A Conversation With Duane Michals | Features | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper

A Conversation With Duane Michals

The pioneering photographer talks life, death and why, in art, smaller is better

Page 2 of 2

During the last 10 years, I did a series of Japanese fan photographs. I thought, "Why does a photo have to be squares and rectangles? Why can't they be fan shaped?" Gaugin did 23 fan-shaped paintings, so I did fan-shaped photos. It was very exciting and liberating. After that I did something I called "deconstructed photographs," where I took a picture and then went onto the computer and disassembled the parts and rearranged them in some other way. Then I came back to painting and I've been investigating all kinds of variations on a photograph and what could it possibly be outside of the narrow definition as a way of recording found reality. It also depends on your definition of reality. If you think reality is just looking at objects, that's a very narrow definition of reality. But we live in our disappointments, our lust, our hopes, our anxieties. We live in our passions. If I see a woman crying, then I want to know why she is crying, what it feels like to cry. I think these are all valid questions that nobody asks.


So, you and Fred married since our last interview. Congratulations!

Thanks. I hate marriage. I think it's a failed institution. I did it because Fred and I have been together 55 years, he's got Alzheimer's now and Parkinson's, and if we weren't married, it would be a huge disaster financially. It was just business. Would you go to a doctor if you knew 50 percent of his patients died? Would you go to a restaurant where 50 percent of the food came out burnt?


How did you decide to give your private art collection to the CMA? In the companion show Duane Michals: Collector!, there are some amazing pieces, especially by one of my own favorites, Paul Klée.

click to enlarge Heather Mull with Duane Michals in 2004 outside Silver Eye Center for Photography
CP's Heather Mull with Duane Michals in 2004, outside Silver Eye Center for Photography

 It seemed to be a symbiotic relationship because I had gotten a lot from the museum, in terms of coming here as a kid and I got financial support from the museum [when it purchased prints for the collection,] so what I did was to use the money that I got and turned it around and gave it back to them, in effect. I had the luxury of being able to live with the art and yet know that it has a place to go for future generations. I think giving back is part of getting old; you need to give back.


The word "intimate" comes up a lot in descriptions of your work by you and by others ...

 Intimacy is central to how I get through life. I look at my photographs as being intimate. They are small pictures. They are about intimate things: dying, loss, humor, love. My photographs are all whispers, whereas Gursky and all those others are all shouting. "Here's what a parking lot looks like in Tokyo!" Who gives a shit? If you reduce those large photographs to 8-by-10s, they're nothing. They need the size to have any kind of importance. The art world loves them because they look like paintings today. You go to the museum today and the paintings are huge. You don't see people like Klée, who worked on a small scale. I was in a museum in Dusseldorf and they had one room with four Andy Warhols in it! And then I went into a room half the size that had 20 Paul Klées! Each one was different, each one was exciting, each one was a variation. In America, it's as if everything has to be bigger and larger and there is no room for intimacy.

In my collection, though, there's a large Chuck Close. When you get close to a Close, it's very abstract, and that's one experience with it. Then, as you begin to retreat and the scale begins to change, and eventually, it's a photograph! And you can experience it two or three different ways. A Bob Qualters painting I bought does the same thing. Good work always makes demands on you. 


I think of you as a pioneer of the self-portraits, before the "selfie."

I only did self-portraits if I thought they were funny. I did a portrait of myself as a duck. I did myself as if I were dead. When I turned 40, I wanted to do my portrait as the devil. I don't do them in the same sense as a selfie. Selfies are all just vanity pictures taken in a place to prove you were there. Mine have always been based on some sort of emotional idea, like being dead.


Linda Benedict-Jones also told me you have a funny story about the time you met Sting, prior to shooting the cover of The Police's Synchronicity.

 I didn't know who he was. He had come by an opening I had and I met him but didn't know who he was at the time. Later, I was in L.A. at A&M [Records] to have a meeting about the project and I said to him, "Do you have a hit on the radio now?" He said yes. I said, "Well, maybe I heard it on the drive here. Is it called 'Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?" That, I guess, was a song by Boy George, who I had also never heard of. That's not really the way you want to get introduced. He was cool about it.


You've made many pieces about the concept of an afterlife. What do you think is really in store for you?

I'm of two minds. Logically, it makes sense that when the machinery dies, the radio gets turned off. On the other hand, I've seen two ghosts — one was my mother when she died, and the other was in the country, where we live, at night I saw this white image in the hall. I don't know what that was, but I'm completely open to the possibilities. You can forget heaven and hell; being an atheist, of course, I think those concepts are totally ridiculous. I believe in the chi and the energy and going back into the soup. Of course, our ego shouts, "No, not me!" but I'm a ball of energy that's called Duane. I call this my "Duane suit." In the end, I'll go back where I came from ... 14th Street and Union Square. That's where I get off. 

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment