgeworth, the man behind the camera…seems to be finding it quite entertaining.

EJ: Yeah.

CT: I think there’s so many entertaining things in Stuckism. I mean, we ought to do a whole book of entertaining things.There’s another classic one, that. Again, this was when Billy was with the Stuckists. Now, he seems to think he was with the Stuckists for six months. It was actually thirty months, if you want to know. It was from January 1999 right up to July 2001 at the ‘Vote Stuckist’ show at the Fridge Gallery. That’s where he told me he was leaving.That wa s thirty months actually. Perhaps he’s not very good at maths, or perhaps he wishes it was only six months. Actually, he probably wishes it was no time at all. But he does like the manifestoes, well he half wrote them. You know, we co-wrote them.He’s always like….it’s kind of weird, someone who doesn’t like Stuckism that really likes the Stuckist manifestoes. Doesn’t matter anyway. I suppose he thinks Stuckism wasn’t a manifestation of the manifestoes. But it’s actually meant to be the other way round. It wasn’t that the artists were meant to come along, read the rules and then conform. It was meant…we were meant to be looking at what the artists were doing and then try and put that into some kind of manifesto.Anyway, it doesn’t matter. But it was when Billy was still in the Stuckists. Those early days, probably, it was probably about 2000. And the ‘Journal de Brasil’ the journal of Brazil, the national Brazilian newspaper decided to do an article on the Stuckists and phoned up The British Council. Now the job of The British Council is to promote British culture abroad. So, you would have thought ‘Great.’ You know, a national paper in Brazil wants to feature British artists. These are rebel artists. So let’s say ‘It demonstrates the plurality, the tolerance of our society and our culture.That we have a country where we have an opposition group that’s quite vociferous, quite rude about the establishment. About national figures. About the Director of the Tate Gallery. And this is part of our culture.And this is what democracy is. And this is what free speech is. And this is Britain. Good old us. You know, we’re not like these bloody repressive regimes that stop people and squash them, and don’t let them speak.Well, that’s what I would have said if I was this person in The British Council. So what does she say? ‘Oh, you shouldn’t do anything on them.’ Oh, wonderful. What a good example.’No, you shouldn’t do anything on them. They’re not worth doing.’ I can’t remember the exact reason.’but you definitely shouldn’t do anything on these people.’ You know. ‘They’re not good people.’ Something like that. ‘And furthermore, there’s only two people doing it. They’ve painted all the paintings between them, and they’ve made up these fictitious names like Wolf Howard and Joe Machine. They’re obviously not real names.They’ve made them up and it’s just these two people doing this whole scam.’ Anyway, I told Joe Machine that someone had thought I’d made him up and he wasn’t terribly impressed by that. Well the thing is, if you say to a journalist that wants to do an article ‘You shouldn’t do this article.’ You couldn’t think of a better way of encouraging the journalist to do the article. Furthermore, you’re likely to end up being quoted in the article. So this is a complete ineptitude. That’s what gets me. It’s not just that they’re doing this, they’re doing it badly. It was a great article. It was a big article about the Stuckists and possibly about how they shouldn’t do something on the Stuckists.

Another classic example is the whole scandal over the Tate’s purchase of its own trustees’ work, Chris Offili. They bought his work. That wasn’t announced in the press. What was announced in the press was ‘Oh, the Tate is buying this important installation called, what’s it called? ‘The Last Supper’ or something? Based on Christ’s Last Supper, except Chris Offili had painted all the disciples as monkeys.It’s a good job he’s black isn’t it,and not white. Because that’s something that really gets up my nose. I believe in equality. I believe in equality for white people as well as black people and yellow people, purple people. And people who are green with red stripes. And that really gets up my nose when, you know, you’ve got a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card if you happen to have certain qualifications.Which I won’t go into now because you’re probably not allowed to say it, you see. There’s a stifling of free speech and our democracy, our whole culture is based on the freedom of speech. For debate. For progress. And people have fought and died for that privilege. For that right. Nazi’s obviously did not want people, did not allow people to have free speech. You couldn’t descent. And if you did, you know, you ended up in a concentration camp. 

EJ: Yeah.

CT: And my relatives were involved in opposing the Nazis. You know, their youth was spent in…like one uncle’s in the fourteenth army in the Burma. Said he saw horrendous things. Another one was flying planes. Cargo planes. Thirteen set out and his was the only one that arrived.I mean, my mother was on anti-aircraft guns in, at the end of the war. The only plane they shot at turned out to be an American but fortunately they missed. But, do you know, she’s got veterans badges. She was in uniform. My father was preparing to invade Japan in a tank. And so on. So, you know, my very very immediate family fought and were prepared to give their lives to oppose tyranny. And of course, it starts out insidiously with people being criticised in the press. This is what happened in Nazi Germany. And then they were, sort of, forbidden to speak. It didn’t happen overnight. It happened salami tactics. You cut off one slice at a time. You do a protest against them. You have a gang. You ostracise them. You criticise them. You stop them…books coming out. You stop them from speaking at universities. You get them dismissed from their posts at universities. Well hang on a moment. Is this sounding rather familiar? Because it’s exactly what the Nazi’s did. I’d just like to point that out in case anybody is listening. If you’re actually using this tactic to stop someone whose opinion you don’t like, or you don’t approve of, that is exactly the tactic that the Nazi’s had. And it obviously escalated. Because when people want to make a point. When they want a change in society it tends to escalate. Because they can’t achieve that change immediately. It’s not going to happen overnight. That happened, well actually it happened with the suffragettes. Because they started, when they didn’t get what they wanted straight away they started doing violent things. Slashing pictures. The Rokeby Venus in The National Gallery. Then a woman threw herself in front of a horse during the horse race and was killed. Then they started posting bombs. One went through a letterbox in Gravesend and, as it happened, was diffused by a gallant sergeant of police. Bombs! Well, actually, if they just hung on a bit, waited, it all happened. During the First World War because the country needed women in men’s jobs and then…it changed the balance. It changed the dynamic. History changes things anyway. If you’re patient it will happen. 

The same thing happened in the sixties, and I was part of that. Peace and love. You want to change society. You want to get away from materialistic society. You want to bring in different ideals. Maybe spiritual ones. Maybe, you know, peace and love. And it sounds corny and stuff, but I mean it’s perfectly valid isn’t it? I mean the whole of Christianity, or a lot of it was based on it. A lot of it was based on something else with the inquisition and the crusades but what we think of as Christianity is peace and love. And so generally that’s not derided, whereas hippies are for some reason. I don’t know exactly… perhaps they should have dressed up as bishops. Mind you, they did dress up looking not much different to bishops.  But they wanted ideals. They wanted to change society. They wanted to change certain things about it. And again, there was this frustration because it wasn’t happening overnight. And it started becoming increasingly agitated. And I was taking part. I was taking part in demonstrations. And there was the angry brigade that actually were using bombs, or planning to. I think they might have planted a bomb, but certainly they were involved with…that was their solution. It was the same thing. Turn to violence. You turn to more extreme measures. Well, that seemed to be happening with the movements now. Which, of various kinds, addressing valid issues, I’m sure. I have no doubt that black people have an inadequate time in our society. There’s a rather interesting Evening Standard article, in Brixton. They went down one street, was a lot of white people. Another street, a lot of black people. Well, the white people are saying the police are great. All the black people were saying that they come in, invade our house every other day.  You know, we’re a perfectly respectable family. So, you know, I have no doubt that there’s racial prejudice. Yeah, sure. And I’ve no doubt that people with gender issues. You know, transexual issues and so on, have a bad time which they shouldn’t have. They should be perfectly free. To be respected. You know, and so on. In fact, one of the Stuckist artists is, I don’t know to what extent, but, he certainly stands out as being…well, he dresses in quite a feminine way. Sometimes in a goth way and he’s always worked in a garage.And it’s ok, you know, it’s ok.People accept him. That’s what should happen. I mean, but there are ways of addressing things that are best for everybody. Rather than just a small group that want to make a point because you’ve got to consider the whole of society. And maybe you’ve got somebody.who is a perfectly viable, maybe he’s very knowledgeable. Is a lecturer or a historian or a researcher, or somebody. Maybe he’s a politician, and people dig up some mistake that person has made. According to them, at some point in their lives. Maybe a careless word and suddenly they’re blacklisted. We’re not meant to say that, probably…they’re cancelled. And I think, ‘Well, that’s not very tolerant is it?’ Because it’s like implying you’ve got to be perfect. And that is really dangerous because psychologically, the only people that are perfect are the people that have got everything denied. And if it’s in denial and it’s repressed, it’s going to come out in the worst possible way. And I think the people that are making the most fuss, and are probably the people who are repressing the most stuff, They’ve probably got the most issues. And there was a lovely YouTube video I saw yesterday actually. It was this guy that dresses up in a Chinese hat and the Chinese robe. And he goes up to white people, I say white, you know, Western people they were. I think, all white people.And maybe there was the odd black person as well. They went up to them and said ‘What do you think of my costume?’ and they said it was appropriation. It’s disgusting.  You know, you’ve got no right to wear it. I’m appalled etc. etc.  Then he went up to Chinese people and they’re going ‘It’s lovely!’ ‘How nice you’re wearing our costume.’ ‘We like to see it. We like to see it more.’  They did the same thing with a Mexican hat and, you know, Mexican poncho, and all the Westerners, I don’t know, not even particularly woke people or anything, I don’t think, and they’re just…it’s like just ordinary Westerners. They tend to be on the younger side.And they’re saying the same thing ‘You’ve got no right to wear this. You just, you know, appropriating, demeaning somebody else’s costume. And he goes up to the Mexican people and they’re going ‘Yeah, fantastic! Brilliant. Love the hat. Looks really good on you.’ And I think there’s probably an awful lot of that. And I don’t like it at all. And I have written poems about it which I haven’t got on me, fortunately. That means I won’t have to read them out. I don’t think I’m quite ready to release them yet but, you know, there needs to be a counter-movement. Just as, actually, Stuckism was an artistic counter movement to bullshit. To pretentiousness. To manipulation of the whole art world. Which to a certain extent, doesn’t really matter because no one gives a shit about the art world. Apart from the people involved in it, but, it does deprive the rest of society of an art which would be more meaningful to them. And there’s proof of that. I mean, when Rachel Whitread had an exhibition of her stuff at Tate Modern, I’m sorry, Tate Britain, years ago. And what does she do? She does casts of things. She does a cast underneath a chair. Which is actually taken from Jeff Koons anyway, but it doesn’t matter. And then she’ll make a solid block out of what was, a space under a chair. And she did this with a room. So she did a cast inside the room. So normally, obviously, the walls are solid and the inside is a space. Well, when she did it, the inside was solid concrete, and the walls weren’t there. They were shown by indentations. She did an exhibition at Tate Britain and it had so little attention, they had to give away tickets. If you went to another exhibition that was on at the same time, you got a free ticket to hers. Because it was so embarrassing because nobody was interested in it. 

Now we had an exhibition, as I’ve mentioned, of the Stuckists at The Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool in 2004 called the Stuckists Punk Victorian. And it was a massive exhibition. It was meant to be two months. It ran for five. This was a big old gallery. Very high walls and we had paintings floor to ceiling. All around this. It was like walking into a cathedral of art. And they said it was really popular. They said all sorts of people. We’ve got students, school children, tourists, artists, you know, collectors, critics,  just town’s people. People coming, they were loving it because it meant something to them. I mean, there was a John Bourne painting, for example, of a family and I think they’re standing there. Maybe four people and there’s a father-looking figure with a cup of tea. I mean, somebody was saying ‘I wonder why he’s got a cup of tea and no one else.’ So they want….The people promoting conceptual art, for example, their big banner is ‘Oh, it makes people think. It makes people question.’ It does, but the thing, what it makes people question is why the fuck it’s there in the first place.They say ‘Why are you calling it art?’ You’re not questioning anything about life. You’re just questioning the people that are doing it. You know, why should we think anything of this?  It doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m not getting anything from it. Why is it so good?  What’s good about it? Whereas when they’re coming to the Stuckists show they’re actually engaging in a dialogue, through the painting about things which matter in their own lives. It’s like, well yeah, I mean I’m making this up, but it’s like ‘Yeah, my dad always has his cup of tea, doesn’t he, he doesn’t make me one.’ That sort of thing. You know, that’s just one example, because obviously there’s a whole load of different approaches to life in Stuckist work because it’s so varied stylistically and subject-wise. But the one thing that’s in common is that it is actually dealing with something. And in a way that people can relate to. You know, anything here, I think there’s really nothing here at all that you couldn’t look at and have a response that would mean something to you. Obviously, some would mean more. Obviously if you like funny looking cats, or kind of eighteenth century figures. Of like a donkey and a woman, you know, if you like that kind of sensitivity. Or someone’s that looking a little bit more, like sort of street cred. Whatever you want to call it. You would relate to different ones, but you could still relate to everything here. Or just like the man and the woman. You know, what are they doing? Why has he got this attitude towards her? They look as though there’s some little tension there. And obviously, tension in a relationship is something that most people can relate to. Or even just that one with just objects in the kitchen. You know, it maybe reminds you of your kitchen and you think ‘Yeah, I like my kitchen.I’ve got things in there. I like my mug. I like a bottle of wine or a saucepan. You know, I enjoy it. I cook the meal.’ and it’s kind of nice to see it and it’s kind of refreshing. The colours are upbeat.  They’re not depressing. It’s kind of a nice thing to look at. And that brings me to why I paint. And I realised this in 2001 because I asked myself ‘Why do I do it?’ And I was living in West Finchley, in my living room and it was a white wall. And on it was a painting. And I thought ‘I know why I paint. Because I’d rather see that painting there than a blank white wall. I would rather this thing that I’ve created existed rather than nothing existing. Because I feel better. And it seems to me that that’s a very good reason. In fact, it’s the only reason for art. I mean, if you don’t, or poetry or anything. You know, it’s not a religion. It’s not a duty. Some things are a duty, right? Some things, maybe you get a bit bored cleaning your teeth every day but you have to do it. Or maybe you have to do something for your parents. Or someone’s ill and you think ‘Oh no, I really don’t want to go down the pharmacy but they’ve got a horrible headache or it’s that time of the month and they’ve run out of bloody tampons or sanitary towels and I’ve been commissioned to go and buy them. Why me? I’m a man. But I really feel awful, but ok, don’t worry, I’ll go.’ You do things that you don’t want to do. Well, you don’t have to do art. You don’t have to do poetry. Anything like that. So why do you do it? And I would say because it enhances life. Now, one’s got to be very precise and careful about that definition of ‘enhances’. I don’t necessarily mean it’s going to make you feel happy clappy. I mean, Leonard Cohen said ‘Seriousness is deeply agreeable to the heart.’ What I’m saying is, it makes your life better. That might well mean that actually, it takes you to a more serious or even a very sad part of yourself. 

One of the most important things in human psychology is to be in touch with your emotions and feelings. And one of the easiest things to do, which one is encouraged to do from babyhood onward, is to deny and repress feelings, which is unhealthy. I went in to a lot of schools to do poetry, which is a place where you release what you really feel. And I said to a teacher ‘Well, you teach children that their feelings aren’t important, to deny their feelings.’  And they said ‘Oh no, of course we don’t.’ I said ‘Ok, fine. So you’ve got a maths lesson and the child says ‘I don’t feel like doing it’. So you say ‘That’s alright. Respect your feelings’ You don’t say that. You say ‘It doesn’t matter what you feel. You’re going to do it. This is the lesson.’ And sort of, the penny dropped. Oh, kind of ‘Yes we do.We tell them that their feelings aren’t the most important thing.’ And yet feelings are…people think feelings are wild and crazy. Well, if you do that to them, then they are.But actually, if they’re functioning properly it’s a rational hierarchical system. Because in thought you prioritise and you give value. Well you do that with feelings. You know, there’s something you have a strong feeling about, something you have an adverse feeling about, a negative feeling about. You give a whole structure. You could look round anything. I mean, I could look at all these paintings, just to take this example. I have a feeling about each of them. Well, to me, that’s not as important. It’s a bit more superficial. There’s another one that’s a bit deeper. Or anything. People that you know. You have feelings about them all. If you were to actually print out those feelings in a graph, you’d have some people at the top. ‘Oh, I have massive feelings towards those people.That person, negative feeling. Sort them all out.’ So feelings are very important. And one thing that art can do is take you to deeper feelings that you might have lost touch with. If you don’t do that. If you don’t learn and manage and be in touch with your feelings. Some people are naturally. Some people are the complete opposite.  I mean, Jung made a model of air, fire and water, basically that air is opposite to water, thought is opposite to feeling. So the people who are highly developed thinkers often have very immature feelings. And you can see that in that film with Marlene Dietrich in, with the…Professor is smitten with the showgirl. He loses everything. You often see this. People who are supposedly very rational, when their feelings emerge, they go to pieces. And it’s like when you see a policeman or a fireman and something, you know, they’re tough people. And then maybe they find a dead child in an accident, or something, and they break down. Because suddenly the barriers been smashed.It took something strong to do it, but when it smashes the feelings just pour out and they’re uncontrollable. Whereas somebody else who’s more in touch with their feelings would be able to accommodate that experience.They would register it, yeah sure, as for what it was, appropriately. But there’s kind of disproportionate feelings and there’s proportionate and appropriate feelings. And if you’re healthy you have integrated an appropriate…feelings for situations.So yeah, certain things are going to make you feel angry. Certain things are going to make you feel bad, in proportion to what’s going on. Whereas if something’s repressed, when it’s triggered off it can just blow up completely because the person doesn’t know how to deal with it. You know, it’s like you have to learn how to walk and to run. Well some people have to learn to work with feelings. We all have to learn to work with feelings. Whereas it can be the other way round. Some people are very dab with their emotions. They’re comfortable with their emotions. When it comes to thinking, they’re really intimidated. And they’re frightened of thoughts. Actually frightened of certain thoughts. They don’t know how to handle certain thoughts. That’s the other way round. So that can happen as well. 

So when I say that painting should make you feel better. It should enhance your life. I mean it should bring you to a better engagement with reality. And that’s one of the points of Stuckism, is truth. Billy and I sat down and we talked about it, and we tried to work out, well, what is spirituality? How does it work? And we thought, well actually the key to it is truth. Which doesn’t mean, necessarily, not telling lies. It doesn’t mean that. It means facing the truth in yourself and knowing what that truth is. At all levels. So there’s a material truth, for example, it might be that the fridge needs cleaning out. That’s a material truth. And maybe there’s an emotional truth. It’s like ‘I’m not happy with the relationship.’ You know,  but I keep on bottling it up. I keep on denying it. Well you need to accept that you’re not happy with it. Instead of pretending you are because things don’t work if you pretend something different to truth. And you can take that all the way up to spiritual truth. Whatever you might define that as. To metaphysical truth. To things that are beyond the meaning of life. The meanings, for example, of why you’re doing something. You’ve got to try and face the truth of that.  And maybe you’ll decide that ‘My life isn’t meaningful.I’m doing something that’s not meaningful which doesn’t satisfy me. There’s something wrong in my head with what I’m doing. I can’t square it.’ That makes things difficult because any time you question something and there’s an objection to it. Obviously it upsets the status quo. But when you work through that, the end result is beneficial. So it all comes into it. Into our thinking. And I think that one thing that’s clear is that before you have art, you have an artist. And whatever that artist is will translate into the art. So you can’t have a superficial person making profound and meaningful art. You can have someone who appears to be superficial but inside they’re not. But whoever that person is, is going to translate into the art. Art is a conversation. It’s a presentation. It’s a communication between the artist and the viewer. Just as any interaction does that. So that you meet with somebody….and I’ve found this, that sometimes I might be emotionally upset for some reason. Particularly in youth, when I was younger, I didn’t know how to handle things as well. And I talked to somebody and they’d make me feel worse. And I’d talk to somebody else, and I’d feel everything was ok. And that person embodied something.  Well, the same thing in art. What they embody will go into the art. Some art will make you feel life is futile. I must say, that was my experience with the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy of the YBA’s. The Young British Artists. Damien Hirst and so on. When I first went in, I thought ‘This is quite exciting. Novelty. Big. All these exciting different things.’ But the third time I went to the show, it’s like, ‘This is awful. This is like nothing. It’s not enhancing my life. It’s depleting my life.’ It’s superficial. It’s masquerading as meaning when it’s not meaning anything, particularly. It doesn’t have the soul in it. Whatever you might call the soul. The soul is someone’s emotional depth. And again, this is part of the thinking that’s fed into Stuckism. And I’m not saying that all my work embodies the ideal, because, actually ideals are not good things to embody anyway.But I think some of that, that I’ve experienced in life, will come through in some of the work. It’s like Van Gogh could paint a chair or a boot, and you feel that’s symbolic of some vibrancy. Some power in life that animates existence. All of existence. Even a chair or a boot. Right, any questions?

EJ: No. Just things that were occurring to me as you were talking. I was thinking of what I consider good or bad in anything I see. Whether it’s art or music. Well if it looks like the truth then I’ll like it. For example, Bob Marley. I don’t really like his music but I watch his videos all the time because it looks like somebody who’s just doing their thing. It looks sincere. It looks like the truth. And that’s essentially the differentiator between good and bad in art, if you go as deep as you can. I think with your work, whatever it is, it’s the truth. You said Van Gogh, and Van Gogh said ‘Anything done in love is done well.’ If you can see the essential core of it is good then the rest is almost superficial. So, that was just a thought that came to me while you were talking.

Those are a couple of paintings that Charles and I did, back in the day, as collaborations.

CT: Yes, I think about the only collaborations I’ve ever done in my life. Well, in artistic terms.

EJ: And I think you should take some credit here for these ones you did at print club, because this is a method you sort of came up with. Was it out of ignorance, of not knowing how to make prints, that you came up with this method?

CT: Everything I did at the print club was out of ignorance. Which was kind of good because…I don’t know….I had done some prints at art college, you know. Some litho, etching, silk screen, but those facilities weren’t available and everything was very makeshift. Here in this room. And I thought it might be interesting to try and make up some methods of making prints. With some information from you about how some of the things might work. But then I thought, ‘That’s given me an idea to do something else.’ Which I did. I mean, the first prints I did, I just painted on a bit of paper, squashed another bit of paper and pulled it off. Then painted the same colours in the same place, and put another bit of paper…so that was a bit crude but you’ve got to start somewhere. I think a lot of people have a problem with failing. And our society encourages that. It shows people up. It ridicules people. You know, if you say ‘I don’t know what that word means.’ I mean, I didn’t know what the word ‘marinate’ means. Which Jasmine’s never let me forget. Well, I don’t know that much about cooking. I know now it means to throw a pancake out the window. No, it doesn’t mean that. No, but she will ask things if she doesn’t know. And I’m pleased to say that there’s some simple words that she didn’t know either. People should ask. You should be encouraged to try things that you want to do. 

EJ: Again, it relates back to Stuckism. I think, that…specifically for SP Howarth and the like. Who have found themselves kicked out for asking the wrong question. And its like, no, you’re doing your thing. You know, your artwork isn’t dependent on whether it’s relevant to what the world’s interested in right now.Your art’s something more internal. 

CT: I mean, you could say, if you’re not asking the wrong question, you’re not getting it right. Because art, and particularly poetry, for example, but also in art. But because poetry is words and dealing with ideas and concepts as well, you can perhaps illustrate it more clearly. Because we’re more of a verbal than visual culture. The reason it’s been associated with a lot of controversy…is because it’s doing the thing you’re not meant to do.Why aren’t you meant to do it? Because it’s been denied by mainstream society. And it’s an unhealthy denial. It’s something that needs to be brought forth. And we’ve got quotes in the Stuckist literature from one of the Gnostic Gospels, from Jesus saying if you don’t bring things out, forth, it will destroy you. And the same with society. An artist…are that safety valve. That they express the thing which is basically from the unconscious. That’s why it seems new and startling. Because it is. Because to the conscious mind it’s like ‘Err, I don’t know what this is.’  And, of course, a small number of people with connect with it, but most people will be following behind. Lagging behind. It’s bringing into consciousness something which has been repressed, in an unhealthy way. Let’s take Wordsworth. I mean, he seems very safe writing about daffodils and country cottages. Well, at the time, most people don’t realise this, he was like the Sex Pistols. He was like the Johnny Rotten. He was writing about vulgar subjects. Vulgar things like peasants and cottages that were beneath art. Art should be historic and grand and mythological. It shouldn’t be writing about these people. And he was and that was shocking. But obviously it’s very healthy for society that these things should have a spotlight shone on them. And then it gets integrated into the mainstream. That’s just one example. Byron’s another classical example of someone who was shocking because he pointed out things which weren’t normally pointed out, but needed to be. There needed to be a freer discourse about things. Which he was writing about. And you can just see that going throughout. I can’t remember how we got on to this from the prints.

EJ: No, but Stuckism has been documenting a lot of stuff that would otherwise have gone undocumented. Were it not for Stuckism. This kind of idea that painting is dead. Painting is the medium of yesterday. Well, that’s not what actually is happening. So I’m always trying to tie it back to Stuckism, obviously. 

CT: If you’ve got Peter Doig who’s always recognised as a painter. Even throughout the period where painting was supposed to be dead, you’ve still got people like Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud and they’re all recognised. Leaving Peter Doig out of it, but the other people I’ve mentioned basically had a nihilistic philosophy. And that was an acceptable approach to art, nihilism. 

EJ: Yeah, so even within painting, as long as you tick one of those boxes then you’ll get through, but Stuckism is not really like that. You wouldn’t necessarily get your John Bourne’s or what have you because they don’t have, on a very shallow level, say yeah, this separates him from the bunch.

CT: It’s interesting because there’s a connection with Peter Doig because Billy Childish was at a London art college with him and they had become friends. You know, so on. There’s that connection, a certain overlap, but he, from what I know. Certainly in some of his best known works, tended to use photography. And it was like a comment on photography as much as anything else, which makes it kind of clever. You’re not just interested in the subject. You’re doing this kind of comment on different means of visual record. 

EJ: I know in the manifesto you say about the experience of seeing works up in homes. As opposed to just viewing them. Do you feel any of that at this show? That there’s an experience that you wouldn’t get if it was, maybe, in Tate Modern. Just from the environmental fact of it. 

CT: Definitely.

EJ: Just contrast how you might experience the paintings here. Because I know that we’ve all done shows in your typical white wall gallery. I’ve done them. You’ve done them. It is a very different experience. Maybe in good ways, some ways and bad ways other ways. But I was just wondering how you experience the contrast. 

CT: Well, strangely enough, most of the shows I’ve done and curated, as time went on, even more so, in spaces with white walls…I would like to point out I had the Stuckism Gallery for three years from 2002 that had maroon upstairs and green downstairs, so it wasn’t a white wall gallery.

EJ: And it was your home as well. With sofas and all that lot. 

CT: I am basically curating shows…because my interest in creating them was to see the art. Like, it wasn’t to sell the work but generally speaking, that didn’t happen very much. Because by the time I had organised the show I had completely run out of steam for doing commercial stuff. Which never really interested me.What I liked was seeing the work and bringing people together. Enabling them to see their work displayed and having attention, because that’s very encouraging for artists. And to see their colleges, the Stuckists. Part of a communal effort. And that was my interest. So you could say it was effectively, rather like what you’ve done here. I was doing that on that similar basis. I wasn’t thinking ‘Oh, right, the world’s press… well to start with there was more of that going on. But as time went on it lessened…the world’s press beating their way to the show. They didn’t end up doing that very much. And as I say, I’d run out of steam and by then I was a bit of a one man band. Because when we started out at the Gallery 108 in 1999, Joe Crompton was the gallerist, Billy and I were both there. He had his contacts. I was contacting people in the press. When you’ve got a small number of people working together, and they’re doing something, it’s much easier.  But eventually I was really doing everything. Well I wasn’t literally sitting there, manning the…I think you were doing some invigilation but I was doing all the organising. And that’s it. I had enthusiasm for doing the organising of the work but I never really enjoyed promoting stuff for the press and doing PR and all that stuff. Even though I’ve done an awful lot of it, quite successfully. Just because you can do something, and you can do it well and you can do it successfully, doesn’t mean it’s what you want to do. Or even that you should carry on doing. It was a means to an end. If Stuckism and the art could be promoted without me having to do all of that, I’d just click my fingers and say ‘Great!’ But it couldn’t. Wouldn’t have been. We wouldn’t even be here in this room, this small show where I’m the only visitor to date. I think Don Takeshita-Guy is threatening to come along. We wouldn’t even have this if it wasn’t for that press promotion. 

But you want to talk about Stuckism. You see, for me, I’m kind of jaded with talking about Stuckism because I’ve been doing it for 22 years and you get fed up saying the same thing. I mean, I used to work on a hospital switchboard. I was on there seven years part-time. And I calculated at the end I said ‘ophthalmic hospital’ a quarter of a million times. But eventually, when I walked away from work all my limbs were aching. As soon as I left the job all the ache went. So I’ve learnt to recognise that now. I’ve got no control over it. I mean, I went to art college, obviously, then I gave up art, got into poetry. I was doing children’s poetry. I was going round schools. I was earning a lot of money. Really good money. I went to 700 schools over thirteen years, but at the end of it, it was just like a money machine. And I thought, ‘This is not why I’m doing poetry.’  I was jaded. I was fed up with it. And I was very successful. I mean, you know, I’m in over a hundred anthologies for children. For Penguin and Oxford Press. I was doing really well.  And I got back into painting, and I had to give up the children’s poetry even though I was doing really well in it because I couldn’t do both at the same time.Because you’re doing children’s poetry, I mean, you get an editor getting in touch saying ‘I’m doing a book on ghosts for nine to eleven year olds.’ and you have to sit there writing half a dozen on ten poems. Well, that takes time and energy and I needed that time and energy for doing painting. Or promoting Stuckism, or whatever. I had to ease my way out of it. And I stopped doing it. I haven’t done any children’s poems for the last twenty years.  In fact, I didn’t do any adult poetry because before, when I was doing children’s poetry, I squeezed out all the adult poetry as well.  And then after twenty years, and this happened about three years ago, suddenly the tsunami happened inside. You know, the dam broke and I wrote about four hundred poems in a year and a half. I wrote as many in eighteen months as I had written in eighteen years. They’re the best ones I’ve written.

EJ: You tend to paint a bit like that don’t you. You just have an avalanche of paintings. Then a long period of nothing. Then another avalanche of paintings. 

CT: Yeah, phases of things. I’ll illustrate with the poetry, but it applies to the paintings as well. When I was doing this big outburst of poems about three years ago, I put everything I could to one side. Because one came after another, after another. I’d opened up the tap. And now I’ve had to switch the tap off. I could open it again and more poems would come out, but I’ve got to do other stuff. So when I went through a change in my painting, in 2013 I think it was, I put everything to one side, and some very interesting opportunities came up. New things came up, like at the time things came up and I thought ‘This could make a story. This could get in the national press.’  And I thought ‘I can’t do it because I’ve got to do the painting.‘ You know, if I get involved with that I won’t be doing the painting. And the trouble is, when you’re multi-functional, when you’re doing all sorts of things. Not just doing the painting. You’re doing the PR. You’re doing the press. You’re doing the curating. You know, you’re doing the timetables.  You’re sending out the emails. You’re doing all the secretarial, all the administrative stuff. You’re doing the whole lot, it takes over. It blocks everything out. So in order to be a painter I had to block all that out and not do any of it. And it worked. 

What’s really awkward and difficult is that recently I’ve had to do some commission work, and I’m not in a painting phase. So some of it’s taken ten times as long as it should, because I haven’t got it right. Because I’m not really, kind of quite in that zone. And also I’ve sort of defaulted back to an earlier style which takes loads of time, which I didn’t want to do. So I would say, if you like, I’ve got it a bit wrong in what I’ve done. The paintings are good, you know. I’m doing a good job on them. But for me, artistically, that’s not what I want to do. Next time I will do it differently because I’ll know what the mistake is.  And that’s another interesting thing in life. Often you have to make the mistake to know what it is. You have to get it wrong to learn why it’s wrong, because otherwise you won’t know it’s wrong. And obviously you didn’t know it’s wrong, or you wouldn’t have done it.

EJ: And the fruits of all your wrong labour will have their own value anyway. So you can’t go wrong really can you? Whatever you do.

CT:  Well, that’s something else as well because nothing’s wasted. I do believe that. I’m thinking of bringing out a book called failed relationships. Of poems, called ‘Failed Relationships’. Because most people’s relationships have failed, aren’t they? In conventional terms because people don’t stick together. And actually people that do stick together, sometimes their relationships aren’t very good anyway. So is that a failed relationship? I mean, you could say ‘My parents stuck together their whole lives. Probably sixty years. But there was stuff underneath the surface. There was tensions. There was issues, you know. So is that a successful or a failed? These are just values you put on things. To me, everything’s an experience and I’ve…I’ve talked to somebody about that recently. They said ‘Oh, I’ve mucked up my life’  I said ‘No you haven’t.Because through doing this you’ve got an awful lot of depth of experience. Of knowledge and insight into various things that you wouldn’t have had if you’d just had a superficial easy life.’ I said ‘You haven’t mucked it up at all.You did what you could at the time and now you’ve left that behind and you’re in a different phase. Suddenly you’re free from that. But what you’re now thinking of doing, some creative work. Some writing or whatever, you’re talking about actually using that material. So obviously it’s not wasted.’ I mean, there’s a lot of things. Simple things that society should change.   

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Mr. Stuckism | Charles Thomson Solo Exhibition

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Mr. Stuckism is a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club.

Charles Thomson interviewed at the solo exhibition of his paintings titled, Mr. Stuckism

Read the full interview here.

Video tour of Mr. Stuckism. A Charles Thomson solo exhibtion at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club.

Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club present

Mr. Stuckism

A Charles Thomson solo exhibition

Charles Thomson co-founded the Stuckism art group in 1999 with Billy Childish, who left in 2001.

Exhibition curator, Edgeworth Johnstone: ‘Mr. Stuckism is the first in a series of Stuckist solo shows at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club in Muswell Hill, London. This series follows immediately on from our Stuckist group show, titled Stuckism.
Mr. Stuckism was conceived and hung on 20th and 21st July 2022.
Mr. Stuckism includes two collaboration paintings by Thomson and Johnstone.

Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club is a private members club in Muswell Hill village, London, UK. It was founded around 2013 by Edgeworth Johnstone. It is now also a black wall gallery in direct response to the Stuckist manifesto.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The art gallery was painted black in order to adhere as strongly as possible to the principles of the Stuckist manifesto.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. View from below of the main painting area.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. Notice the two small works on paper. Both made at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club before the audio part.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. Note the rare deep edge to the two paintings Thomson painted in Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club in early 2013.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. Note the similarity between the double portrait and the composition of many of Thomson’s still life paintings.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. Note the portrait painting of SP Howarth.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The small painting is after a Billy Childish painting.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. Thomson psychedelia.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The small condom painting is one of many Thomson condom paintings of the same palette and size.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The mask is one of many hand-made one-off oil paint prints Thomson made of this image.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The hang is slightly wonky as it uses the same nails as the previous exhibition.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The Black Ivory door panels are a permanent feature of the Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. The gaffer taped Sainsburys cardboard box the skull painting is sitting on was custom made for this exhibition.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. A collaboration painting by Charles Thomson and Edgeworth Johnstone.

Mr. Stuckism a Charles Thomson solo exhibition at Black Ivory Printmaking & Audio Club. Photo: Edgeworth Johnstone 21st July 2022. A collaboration painting by Charles Thomson and Edgeworth Johnstone.

Edgeworth Band rehearsing at Mr. Stuckism

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Jasmine Surreal and Charles Thomson Performance Art

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Recorded in East Finchley, London, 24th May 2011.  Jasmine Surreal and Charles Thomson performing. Edgeworth Johnstone on guitar. All three are in Stuckism groups. This was all the same day and part of the same event as Charles Thomson Poetry Readings.

Jasmine Surreal and Charles Thomson, Edgeworth Johnstone on guitar.

Jasmine Surreal and Charles Thomson performing, Edgeworth Johnstone off-camera on guitar. Neptunes Funny Trident.

Jasmine Surreal and Charles Thomson.

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Charles Thomson Poetry Readings

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Charles Thomson poetry readings. Recorded in East Finchley, London, 24th May 2011. Cameos from Jasmine Maddock and Edgeworth Johnstone. All three are members of Stuckism groups. These recordings were made the same day, and as part of the same event as Jasmine Maddock and Charles Thomson Performance Art.

Is it art? by Charles Thomson Left to right: Jasmine Maddock, Charles Thomson, Edgeworth Johnstone.
Charles Thomson performing his poem about Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre.

Charles Thomson, Stuckism co-founder reading his handy guide to the art world, and how to spot a fake Damien Hirst.

Charles Thomson performing The Dr. Who poem.

Charles Thomson performing his poem The Tube Train. Background voices Jasmine Maddock and Edgeworth Johnstone. End singing by Jasmine Maddock.

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Tate is Mad

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

9th November 2013: Charles Thomson (Stuckism co-founder) interviewed by Edgeworth Johnstone (of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists) about Thomson’s first show at Tate Modern.

Charles Thomson: This is my piece of text art in the Bloomberg Connects. My first exhibition at Tate Modern. It’s an appropriation from something in The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist Newspaper, written by Edgeworth Johnstone, where he says “Tate is mad”. The basis of this statement was that Tate turned down a donation of 160 artworks from an international art movement, the Stuckists, which were exhibited at The Walker Art Gallery, a national museum of art in 2004. The whole show, the whole movement was offered free of charge to the Tate, and it was turned down as being of no worth. So I guess that’s a bit of a smack in the face for the Walker Art Gallery. “Fuck Off Walker” says the Tate.

On the other hand, one of the pieces turned down, of no worth, is now actually in the Tate archive, because they said that the Stuckist protests were of worth, and of interest. So there’s a postcard of my painting of Sir Nicholas Serota makes an aquisitions decision in the Tate achives, as of worth. Whereas the original painting has been turned down, as not of worth. So there you go. Something not of worth, can be made of worth, by being turned in to a postcard.

CT: It says Tate is mad.

Tate Staff Member 1: Some people.

CT: Some people. Yeah, some people.

TSM 2: It’s good they have their opinions isn’t it.

CT: Stuckism is the future. Have you heard of Stuckism?

TSM 2: Yes. They’ve been trying to be displayed many times. 

CT: They’ve been trying to be in this place?

TSM 2: Yes. They been trying to have a display many times. They’ve been proposing their works to Tate many times.

CT: Many? What they’ve been sending in their work many times? and what happens?

TSM 2: They usually get rejected I guess by the aquisitions committee.

CT: Right. Is that fair?

TSM 2: I’m not sure. I’m not the one making the decision.

CT: Who makes the decision?

TSM 2: It’s called aquisitions committee, which is probably Directors Board and some curators.

CT: Are artists on there?

TSM 2: There maybe some who are part of a Board of Trustees. There are some artists there as well.

CT: Stuckists criticise some artists. I think they actually criticise artists that are on the Board of Trustees. And then these people judge whether their work should be in the Tate. So they’re not going to want their work in, because Stucksim criticises them. So if you want your work in, you really need to be…suck up to these people and be nice. It’s politics. Politics. Here we go…Politics.

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Remodernism & Stuckism

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

First published in The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist newspaper, December 2012.

Charles Thomson (Stuckism co-founder) and Edgeworth Johnstone (of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists) discuss Remodernism & Stuckism.

CT: Stuckism started, obviously, and it had a certain agenda. Quite specific. It was based around figurative painting, and it also had kind of an attitude problem, because we were making loud noises and protesting against things. We found there were various people that were very interested and liked the underlying ideas of Stuckism, the kind of ethos in terms of spiritual values, you could say. But they didn’t like some of the ways it was manifested, or they weren’t painters. They were saying, well, ‘We want to do photography like this.’ Or shouldn’t these values be there in business, for example. You know, it’s got an application there. Or in architecture or whatever. And it seemed that we should extend that, not just to a group, but to an epoch, to an era. As an alternative to Post-Modernism. We were putting ourselves forward as an alternative to Post-Modernism. So I thought we should call ourselves something else. Well, we’re drawing a lot from Modernism, but wanting to re-cast it, to re-interpret it. So I thought we should call ourselves Remodernists. I thought ‘What a wonderful idea.’. The the next day I got cold feet, and thought ‘What a crap idea’. And I thought ‘Well, I’ll run it past Billy’, and I said ‘You know I did think of this. I did think it was a good idea, but actually I’m not so sure about it now. So I just thought I’d run it past you anyway. You know, Remodernism.’ He said ‘Yes!, great! great!, we must do Remodernism.’ I said ‘Oh, alright. If you think it’s ok then we’ll go with Remodernism. And then we wrote the Remodernist manifesto, which is towards a renaissance of spiritual values in art, culture and society. So the idea is that it has this big umbrella, and Stuckism is the first Remodernist art group.But there’s been various other Remodernist initiatives. Various things on the web. Various artists for example, that have not liked demos against the Turner Prize, or strong criticism of conceptual art, who like other aspects of Stuckism which they can find in Remodernism, without necessarily having any link with Stuckism. Does that make sense?

EJ: Yeah, I’m thinking of a couple of names. I mean, would Jesse Richards, the film-maker be one?

CT: Yes, because he was a Stuckist, and then he left, and he’s now terming himself a Remodernist film-maker. So that’ s a very good example.

EJ: And I guess Billy Childish is still happy to be called a Remodernist.

CT: Yes, I would guess so.

EJ: He’s still got those overalls when he paints, with ‘Remodernist’ on the back, when he’s painting. Or at least recently.

CT: Well, again, it’s distancing him from Stuckism. It doesn’t have to be Stuckism. It’s not Stuckism. It’s Remodernism. Remodernism is the big umbrella. Stuckism is one of the things that falls under that umbrella. Weren’t you involved in a Remodernist group or art show?

EJ: Yeah, The Institute of Collective Remodernism. It’s a long-winded name, we called it the ICR. It was Joe Machine, Bill Lewis, Philip Absolon, myself, Mary Von Stockhausen in Germany and some other people, I can’t remember everyone. Joe wrote a couple of manifestos for it, I think there were things about the Remodernist manifesto that Joe Machine wanted to change. And we all went off on a train down to Germany to Mary Von Stockhausen’s house and stayed there for a week, and had a very good time. Sort of talking through our perspective of Remodernism. Particularly Bill and Joe had quite a lot to say about what they thought about Remodernism. And Shelley and myself went and hooked up with Mary and her family. And I think, again, Mary Von Stockhausen she might be one who, might be more happy with Remodernism than Stuckism specifically. The feeling that you can go back from Stuckism to something that’s more general, I think fits what she wanted. So it was good. It’s good not to lose people on little niggly things when there’s so much in common. And that’s one thing I think Remodernism’s really good for.

CT: I think one of the things a number of people feel uncomfortable with is the aspect of Stuckism which is quite vehement in its criticism of things, like conceptual art, Damien Hirst, Brit Artists, Tracey Emin, whatever. Some people don’t like that. They don’t want to be associated with that. But they just want the positive aspects. They want something to kind of replace it, but don’t want to be involved in being hostile to it.

EJ: I think also, that the emphasis on figurative painting for Stuckism, might not make sense for everyone, who don’t think their own work is so dominated by figurative painting. Like Mary von Stockhausen does some quite abstract looking collage work. So she would like something that’s just more wider viewed I think. Then there’s people like myself who are quite happy to be in both. I obviously do drawing and music as well, but I’m still very happy to be in the Stuckists, as well as Remodernism in general.

CT: It’s to do, to a certain extent with image. Stuckism has a particular image. I mean, there are Stuckist photographers, and we do Stuckist poetry readings, but you’re one of the people that attacks and knocks things, which is why you’re a Stuckist presumably. Rather than one of the more gentle Remodernists, that would rather get on with making the positive thing, and not actually dealing with the nasty things.

EJ: Well, I don’t think there’s any harm in saying what you think. And I think Stuckism, when it does get a reputation for being nasty and knocking, I think it’s a bit unfair because we all want a positive outcome for art. We want a positive outcome for everyone. I think Stuckism’s within its rights to have a go at the establishment, because the establishment are really trying to monopolise things one way. Against the tide of what a lot of artists are actually doing. So I think it’s a good fight to fight. I don’t think it’s a nasty,vindictive or bitter fight that the Stuckists have.

CT: No.

EJ: So that’s why I’m happy to be in the Stuckists as well as Remodernism.

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

Billy Childish & Art Hate

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club

First published in The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist newspaper, December 2012.

Charles Thomson (Stuckism co-founder) and Edgeworth Johnstone (of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists) discuss Billy Childish and Art Hate.

CT: The curious thing about Billy Childish, because some people say ‘Why did he leave?’ and I say ‘You’re asking the wrong question.’ The real question is ‘Why did he join?’. Because he’s so much like a solo player. How come he ended up in this group situation. Or if he is in a group, it’s like a group he started, which he essentially guides. So how come he was in this situation? And I think it happened at a particular time in his life, when there was an opening for something. Partly, I think because he was in between relationships, and there was kind of a gap, and I think he valued the interaction. Almost like a partnership one might say. And I think it was meant to happen. He was very influential and important in launching Stuckism with me. We worked together on it, and I learnt from him, and he’s learnt from me. Particularly with writing the manifesto, we came from completely different directions. His was like flamboyant, wild and rhetorical, and mine was kind of analytical, precise and logical. And by putting the two together, we came up with something that we wouldn’t have been able to do individually. And I’ve learnt those things from him, and I think he’s learnt some of those things from me as well. But the strain began to tell, on the different approaches. And I am someone that works with a group, Billy is someone that works solo. Because it’s his best approach. There’s a lot of stuff he doesn’t like, and I’m more broad-minded in terms of seeing what other people are doing. Whereas I think he ploughs his own furrow very strongly and very determinedly. It’s very difficult for him to see beyond that sometimes.

EJ: I think I heard that his first, kind of, ‘I want to leave.’ was after he saw the first show. Is that right?

CT: Yeah, probably.

EJ: I suppose having wrote the manifesto, he might have had an idea of what the work was going to be. And then he sees all these kind of different, totally different stylistically, and maybe in his eyes, quality-wise as well, different works.and probably thought, ‘No, this isn’t for me anymore.’ …But he stuck with it.

CT: Yeah, for a couple of years, till the middle of 2001. And he left at the end of a show we had called ‘Vote Stuckist’. I’ve got that on video, I interviewed him at the time, and said ‘Why are you leaving?’ But I think it was a good thing.

EJ: You think it’s good that he left?

CT: Yeah, because the tensions would have increased. He would have become increasingly dissatisfied and frustrated because work was being shown and promoted that he didn’t agree with. Also, probably the way I was doing things in the media. Some of those he didn’t like at all.

EJ: What, the Turner Prize clowns and stuff?

CT: I’m not exactly sure, as he said he was going to turn up that, and the only reason he didn’t was because he got gastroenteritis. And actually, he and I did a private kind of demo before the first official Stuckist demo, because we were invited to a Channel 4, well he was, invited to a Channel 4 launch party of some kind. Which he and I ended up getting ejected from. Because we were giving people leaflets. Mind you, they were asking for leaflets, but apparently you’re not allowed to give people something they ask for, if it’s critical. But there are other things. It’s difficult to put your finger on it. Oh, he thinks I’m vulgar in my approach to things apparently.

EJ: What, publicity-wise?

CT: Yeah, which is not entirely untrue.

EJ: Well, I wouldn’t call it vulgar. I would say effective.

CT: Yeah, well sometimes they’re the same thing. I think basically, it’s a question of control. It’s a question of style. It’s not really a question of content. Not really a question of essence. Because he’s quite happy to do things in the media. You know, wear silly hats and silly clothes. It’s just that he wants his silly hats, not my silly hats as it were.

EJ: But he’s always defended the manifesto. He always seems to say the manifesto at least, he’s very happy with. And Remodernism as well…

CT: Absolutely, he believes in what’s in the manifesto. In the Stuckist manifesto. He just thinks that most Stuckist artists aren’t a manifestation of what’s in the manifesto, where I think they are. So I think he probably feels that he is the only true Stuckist, and all the rest aren’t.

EJ: Well, what about yourself?

CT: Well, I’m probably not either. I don’t know. Apart from writing the manifesto, so he would agree with me on the ideas, but not on how they are manifested.

EJ: But he’s doing Art Hate now, which seems to have quite a few parallels with Stuckism, from what I can see.

CT: Yeah.

EJ: Do you reckon that’s him, sort of saying ‘Well, I wasn’t happy with Stuckism. This is me.’

CT: Yeah, I think it’s a real step backwards from Stuckism. Because Stuckism was proposing values, and Art Hate is such a kind of convoluted in-joke. You know, what does it mean? It just seems to be totally built on irony.

EJ: It seems visually to be quite Dada influenced to me.

CT: Yeah.

EJ: Would that explain the kind of difficulty pinning down what it is? The kind of nonsense side of it, because you had that with Dada as well.

CT: To a certain extent. I mean, I think it’s a game. It’s a bit like a schoolyard game. I don’t feel very comfortable with it. As I say, I think it’s a step back. It’s almost like a defense mechanism because no-one can fault you, because there’s nothing there to fault. It’s not got anything that it’s putting up, which it believes in. It’s quite the opposite, unless you actually going to believe in Art Hate. Or unless you say it’ s all ironic, in which case, why not say what you mean? So as far as I can see, as soon as you start questioning it, it starts to contradict itself or not have substance. It’s just clever.

EJ: Yeah.

CT: But didn’t you take part in Art Hate? Do you hate art?

EJ: I like the posters.

CT: Well as I say, they’re clever. They’re funny. They’re good graphics.

EJ: And I like filling my time with stuff that’s fun. I was out distributing Art Hate leaflets and Billy Childish books. Really just to …I like promoting Billy Childish because I think he’s a very good artist. So that’s always good. I enjoy doing it, and I just get a sense of excitement being part of it. Well, not part of it. I’m not part of it obviously. But I get a sense of excitement being near things that are happening, that Billy Childish and L-13 are doing. I visit the gallery, and I like Billy’s work, but I wouldn’t say I’m not particularly close to Art Hate, like I am with Stuckism for example.But it’s just a different thing for me.

CT: It’s quite interesting, how for most Stuckist artists, it’s kind of made no impression. Because they tend to pick up on things, and talk about them, and point them out if there are things that they think are worthwhile.

EJ: Well, we’ve already got Stuckism. That’s the thing, I mean we’re already taken care of, in any respect that I think…Maybe without Stuckism people would be more interested in, maybe stuff like that. But I think Stuckism hits the nail on the head for a lot people, and we’re very comfortable in this group, and with this kind of representation of our artwork, and as ourselves as artists. I think there’s a lot of people thinking, well that’s me. I don’t need anything. It’s like getting married. You can stop looking once you’re married.

Join the Fan Club to receive our regular publications
(Free worldwide shipping included).

Watch our Weekly Instagram Live Video Podcast: Thursday nights at 7pm GMT.

Site managed by Black Ivory
Site Map | Instagram | Fan Club