The Visual Artist: Matt Nichols
“Why can’t the U.S. understand how important art is?”
5 Questions with Matt Nichols
Visual Artist
Los Angeles, CA
Matt Nichols (b. 1981) lives and works in Los Angeles. He completed his undergraduate studies at the University of California Berkeley in 2003, and was a Trustee Scholar at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, earning his MFA in 2010. He is an alum of the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture (2015) and his work has been shown in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Stockholm. @matthewnicholsofficial.
Images of Nichols’s work follow the interview.
1. How has your studio practice been impacted?
The COVID-19 pandemic has most directly affected my practice in terms of the scale and ambition of my projects.
I think that at its core, my practice has always been about the pursuit of beauty, be it through process, materials, or some combination of the two. I believe beauty can be an absolute. Over the last couple of years my approach has taken a greater turn toward the romantic. I feel like I’m maybe a little less cynical, but that doesn’t mean the work is any less humorous or critical.
For the most part my work is heavily process and material driven. With the advent and enforcement of social distancing I find myself much slower to not only acquire material, but also to spend my days operating machinery at my studio. Staying home has felt much safer and in turn I’ve been doing a lot of small-scale painting and work on my computer.
Rather than view this as a negative, I feel like it’s been a somewhat enlightening experience. I think a lot can be learned in times of discomfort and this is no exception. Working small has me reassessing my approach to making and how I assign value to work itself.
2. With galleries and museums closed, institutions are losing revenue and the community is unable to gather and see new work. Talk to me about the importance of this experience on your artistic practice.
I think the affect of physical spaces being closed is multifaceted.
I often use shows as navigation points within my practice, utilizing openings as deadlines for production and finishing bodies of work. With galleries, museums, and institutions closed indefinitely, many shows are in turn being pushed and corresponding production pretty much null for the time being. Additionally, physical studio visits are also on hold for the most part, so work is being looked at through Zoom, FaceTime, and other computer driven media.
I’m thinking a lot about how the physical spaces are not only a place to physically experience the work, but also a place to meet other interested people and network. There really isn’t a substitute for experiencing a work in real life.
3. You mentioned that you see this moment as a catalyst to development new platforms for viewership…
I think there is a real potential for the gallery system specifically to be turned on its head. In many ways, art, artists, and gallerists (as taste makers) are about a larger cultural interest. Many times the patrons of artists (and galleries) are the patrons of all things cultural. Often, art openings or even art acquisitions are accompanied by fine dining, high profile sports outings, etc., making art and cultural events inextricable. All of which is currently in a state of suspended animation.
That being said, we currently don’t really know what physical social interaction will look like moving forward. And while on the one hand this is limiting for art and the system as we’ve known it up to this point, it makes room for an art that is required to be effective via digital viewership or experience at a distance. The potential there is staggering and exciting.
4. This crisis needs to change the landscape of cultural patronage. In your view, what do we most urgently need to do?
We need to put more economic resources toward the arts and humanities as a whole, because without it you run the threat of cultural decay.
However, this answer really only addresses a symptom and paves the way to a larger discussion about cultural value and the worth of art in a culture.
Many artists will never have “jobs” or “careers” in the traditional sense, but are required to abide by normal economic parameters without much help, often taking on loads of (frequently not reimbursable) amounts of debt to learn and pursue their craft. While some artists do become economically successful, most will not. Compared to many other countries, the U.S does not have a great number of subsidies and assistance easily/readily available for artists. And while most artists may not leave a recognizable mark on culture, I believe they all contribute to the dialog of the marks we do see.
What I’m trying to point out here is that the lack of funding/ subsidies/ resources on a federal level for artists is potentially a reflection of how little artists are viewed as valuable to our culture as we know it. To change this understanding requires not only a shift in the allocation of economic resources, but to change what we deem as valuable culturally as a whole. And this can take generations.
5. How do you think this crisis might change society’s view of arts as a whole?
Why can’t the US still understand how important art is? Imagine quarantine without books, films, paintings. We might actually die without Netflix or Prime Video. You’re really talking about the impact on an entire economy; gig workers are the new economy, as is apparent by current trends in unemployment claims. It all starts with creatives.
Matt Nichols (b. 1981) lives and works in Los Angeles. He completed his undergraduate studies at the University of California Berkeley in 2003, and was a Trustee Scholar at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, earning his MFA in 2010. He is an alum of the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture (2015) and his work has been shown in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Stockholm. @matthewnicholsofficial.
Matt Nichols. Untitled, 2020. Oil on canvas. 20”x16”
Matt Nichols. Untitled, 2020. Oil on canvas and cardboard. 18”