RuudAntonius was born on the 3rd of December 1959 in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. He
lived there until the age of 13 and moved to England with his family in 1973,
continued his schooling and studied art. After that, in 1979, he left England
and moved to Bielefeld, Germany and 9 months later to Hameln a small town close
to Hanover.
For a period of 5 years he painted and played music here. In 1984
he returned to The Netherlands. In March 2006 he moved to England until
2011 and moved to Spain for 2 years, he now resides in the UK where he writes,
paints and produces music.
PML: When did you realise that you wanted to be an
artist?
RA: I was 8 years old and I remember
it was a sunny day on a market in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands where my mother
had taken me to do some shopping. That
is where I saw a man behind an easel, working on a painting in oils. Now to be perfectly clear, I had never touched
oils before, but I’d been drawing obsessively since I could hold a pencil. After watching this man for quite a while ‒ maybe as long as half an hour ‒ my
prevailing thought at the time was that I found the work appalling.
PML: Even at that young age you possessed a critical eye.
RA: I did find the process
fascinating and intriguing. I made up my
mind that that was what I wanted to do. Certainly
not as badly as what I was witnessing, but I was definitely going to be an
artist. It seemed a good idea at the
time, and I am still struggling with the thought today.
PML: Why do you say that?
RA: I am not so sure what an artist
is. Okay, someone who paints, dances,
sings, writes, composes music. But there
is more to it than that. I don’t think
we can just say, ‘hey he paints, he’s an artist’. Or even, ‘he makes a living
selling his paintings’. It may be that
art is not just producing work of a certain standard. It may be that it is the way you stand in the
world, the way you live your life, all for the sake of making it possible to
create your works. There is a lot of
poverty before you start making money as an artist.
PML: How
do you define your art?
RA: Why should my art be
defined? Let’s face it, the more we have
defined art the more the decline in quality of the arts has overwhelmed us.
RA: Listen, I have been an artist now for over
forty years and I've learned a few
lessons. We are soul searchers. We are boundary seekers concerned with giving
meaning to our existence rather than artisans trying to explain what our art is.
Artists are completely obsessed by the
drug that is the process of creating. It
is the creating that gives us energy. We
are gobsmacked and in awe of what our fingers produce. We listen in amazement to the magic of the
medium we use. Our thoughts are merely there to enjoy these little miracles as
they appear: the fact we can manipulate
light, dissect material, find hidden structures in what we take for granted. We create an apparition, a view... The creation, which has managed to crawl from
our mind and soul, is the true essence of our occupation. I don’t believe we can or should try to define
art. Not if you are an artist.
PML: You are saying
that art is, in fact, decided by the public?
RA: Yes. The initial question does not interest me anymore, but
naturally as a student and youngster I followed the trend of my teachers and peers.
Yet I do realise you are fishing for
that mutual language which takes years to understand. It is a broad language that does not contain
words or pictures. It is a language of
values, of artist ethics and aesthetics based on many years of exploring the
small wonders of creation. It is a
language for creators to help create. So
back to the question as to how I define my art, I don’t but you may. It is not in my job description, but if you
feel it happens to be in yours than you are more than welcome.
PML: Salvador Dali seems to be an influence?
RA: No, Surrealism has an
influence. Since Dali was a huge exponent of this movement does not mean to say
he influenced me.
PML: Sorry to insist, Ruud, but surely Dali is ‒ albeit
among the Surrealists ‒ important for you?
RA: Okay, I’ll give you that one. But the greatest influences on my work are
the old masters. I was 14 when I got my
first set of oil paints sent over from my grandmother in the Netherlands. I had moved to the UK two years earlier. I didn't have a clue about brushes, mediums,
canvasses and was very disappointed with my first attempts. So I went to the library and borrowed some
books on the old masters. It was John
Constable, the English landscape painter, who inspired me most.
PML: Interesting that it should have been
an English painter.
RA: England had adopted me and
I was adopting Mr. Constable. I even
visited the National Gallery in London to see ‘the Haywain’ in the flesh. And
here I must admit to a secret I have kept for many years. I waited until no one else was in the room and
actually felt the painting. I wanted to
feel the paint, the tension of the canvass, the structures of the glazes and
the highlights underneath.
PML: What did you achieve by this?
RA: Two major things in my life.
Firstly, it may sound weird, but touching the surface of a painting tells a lot
about how it has been painted. It certainly
was the best art lesson I've ever had. And
secondly, I am probably one of the very few in the world who have actually been
able to touch this work. How I got away
with it I do not know.
PML: So you started
by copying the old masters?
RA: I copied many masters from
the age of about 14-15 years, and suddenly I found myself selling these pieces
to my teachers at school for a couple of pounds. This enabled me to afford my materials for the
next paintings. Other people caught on,
and in a short span of time, I got a few commissions. During my school days, Turner, Rembrandt,
Constable, Whistler and many others have stood on my easel.
PML: You could have
made a fortune as a forger.
RA: Not very long ago a long
lost friend contacted me on Facebook and reminded me her father had bought two
paintings of mine when I was 15 years old. She sent me a photograph of Salisbury
Cathedral, originally painted by John Constable. Although I could see my mistakes, I was
surprised that these attempts were not bad at all.
PML: When did the surrealism
creep in?
RA: It was many years later, in
my early 20’s that my work showed any signs of leaning towards surrealism. I was very much a traditionalist, wanting to
learn the trade of painting, the techniques, before wandering off into alleys of
weird and wonderful ideas. My approach
to art as a young man did me a huge favour although I was not aware of it at
the time.
PML: Perhaps, nowadays, the originality of the idea is more important than
technique?
RA: Most definitely, but the
problem is that an artist has a million ideas but 900.000 of them should be
trashed before they are executed. They
are simply not worth it. Then another
couple of 10’s of thousands might be amusing, but on closer inspection should
be recorded in a sketch book as a reference.
RA: I am not particularly proud
of what our last decennia have brought us, the Jeffrey Koons, The Tracy
Emmet’s, The Damien Hirst’s, all exponents of a derogatory hallucinating and
fraudulent form of making a living from having absolutely no talent at all. The fact that galleries have always dictated
what sells and does not sell is part of our culture. But we can now safely say that, as long as it
is big and shiny and maybe interesting as a tiny idea, it will sell. It is the story of the artist, the words, the
racket rather than the joy of the conception of the work that now prevails.
PML: Where does this tendency come from?
RA: Obviously the current trend
of indifference and the need for bite-sized glossy and appealing
results. Also, and I know I am treading
on thin ice and many will disagree with my point of view, but the first one who
did this was my fellow countryman Vincent Gogh. It wasn’t his fault. He was not aware of it. But he was one of the first artists whose
character became a story, a book, a romantic novel of a failed artist supported
by his brother.
PML: You can't deny he was ahead of his
time though? No one painted like him.
RA: That is a lame excuse. One
could argue, and I tend to very often, that, in the latter stages of his life, Rembrandt
was far ahead of his time with his technique. I’d put forward he was the first
impressionist. In fact, nobody paints
like anyone else. Vincent van Gogh did not show any
revolutionary aspect in his specific field of ‘expertise’ , nor does his work
have an amazing masterly quality we can relate to. It is the work of a maniac. His paintings were and are awful, technically
as well as intellectually.
PML: His paintings are alive with
movement and colour...
RA: There is that, but let’s
face it, there were many others in his time who did a better job. If anyone can convince me otherwise I'd like
to meet them. I truly believe that I might
be able to convince them. I know it is a bit of a rant but hey, the
injustice of this ‘industry’ is sometimes unbearable, and I feel someone has to
have the guts to say things as they are.
PML: What is your current project?
RA: I am
working on a painting with a huge Cauliflower.
The title is ‘Je n'aime pas le
choufleur’ a reference to Rene Margritte’s series the most famous one being
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe."
PML: Is this a commission or do you just like
cauliflowers?
RA: I don’t do
commissions. I just make my own stuff. Cauliflowers are quite nice until they are overcooked.
They get this nasty odour, something
between rotten fruit and a urinal that hasn't been cleaned for a while. Not
palatable at all. In the UK they usually
then cover it in cheese sauce to seal in the smell, and then kill it some more
in the oven. So I avoid them in that
state like the plague. But seeing a cauliflower
in the sky, fresh, like a sun beaming caulirays into my landscape, seemed a
lovely idea and just made me feel very good. Of course there is more to it than that, but I
will leave that to the observers. I
mustn't make it out to be bigger than it is. It is just a cauliflower in the sky.
PML: And when you've finished that?
RA: I am going to
paint a painting without a huge cauliflower.