spring2015

Returning to Nodopaka’s more personal experiences, we discussed his having goals for a piece of art versusallowing the work to evolve naturally. Nodopaka stated, “It depends on the purpose of the artwork. If it is acommission or a work with ‘intent,’ then it immediately contains preconceived ideas, but I always leave roomfor evolution.” And when considering a finished piece, what is the strongest influence: that on the art or onthe artist? Nodopaka speculated, “I imagine frankly speaking that my own art has brought only minusculechanges. Some reasons are purely geographical and cultural changes pertinent only to myself. If anything I havesynthesized a multitude of schools. My most prominent achievement in sculpture and some two-dimensionalart has been of a metaphysical concern.”When asked how he would typically choose a subject for a piece of art, Nodopaka said, “Since commercialismwas ever hardly involved in my art, I always felt free to do what I wanted at the moment of doing it. Thatincludes my photographic period, when at one point I knew where the sun would rise or set behind which rockor when fog would roll in or out during any time of the year. Yes, I had my periods of ‘fixation’ if not obsession,which included or excluded the presence or absence of anything manmade.”And is it always like this for you? Nodopakaconfessed, “Some of my artworks now undergoan intricate thought process of virtual paintingand hardly ever physically are executed. They areof an indescribable peaceful meditative naturewhere the eye meanders from point to lineto dissolving points describing archangels asKandinsky intended in the Spiritual in Art.” 1In addition to creating art, Nodopaka has servedas an art editor, judge, and instructor. He hasstrong opinions about art in America: “Well,American art began barely in 1917 with amen’s urinal on a museum wall hung by a satiricFrenchman who as a pun called it art. It gavecarte blanche for artists, which in turn started theschool of art about nothing. It quickly caught on,as it didn’t require an ounce of academic learning.In essence there has been no new art in Americasince the 1920s; nearly everything that followedin the following 30 years mimicked pre-existingart. Actually, more was written by critics aboutmodern art than ever to explain it, who weremore enamored with their writing than the artthey were writing about.”The conversation turned to students of art and what it takes to contribute to the world of art. Those who seek tobecome artists, Nodopaka suggests, should be “educated in preceding art movements . . . and include the studyof humanities. I mean, why reinvent the wheel? Improving on it demands higher skills and pertinent creativity,not original creativity.23