EK: In a strict sense, a natural process is produced
by nature alone. You have a physical interaction with
the mushrooms as you harvest and place them on
the paper. You become an agent of influence, another
decentralized component of initial conditions like the
paper, air currents, and humidity that result in the
organization of the drawing. There is accumulating
evidence that suggests that our thoughts are often
capable of extending our cognitive and physical limits.
As a physical agent in this process, do you think the
image that emerges holds emotive content caused by
your intervention? Is there an emotive undercurrent
in your interactions with nature?
JT: First, a rhetorical question: Am I not part
of the natural process?
But I jest. I would argue that it is unavoidable.
As a Westerner, it is a bit harder for us to accept such a notion. In some cultures this would
be so obvious that the question would never be
raised. However, most of those cultures are still
considered lagging. In fact, when a contemporary scientist mentions such meta-possibilities,
he or she is usually laughed out of the room.
We tend to give a bit more credit to such
ideas when they are associated with Eastern
philosophies. But when a Western scientist
like Rupert Sheldrake brings up an idea such as
Morphic Resonance, his peers laugh him out of
the room because his arguments are not “repeatable,” not acceptable.
On a personal level, I am quite open to the
idea, and as I’ve mentioned before, I try to
remove myself (ego) to allow the action to occur with a non-judgmental agent assisting. It
doesn’t always work.
EK: You have used other natural processes in the
production of drawings.Could you describe the evolution of images such as the spider web “captures” and
the “jellyfish drawings”?
JT: Your term “captures” is quite accurate. For
many years that’s what I’ve done. I aspired to
stay as much out of the process as possible—
just find the right environment, material, and
process to allow the event exchange to occur.
I suppose that comes mostly from my reverence for nature, but also partially from my
experience working with Stephen Antonakos
as his studio assistant in my early development. Antonakos’ approach was minimalist in
nature. As he designed for a project or drew,
SciArt in America June 2014
he removed himself from the analytical side of
the creative process as much as possible. This
reliance on intuition and the connection to the
spiritual or transcendent ran in direct opposition to most of his contemporaries like Lewitt,
Ryman, and Andre.
Witnessing that was counterintuitive for me
in my youth. I felt that more of a struggle had
to exist. But over the years as I focused on the
exclusive collaboration with nature, I found
that success came from surrendering to the process in the most direct way possible.
Recently I have allowed myself to come back
into the work and my hand is more present in
some processes, like that of my inky cap panel
paintings and my jellyfish works. This mostly
arises as necessity due to a process that is not
quite fleshed out or perfected. It took three or
four years for me to find the right combination
of materials and process to make a successful
mushroom spore drawing. As far as spider web
and jellyfish captures are concerned, I don’t
think I’ve quite found a truly successful process
yet, though I’m getting closer.
EK: Many of your works present like “artifacts,”
that is to say like post-event evidence of life’s cycles
in a timeless continuum of states of matter. Is this a
part of your wo