Between You and Me: A Conversation with Estrella Payton (and Jennifer Bell)

Estrella Payton just finished her Master of Fine Arts degree at Arizona State University, so Watch Out! There’s an Artist-At-Large! For her big MFA finale, she had her own show at the Night Gallery in Tempe. Here’s a provocative article on “Between You and Me,” which is representative of something known as installation art. Before we begin, I would like to mention that my own experience with installation art is pretty minimal. I read I’m Having So Much Fun Here Without You by Courtney Maum last year, and that’s about an installation artist. Additionally, I’ve seen bits and pieces here and there at galleries, the Phoenix Museum of Art, and even MOMA in New York City, back in the day. Maybe some of you have seen this in the Phoenix Museum. Estrella, does this count? “Clown Torture” by Bruce Nauman sticks in my mind, however. What is this?

Let’s introduce Estrella before we really get into it. Estrella was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico and raised in Kansas City, Missouri. She moved to the Valley of the Sun—that’s the Phoenix-area—with her husband James in 2012 to pursue her Master of Fine Arts degree in Printmaking and Interdisciplinary Studies. She received her Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from the Kansas City Art Institute in 2007.

Her recent studio work focuses on making visible the invisible barriers between people. She is an observer of people, especially their interactions with each other in a space. Her research on power and privilege, cultural conditioning, and systemic inequality combined with her lived experience as a Stateside Puerto Rican drives her motivation to complicate physical spaces to reorient a viewer’s experience and perspective in institutional spaces.

Jennifer: I’m sorry to begin so basically, but I’m wondering if you could answer three questions for me. What is Art? (Ha! Not too massive, is it?) What does it mean to be a Christian artist? And, finally, what exactly is installation art?

Estrella:  Wow. Reams and reams of paper have been used to attempt to answer your first question.

What is Art?! Even the most fervent art lovers can be left dumbfounded by reading one short essay on contemporary art theory. For example, today (in NYC) I chatted with an abstract painter in her studio, visited is a super upscale gallery containing new media photography, ate free ice cream in Central Park out of a solar-powered truck, and then sat in the Met’s Renaissance painting gallery — ALL are considered art.

Personally, I think art can be something created, expressed, or experienced.

Jennifer: Well, just because I’m difficult and obsessed, let me throw out some curve balls. I sorta think Art has to be more than something created, expressed, or experienced. We all know—or my Facebook friends know—I’m not much of a homemaker. But I make quiche. Is my quiche Art? I create it, largely in my own way since I don’t want to follow directions. Love is expressed, and sex is experienced: Art?

Estrella: Okay, you’re throwing around capital letters now, so this is where a boring conversation about the Art market and Art’s context would come in. The art market is what validates and, in turn, legitimizes what is art. That is an institution. The context of art is super important, too. Think about Duchamp’s work called Fountain, which was actually a public bathroom urinal flipped upside down.

Jennifer: Oh, my goodness. You can handle me, right? I’m pretty difficult. You said that the Art market is what validates and, in turn, legitimizes what is art. As Christians—AS ARTISTS—do we care one lousy bit? Let’s be honest. We’re not in it for the money, are we? In the literary arts, the market has legitimized Fifty Shades of Grey, which is porn and poorly written. I remember reading how it sold more copies in England than any Harry Potter book or the Bible. I’m not even a Harry Potter person, but I felt slighted on behalf of J.K. Rowling.

As a Christian, I have to assert objective meaning, and I believe that Art (with a capital letter) must be definable—clearly, perfectly. I have to look at that urinal, and I have to analyze it in terms of how God defines Art. Now, I say this, but please know, Estrella: I am the first one to thumb my nose at cheesy Christian art or garbage that slaps a Bible verse on it and calls it “Christian.”

As a writer who makes stabs at Art, I have to assert that the market doesn’t drive my artistic agenda. I might be a marketing failure, but I’ll be—wow, mark the pretension here—true to my Art. Isn’t that why they call so many people starving artists?

Estrella: First, I do, in fact, care about the art market and I am certainly “in it” for the money. Obviously (if you’ve glanced at my website), this does not drive my artistic practice, but it not far from my mind. NOT being in it for the money is romantic, completely unsustainable, and a trope of Old World Academia that needs to go away.

[Picture Jennifer shyly pushing a strand of grey hair behind her ear.]

Have I volunteered or interned in good faith for projects I believe in? Absolutely. But to not expect to be fairly [read: financially] compensated for work that I do as a visual artist and project manager is not only diminishing the more than fifteen years of specialized art education and art administration skills that I have, it also diminishes the efforts of my peers. This isn’t a taste or preference thing. This is about capitalism and survival. (Read Jay-Z’s Decoded for a beautiful demystification of what it means to thrive in a cutthroat industry.)

The art market, in a way, is simply an economic manifestation of the current pulse of artists who are in tune with their time and place. Those with collecting power [read: money and influence] seize the opportunity to be a part of the culture that artists are making, thus bringing awareness of these artists’ works to the masses.

Also, even though literature is an art form, I believe it functions as a very different species regarding economy.

But, honestly, if readers of this blog are interested in this type of conversation about art, I’d actually direct them to this super interesting interview with a digital artist named Rafael Rozendaal. These guys do a better job of explaining things and Rozendaal’s work is fun to look at in this context.

Jennifer: But do tell me about Christian Artists.

Estrella: Ugh. What does it mean to be a Christian artist? Honestly, I do not think that is a fair label. Do we ask this question to Christian plumbers? Christian construction workers? Christian dentists?

These labels probably mean something different for every person who finds herself in each category simultaneously. Also, the art created as a part of the Renaissance/Reformation was mostly done as commissioned work for churches and wealthy patrons. Not just for the love of the Good News. To be honest, a lot of it was propagandistic against corruption in the church and the Roman Empire.

As for myself, I fall into a category of a mostly-vocational artist who expresses what I am passionate about and feels an overwhelming entitlement to get paid doing so. I have a lot of day jobs and will probably always have them. Sometimes, that looks like managing other artists’ large projects that are meaningful to me. Sometimes, it’s dreaming about cooking good food for people while teaching about food advocacy. Sometimes, it is working collaboratively with others. Sometimes, it looks like me being selfish because I need to be alone in studio.

And what is installation art? First off, I’d like to clarify that Bruce Nauman is a performance artist, as well as a multi-disciplinary and media artist. One could consider the physicality of his Performance Corridor more installation than the video you linked above, but otherwise he doesn’t really fall into that category. He is actually one of my favorite artists. I love the minimalism and power in his works on surveillance, movement, and discipline.

So, installation art is another highly contentious art term. There are many contemporary artist and non-artists that throw it around a bit casually, which is totally understandable, actually. It’s kind of vague. Simply put, installation art transforms a viewer’s perception on space. The work is usually three-dimensional or multi-disciplinary and may involve activating all senses—touch, sound, sight, smell and, yes, even taste!

Jennifer: Estrella, I know I can get overly contentious on this topic, so please tell me to bug-off if you’d like—or tell me if I cross the line. We both come from the world of Academia, where people go nuts over their theories that many deem totally irrelevant to “real” life (whatever that means). And we’ve both been enmeshed in the Art World, albeit different kinds of Art. I’m pretty well-versed in the literary arts, but you’re the expert in the visual arts here. So I don’t want to step on toes. Just go with me on this, or tell me I’m an idiot?

First, I’m glad you’re speaking positively about Nauman, because I dismissed him as a freak.

Second, I love this idea of transforming a viewer’s perception—but . . . is that Art, or is it just interesting? Is there a difference between a good idea and Art? A news show on the evils of racism may be an excellent display of shaking up previously held notions, however it is not the same thing as, say, Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino’s film, which I think shakes up ideas too—but in an artistic way. My kids’ drawings, though precious, are not the same as Monet paintings.

I think I’m making some presumptions here. You tell me if I’m missing my own blindspots. I do elevate the Arts. I have totally been called elitist by dear friends. I think Art is special and Artists are special people. That’s one assumption.

(interrupting) Estrella: I’ve got to respond with the art market and art context bit, as before. The news is in a news report context - recognized media outlets for news. Unless a news report is mistakenly subverted like HG Well’s War of the Worlds broadcast! Your kids’ drawings are up on your refrigerator (or were and then you secretly threw them away because seriously how long are you supposed to keep those things?) and Monet’s paintings are in recognized museums around the world.

A couple of differences between a good idea (something never manifested?) and art (something realized to completion) is intention and execution.

Additionally, not all art is intended for an uninitiated audience and that’s just that. Doesn’t make it any less valid if you don’t “get it.” It wasn’t made for you.

Basquiat’s paintings, for example, may sometimes be dismissed as naive or amateurish by an untrained viewer. He was a punk kid graffiti writer who was involved in a multitude of subcultural things, but he hustled and was constantly working and eventually met Andy Warhol. Warhol legitimized his work and collaborated with him, which catapulted Basquiat’s career and notoriety. You brought up Monet above…hello?! Bad boy French Impressionist! He was the Father of Impressionism because he was fed up with the traditional conventions of how paint was used. Even the term Impressionism was like a dirty word that this new group of outcasts wore like a badge of honor. It’s funny how time and personal taste becomes a sort of erasure for the nitty-gritty of how things become conservative or culturally appropriate.

Jennifer: Well, of course, I agree with you here. But that’s because, yes, humans are not good barometers for defining art. We need to define it in a more God-centric, less culturally-enmeshed way. Basquiat, Banksy, Duchamp, Nauman—these guys need to be held up to how God defines Art.

I also think I’m probably sounding like a conservative Christian, though I’m not sure how—probably in my Nauman-phobia. I look at it, and think, Not Art.

I think, also, I defer to my conservative Christian friend, R.C. Sproul, on this. He did this great CD series on the Arts: Recovering the Beauty of the Arts. Admittedly, it’s been a while since I listened, but the defining features of Art had to do with Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Art must have these three things—though it might be in an ironic way. For example, Flannery O’Connor may reveal the Ugly Truth. Beauty, likewise, might be revealed by showing ugliness. I’m thinking of a recent film I loved: August, Osage County.  Goodness may be obviously virtuous, though that’s often too easy, or it may be more complex—like revealing the goodness of form in black and white photography or the goodness of melody and rhythm in Led Zep.

What do you think?

Estrella: Wow. I’m not sure I agree with your following comment: “We need to define it in a more God-centric, less culturally-enmeshed way. Basquiat, Banksy, Duchamp, Nauman—these guys need to be held up to how God defines Art.” What do you mean by God-centric? When I read that, I hear that you (or people) have decided what is God-centric. That seems strange and limiting to me. God allows for all people, artists included, to exist in the context of a broken world and then reflect on their experience within it. As an artist, I find it important to reflect and recognize the human experience. Also, I really don’t think we can even begin to understand how God would define art when we can’t even fully understand or define biological creation. I prefer to think of art as a moment when a bit of the world is revealed—no matter how nasty, beautiful, truthful, false, or otherwise.

Additionally, I have not listened to Sproul’s work, so I can’t really comment on his specific theory of truth, beauty, and goodness as a definitive feature of art. However, it’s my understanding that he is a theologian and not an art historian or art writer. Perhaps the most appropriate response to Sproul’s ideas should be considered in a discussion on liturgical art forms, which are wonderful and probably should be recovered in an active and contemporary way in the Church.

I can, however, return to my interest in installation. Installation art, by its inception and very “definition,” defies being identifiable by medium. Theorists Jean Baudrillard and Marshall McLuhan both write/wrote about how the confusion of the medium and the message became the first great formula of a new era of art. Just as soon as one might think they’ve written a definitive work on what art is and is not (Who is doing the “not” part, anyway?! Get a life.), a new way of defining art comes along. Just as soon as you think you “get it,” someone else is going to turn around and flip the script on all of your previous perceptions. Come ooooon—it’s interesting, isn’t it?

Jennifer:  Oh, it’s very interesting—but it’s ultimately an affirmation of relativism. Art is relative. Art is subjective. Can this work with an objective God?

Estrella: I sure hope so.

Jennifer: I really appreciate your willingness to talk to me about all this. I don’t know about you, but my blood pressure probably rises just a bit—and I’m seriously moved by your candor and forthrightness.

Side note: I went to the Phoenix Art Museum this past week to see the Andy Warhol portrait exhibit (my mind reeling, of course), and I thought of you.

Before ending, though, there are a few specific questions I’d like to address about your work. First, would you discuss your MFA piece, Between You and Me? What are you communicating and why? Are you happy with it? How is distinctly Estrella? (I think the MFA thesis is often, but not always, definitive in a way of the artist.)

Estrella: My MFA thesis exhibition was a large-scale installation at a gallery in Tempe Marketplace. It was meant to be experienced by a lot people, especially an uninitiated audience. Instead of answering what I am communicating, I’d like to share questions that I ask about my work and that particular installation: How can you freely navigate a space that is designed to someone else’s specificity? What has been built between us? Between you and me, there is an infinite gulf that must be traversed in order to seek some common understanding. I believe these questions are relevant in regards to U.S. history past and present, as well as within our own intimate circles.

Jennifer: Would you talk a little about what you’re currently doing in New York?

Estrella: I am working for an arts collective based in Greenpoint (Brooklyn), as well as participating in a professional development practicum, and gathering research for future projects.

Jennifer: You mentioned something to me about a walking piece. Would you discuss that?

Estrella: Yes. I’ve been interested in walking as part of my studio practice as well as an action in and of itself. Walking can be a powerful symbol (peace walks, pilgrimages, marches, parades), but also hold power in its own right (i.e., freely walking down the street as a woman of color without fear of being accosted or otherwise singled-out). I have participated in and curated several projects and exhibitions over the last year that pertain to walking. In NYC, I’m especially interested in the interactions and walking experiences by water. The congested city is surrounded by water of all kinds, but sometimes people can go a really long time without actually physically interacting with it. I can relate, having been land-locked the majority of my life. Details about one of my specific projects can be found here.

Jennifer: And now what? You’re post-MFA, an artist: where do you go from here?

Estrella: I’m not interested in limiting myself to conventions of success or production. I’ve got specific plans for long-term and short-term projects on the horizon. I’m open to where my relationships and interests will take me. It’s all very exciting. I lead a great and complicated life.

Jennifer: Thank you, Estrella! I appreciate your candor and willingness to talk to me, despite my Old World Conservativism. I can’t wait to see you what you’re up to next!