In a Manner of Speaking
5 questions for Marie Irmgard asked by art historian Sara Gjøde

You experiment a lot with the many possibilities of drawing and painting. Do you use the experiment as a conscious work strategy?

I believe that one important difference between a visual artist and a university academic is that, as a visual artist, you can make statements without necessarily having to document how you have come to your conclusions. I think it is important that experiments are started out of a curiosity to investigate, it shouldn’t be a play with one’s own ability or “look how well I use the ink and look how many ways I can use it” then it loses all meaning. My works starts off as an experiment but ends up as an investigation; one investigation almost always leads to more questions in the shape of more pictures, paintings, drawings: new projects and I see that as a benefit. Another benefit of the experiment as a method is that it keeps me alert - it keeps me seeing, it makes me insecure and sharp at the same time.

What is the link between your seemingly different expressions?

The link is that it is my observations, my works are observations percolated through me. I believe that you can see that in their aesthetics – you can tell that a painting is painted by me no matter what style it is painted in. Another link is that they all are studies and they don’t claim to give or hold any definitive answers. I once said to my professor in the academy that my works came about as if I were a camera spinning round myself taking snapshots of the world. She did not agree and I understand why she didn’t, but it is still the best explanation I have to give.

And what sets them aside from each other?

The investigation sets them aside from each other – which investigation it is sets them apart and makes them appear different and that is why many of my works are divided into series by titles. But they have more similarities than differences; in a sense, they are all ways of putting obstacles in my own way. I cannot paint on top of or fix my ink paintings; the same applies for the drawings. I am interested in painting and in orthodox paradoxes that I don’t manage to perceive or accept as truly being paradoxes. That is expressed in the form; for instance both the drawings and paintings are apparently quite leveled in their expression but nevertheless they have a multitude of layers both visually and in their content.

When it comes to color, you work in a diametrical opposite: almost monochrome scale in some works, while in others you use the full color scale. Why is that?

It is about a general interest in color, both as in Itten and Goethe and color as something existential. In some of the Irmgard’s Journal/ Baby Suggs’ Rag Rug drawings there are so many colors that they almost become meaningless. In others, the colors are used in disharmony and it is intentional that they don’t always function, while in others I leave some white space (paper) that makes them easier to look at. In my more monochrome works, I study one color and its nuances: for instance, how many different blacks can a black be? And how many different nuances of grey are there? It is about zooming in close or zooming far out and by that reaching the same result.

Do you see it as strength or a weakness that your visual expression is so diverse?

I don’t see the diversity of my work as strength or weakness. If there is one thing that I sometimes worry can be a weakness; it is that my work has an immediate visual appeal and whether that can cause it to be misunderstood as mere aesthetics. But, diverse or not has nothing to do with quality. It is not a weakness to paint pictures all with the same expression, as Vermeer did, because he did it so well. The same goes for Snabel: his work isn’t weak even though it is so chaotic at first glance. To me, strength or weakness, artistically speaking is not decided by the range of the production – it is decided by whether your work is authentic or not. Whether you stand by your works or you use theories and references and hypes as a loophole. I use theory and I make references but they don’t function as my safety net my works are me before anything.