Interview 24 // Frank Gillette

Helen Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center in East Hampton, Long Island, and advisor to the Techspressionism exhibition at the Southampton Art Center. I'm here with Frank Gillette, who is a pioneer of digital art and who is one of the participants in the show. Frank, it's great to see you again, and I'd like to talk a little bit with you about the work that's going to be exhibited and the concepts behind it.

The work that is being exhibited is from two series. One is entitled Prelude, and the other one is entitled... Cut it out, damn it.

That's an interesting title.

It's called Post-Apocalypse. It's about the relationships, which I think is quite apt at the moment. I believe we're entering a... And this is an interesting point for me. We're entering a phase... Good work on your tan. We're reaching what physicists call an exclamation point in effect, which is ecological collapse, war, cultural revolutions of all sorts, and the rise of authoritarianism in the West.

Frank Gillette

So what is the role for me? What is the role of the kunstler, the artist with this condition, which is set of conditions? And in my opinion, it's essentially to what I've always argued back before digital analog video in the late 60s. My first show was in 1968 or nine... Yeah, eight. So it's... I've been at this for a long time. The idea is relatively simple, and I'll make it as simple as possible, and then we can make it complicated.

Frank Gillette

That one of the functions of the artist in this condition, this set of conditions, is to intercept a media technology, and deflect them from their commercial intent, which is the largest portion of digital activity, is commercial. It's not aesthetic. And attempt to bring out an aesthetic statement or an aesthetic procedure that follows the rules of the game in terms of the technologies, but turns it into an aesthetic aim, rather. And that's the simplest way as I can put it.

Well, I understand that, you know, it's not the medium, it's the message, as I said to Suzanne. But I remember David Sarnoff back in the 1930s at the dawn of television. He thought of it as an art form. And of course, it was immediately co-opted for commercial purposes. But the initial concept was artistic or creative, rather than simply... It was a way to get people to buy things through advertising and manipulate their minds through propaganda.

Advertising is propaganda.

Good point.

In any case, so there are two bodies of work that are pretty much relevant. Yeah, three actually. There's the very first one under Prelude. If you can bring it up on the screen. I can't. I can turn to my own website. But that would mean... I have three computers. Is this the only one I can get a website on? The other two are working on other things.

Frank Gillette

In any case, we should have planned this better, I suspect. Or I should have planned this better. I thought spontaneity would be the rule of the game, but...

No, I think that's fine.

There's got to be a set of formal statements. What was that?

No, I say I think that's fine. I think you're talking about three different bodies of work.

Yes. The first is entitled Prelude. And it has approximately 30 images. The second is Post-Apocalypse. And that has an additional 30. And the third one is Aqua's Fate. Which is about, oh, I would say 20 images. Each of them... My main concern, with a war even going on in Ukraine, is that it's moving off the page which is the most important of the crises, which is ecological collapse. So you can achieve peace, perhaps, maybe.

Frank Gillette

And... And still you'll be encountering a greater onslaught of, you know, unexcusable and indisputable collapse. Social and ecological collapse. Social collapse leading out of ecological collapse. Basically through chaotic migrations in the beginning. Through the contamination of water supplies. The failure of crop yields and so on. Also the collapse of acidification.

Frank Gillette

And... It strikes me that the issue again is how does the artist interpret that and address it? What it comes up with. In my case, I just named three website portals that make my statement. Which is essentially that we are confronted with what I just said above. I don't want to be a pankster. I don't want anyone panicking on what I'm saying. One should be alert.

Frank Gillette

And if any... If you can provide aesthetic judgment for evaluating all of these points, that would be the function of the artist. Well, yeah.

I mean, you're talking about presenting this information in a different way from, let's say, a journalist or a novelist or a poet. This is visual information. And I'm wondering what it was that drew you to the animated image, to video and digital technology to make that statement.

What drew me to it was Marshall McLuhan. In the late 60s. I met McLuhan. I won't go through all the details. I met McLuhan. And he had four of the original Sony Portapak portable television systems. One, two, three, four. So I could begin thinking about TV, so to speak, in ways which weren't monological. That is to say, you didn't look at a single screen anymore. Now you looked at a group of screens interacting in various ways. The first result of that was a piece called The Keep for Four Screens, naturally in my studio. It was never shown publicly. But a lot of artists came over to the studio and witnessed it. The first public expression of this idea, that you can no longer settle for television as a singles porthole, was Wipe Cycle at the Howard Wise Gallery in the spring of 69.

Frank Gillette

And that was nine screens on two screens. It was all analog. It was a... I'll give you an anecdote that might amuse. When I presented the proposal to Howard Wise and he said to me, can you really do this? And I said yes. I had no idea whether I could do it or not. Then his second line was, can you do this for $10,000? Now this is $10,000. $10,000 in 69 money. A good chunk of money. And I said yes, of course. No problem. Non schae problema, as we say in Rome.

Frank Gillette

And so I went out and I got all the technical information I could get. And I went to this processing place for TV. In those days it was mostly broadcast TV. And I said, this is the idea. Can you build this system? This is the system that I've designed. And for $10,000. And they said, we'll get back to you tomorrow. And they came back to me tomorrow and they said, yes, we can do it. I said, how long will it take? They said, well, give us a month.

Frank Gillette

But it only took three weeks, by the way. They under-promised and they over-delivered. And that was the beginning. For me. And the Howard Wise show, of course, was of high significance. It was the first show. The title of the show was a giveaway. TV as a creative medium was the title of the show. Spring of 69. And a small pamphlet instead of a catalog.

Frank Gillette

And so that kicked off the video movement. And then I formed a group called Rain Dance Corporation. Rain Dance was a mocking reference to R&D. The Rand Corporation. It was a play. And it was a play on words. Plus also the significance of Native Americans. I mean, Toynbee, the great English historian of the 19th and 20th centuries once said, civilizations begin in the dance.

Begin

In the dance. And end in rhetoric. And we're suffering from that at the moment.

Yeah, right. We have an overabundance of rhetoric. That's for sure.

And it's not enough dance.

Not the elegant rhetoric of Aristotle. Or the philosopher K.B. Burke, who was the master of this series of rhetoric. It's the rhetoric of the advertising system. The marketing system. Things are no longer. The rhetoric is no longer devised to. To express serious ideas. It's to figure out other ways. And other than the ones that have already failed. Of commercializing.

Frank Gillette

Even language. And branding, they call it. The whole branding issue, I think, is a form of corruption. It's about my brand will beat out your brand. And succeed commercially. Or you'll go down in flames. And I think the role of the artist, again, is to somehow figure out how to use aesthetic judgment. To preclude all other forces. Including the ones that are patently political. And turn them towards aesthetic judgment.

Well, in order to do that. You have to devise a means of visual communication. That will express those ideas without them being dependent on the explanation. On the verbal or textual references. How do you do that? Well.

I think that's a good question. I can only describe pieces. I described life cycle. Which had two delay systems. It was confronting. As you get out of the elevator at the gallery on 57th street. As soon as the elevator door is open, you show on a TV screen. A monitor. And then. Four seconds later. You show up again. Only in four seconds later in time. So you see yourself walking out of the elevator again. And then as the two other first two. In real time. And in fourth second time. Suddenly it's eighth second time. So you're being thrown around in three different levels of time.

Frank Gillette

And plus. Therefore five levels. Because you also have real time. In a grid. In a grid. Of nine screens. So that was one way. Without mentioning a word of how it was done or why it was done. It was self-evident. Using television in a non-commercial way. A way that has nothing to do with marketing or branding or whatever.

Frank Gillette

And then the second show that I did was in later. See when was the second one? The second one was at the Walker arts center later in 69 or early 70. Yeah. It was. It was later late in 70 because it was the winter in Minneapolis with the Walker.

There's a challenge.

When I got off the plane. In those days, it was before he went to all of these checkpoints. He walked right out into the top tarmac and it's like a five minute walk to the terminal. And they said, which out your eyes might freeze over. I said, I'm great. I'm not. I'm not going to do it. I'm going to do it. What an introduction.

Frank Gillette

So that was the second piece. It was called track trace. And that piece was 15 monitors. Eight delay systems. Is that into the audience? So they saw themselves in real time. Eight seconds ago, 12 seconds ago. 18 seconds ago. 20 cents. Seconds ago. And they've completely confined. To these. The tidal gallery space. So all they saw was the gallery space in the monitors. There was nothing else competing with on the walls or whatever. So it consumed one of the gala whole galleries at the Walker.

Frank Gillette

So that was the second. He's referring to that started things up. The third piece was at the Brandeis museum. Mr. Rose. The Rose art gallery. And that was the first one. And that one was with 10 monitors on delay. And it was very curious because. Buck minister Fuller, who was one of my heroes. Was preaching or more. The soliciting.

Frank Gillette

Attention. At the, at the, at the museum, not the museum at the university. And he came in to watch it. And I said to him, he said, I said, part of the sources of this was your thinking. Which affected me. And he said, well, I think it's because of the technology. The idea that you can turn technology around. Not locked into. The way it is at the moment. And he was utterly fascinated watching is that the 10 screens were like this. Five screens on the bottom looking up. And five screens on the top. So your image went this way. Up. And they held the minute. Mission went this way down. So you're going. This in time.

Frank Gillette

And you're held for six seconds. Each six seconds each. So all of my early work we're talking about 1970, 71. Was. Calculated to multiply the aesthetic value of TV is not as a single screen. That's phase one. Then reindeer. And Scarecrow. Came along. And through luck and pluck. I raised. $70,000 in 19. Seven. Yeah. Night late 1969 money.

Frank Gillette

From a private backer who is. That back my work prior to that. And that was a social force. As I said earlier. That we try to. Work of theories of recognition of the. Media. That's basically through McLuhan. And. And an anthropologist philosopher by name of Gregory Bates. And I don't know if you're familiar with him or not. But artists should be familiar with him.

Frank Gillette

I, he once said to me. I was very good friends with him. I took a, I mean. For the last five years of his life, seven years of his life. I was very good friends. And he said to me, I said, why, why do you? Want someone like me coming to your conferences? He was inviting all of these. Heavyweight social thinkers. Into his conferences. And he invited me and he said, I wanted to know. How an artist would respect. And regard what we're doing and what we can we do with you? In other words, we want. To take our ideas. And force them into the art world's thinking and theorization.

Frank Gillette

So that was the next stage. And then we went on to the next stage. Which was rain dance. And we produced seminars. Video tapes. Anybody was invited in with a good idea. Make your pitch. And we gave you all of the studio equipment. Which we had a Garner's worth. And you can get it. You can make your own. So we were inviting outsiders, not only making tapes ourselves. But inviting outsiders to propose. To make proposals.

Frank Gillette

And that was the next stage going social service. And. I was the founder. The founding president. Of it with three other people. Marco Vasi. See Louis Jaffe and Michael Shamberg. They should all get credit. Well, after one year of me being the so-called. Managerial force. The backers. Lawyers came to me. And they said, we will give you more money. You just burned through $70,000.

Frank Gillette

Is it one year. We'll give you. We'll give rain dance more money under one condition. You resign. You're a great idea, man, but you're an incompetent manager. You burned through all this money. And where's the result? Well, you got a lot of tape. You're a great idea, man, but you're an incompetent manager. So. And so on, but. It didn't sustain itself. It didn't pay for itself. So I gradually, I mean, I, I said, thank you very much.

Frank Gillette

Well, at least you were grateful. We'll consult with you. We want your ideas. Yeah. No longer the man. No, you're not president.

The idea is actually, I mean, if you're going to. Give people an outlet for their, their creative ideas and using the technology that you provide, then obviously you have to be able to sustain it in one way or another. The way a sculpture studio casts the bronzes for people and they have to be able to sell them in order for you to go back and do more. But was it easier to do that with digital technology where, you know, you don't have to have all that heavy equipment?

There are two phases in digital technology. One began in, let's see, let me get the dates right. So it's, this is a classical position here. Began in 80, 81 when I was an artist in residence at the Art Institute in San Francisco. And I convinced the director of the Art Institute and the president, Stephen Goldstein, I don't know if you know him or not, but he's retired since.

Frank Gillette

And he said, well, what do you want to do? I said, I want to start the, at that time, video digital technology was very primitive. And so we work with what you got and an institute or was an institute as an extension of a corporation. It's called Safari. Are you familiar with what Safari was? Well, Safari got wind of it through Stephen, I propose.

Frank Gillette

And they sent us to the institute six of their systems. Wow. They were relevant, but I could think in terms of multiples again. And Stephen gave me a class, a seminar class when I had a whole bunch of students. This is now 80, 81. And again, compared to now what you can do is a pebble compared to Mount Everest. That's a lousy example.

Frank Gillette

Not quite. And that was the next phase going academic. And that was initially still on the edges of it was the transfer from biological to cryptological, I guess.

Mm hmm.

So the imagery that you're trying to create, you feel that you really couldn't create it any other way that this technology is what enables you to realize your vision?

Yes, absolutely correct. By training and temperament, temperament rather, I'm a painter. I was a product of Columbia University and Pratt Institute. I quit both of them after the second year. So I'm a classic dropout from the 60s. And so a lot of my, Tanny Hanninger wrote a great article on it in which he called me all those things, referring to the implications in my digital work that remind her of my painterly past. So I would say some of my influences are my own education in the early 60s.

Mm hmm.

I still am involved in classical motions. I consider myself not as much an avant-gardist. I hate those terms, by the way. Number one, they're not the avant-garde. The avant-garde is too spread out. I mean, the mission might have been okay with Artaud, but I don't think in the present tense it applies. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. And if you look at the images I pointed out and those three sites on my website, you'll see, I suspect, some of painterly ideas of value of composition, turning this around and that around. And instead of being an avant-gardist, I would claim I'm a radical traditionalist.

Frank Gillette

That's a far more effective description in my own work. I mean, I'm too much in, I mean, I wind up in books about the avant-garde and I should write to the publishers to have me exercised. But anyway, that's that measure.

Well, you called, I think on your website, you discussed a kind of radical naturalism. Yes. And that these are, that they're metaphors in a sense, but they also have to function as perceptual, visual information. They can't just be rhetorical.

I concur. I mean, well, you can say that about Rubens. Right. You can say that about Giotto. For Giotto, he was working for Christ. For Rubens, he was working for buttockses.

Or for the patron, of course. Now that's another question. When you have, let's say a corporation comes to you and said, we have all this equipment that you can use, but, you know, it's coming from us and we have to control how you use it. You can't, the artist can't fall into that trap.

I would show them the door. The commercialized. No. It's not in my blood. I.e. About my being fired from my own corporation. Right. Corporation, by the way. There's a lick on that. Anyway. Yeah. So that's the issue of the force of painting in my work. Well, that's also. I do make direct references.

Frank Gillette

They have to be picked out. Because I work with a lot of layers. One layer. On average, I would guess, is it on average? Some of them are less. Some of them are much more. On average of 20 layers in each image.

And you use Photoshop for that? I use Final

Cut Pro and Photoshop. Photoshop for the blunt work. And Final Cut Pro for the refinements. And, yeah, refinements would be the best way to put it.

And then the layering. You can do that, I guess, if you don't like a layer, you just dismiss it.

I dispose of it.

Yeah. I know my husband, Roy Nicholson, does a similar thing. I know you know Roy.

He was

An early user of Photoshop and taught color on the computer at Southampton College. But for him, he uses it almost as a sketching tool. Because he is a painter and he's primarily working either in painting or printmaking. But by digitizing and then manipulating the image, he can work on it without physically touching it. And that has been very helpful for him.

Give it my regards, please.

I certainly will. So do you do that sort of thing, too? Then you bring it into, say, another medium like painting? Or printing it out?

I print it out. The answer is yes. Generally speaking, in editions of three. For all the images in the show in Southampton, next month, I perceive, right?

Opens at the end of April, yeah.

Okay. So it doesn't open on April Fool's, thank God. No.

Or on Easter or on Passover. We're missing those crucial junctions.

Yeah. Or I suspect, unfortunately. I've been pretty prescient, if I may brag for a minute. And Suzanne can back me up for this. I predicted this about, oh, six months ago. First rumbles with Trump and

His minions.

This is all going to lead to, you know, collapse of the West if it succeeds. I mean, Putin and I don't want to get political, but Putin and Trump are made of the same cloth. They're both megalomaniacal autocrats of the first order. They're not good people.

I don't know.

They are. For example, Trump called Putin two to three days a week. He's a genius. And he's running the limit on Biden. And Biden is an idiot. This is Trump speaking a few days ago. Anyway, enough of politics. I'm not here for politics.

Well, I know.

But in a sense. Well,

You know, people say that all art is political because it has a message. Even abstract art such as Pollock and Krasner created has a message. But I think it's almost impossible to keep people away from art because they don't have a political background behind it because they wouldn't be doing the kind of image that they did if they hadn't lived in those times and been influenced by this geopolitical situation. And I just think that it's almost impossible to keep it out of your art.

Well, I think a lot of the great theorists. I think a lot of the great theorists. From the Frankfurt School. I'm blocking his name at the moment. Theodore Ardorno once said, and I quote him, I also write, so it can't keep me down. If I go wrong in the studio, I go to my writing desk. I will send you the current book I've just finished. I mean, I didn't finish it. It's already published. And we just have a few copies. But I'm going to make sure you get one.

Thank you.

And that's true for you, Colin, as well. And he said, we're talking about Ardorno. He said, there's no such thing as bad art. Art is either is or isn't. There's no such thing as failed art. It either is or it isn't. And an object that proclaims to be art and is not art by consensus or judgment. Is essentially a rejected artifact.

Frank Gillette

It has a real thing in it. It's in the world. I mean, think of a person like Peter Max. That's an artifact. But it's not art. Art has a reverberating presence in strange ways. And it never goes stale. It never runs out of fuel. That's how it works. And that's how you judge a great work of art. Actually, any work of art. Any work of art that gets by Theodore Adorno's criteria is, you know, in the game. It should never run out.

Well, that's why artists.

Art never goes stale.

Artists look back to the past for inspiration. Not just because they need new ideas. But because they connect with the art of the past. And what the artist was trying to accomplish. It isn't about copying. It's about really connecting. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. Also. I mean, I. My arguments with both have been, I mean, but who did a lot of things which I think are just stupid. But then I use that word carefully. But the one thing he did point out was the. What art is up against in reproduction. Is that it loses its. Aura. And I think one function of the artist in the current air. This air.

Frank Gillette

Is to return to the issue of aura. Only don't lose the word aura. Use the word presence. It has presence in the way that the. The artists of the 17th, 18th century. Let's say. Use the word aura.

So the idea of something that, that. Goes beyond. Beyond what you see. In other words, there's something behind it that animates it for you. Even if it's static, that, that it animates it for you. Mentally or spiritually in some way.

Correct. I mean, I would go along with the spiritual part. Yeah. That's the other thing that's been destroyed is a sense of spirit. It's all gone down the hill with. Organized religion. In my opinion. I don't want to. I'm a Jesuit. Product. So. I don't want to be a Jesuit. But I don't want to be a Jesuit. When it comes to religion.

Frank Gillette

It starts a fire under my ass.

But the Jesuits are full of questions. So that's a good thing.

Yes. They teach you. To question. One of the tenants of Jesuit. And they have another interesting anecdote. I may as well pass it on. They said, when you join any group. Of any substantial size. Don't say a word for a year. Just.

Just listen. Yeah. Yeah. So what do you think about Techspressionism as a concept? I mean, the idea that technology should be a means of. Enabling the artists to, to reach a subjective level in their work, that it's not just technology for its own sake, but it, that it has that subjective dimension. Well,

I agree with it. I agree with the premise. It's a good word for it. Perhaps I think over time. Maybe a shorter word would suffice.

Too many syllables.

And vowels. Yes, I agree with it. The idea is. It's not technology for its own sake. It's technology for the world's sake.

Well, that's interesting. Going beyond individual expression, that it should have some broader relevance or significance.

I think ultimately in the final analysis, but the function of the artists. Is at this point in time. Is to reenchant a natural world. The world has been reduced to rubble. And for example, our. Paleolithic ancestors. Would be strolling along in a small band. And come to a grove. And trees and consider it sacred.

Frank Gillette

A place of. Imminence. Eminence both. And they wouldn't touch it. They were considered a sacred growth. Our current. Sack of human beings. Would come upon the same. Growth. That the. Paleolithic came upon. And they would figure out where to put the. The condos. Where to put the shopping malls. Where to put the printing.

Frank Gillette

Press to make money. And we would make money from cutting the clip. We would clear cut. Most of it. That's the contest.

Yeah. That we've lost touch with.

Reenchantment of the world. Is a fundamental and primary interest. That I would say is imperative. That we have to. Make a difference. Imperative. It's no longer arts for art's sake. Sorry. It's no longer art for art. It's art for the world's sake.

And you really feel that the artist can make a difference?

Absolutely. A very small one at the moment. I had an exchange with a good friend of mine. I'll make this quick. And we were talking about. What would happen. If all the works of art in the world. Would suddenly disappear. And he said. Well, what do you think? And I said. He ended the sentence. But I said.

Frank Gillette

3% of the world. Wouldn't know the difference. Whether it is or isn't. Wouldn't make no difference whatsoever. 2% of the world. Would pretend. To a horror. They did not actually experience. And that's what I said. And I said.

I'm not a

Mathematician.

I'm a sort of a. I envy mathematics. I'm sort of a. Actually I put it. Not quite an amateur. Because amateurs spend too much time on their amateurs. Something like. I have a set of. I have a set of. I have a tertiary interest in mathematics.

Well, you have obviously. 100% interest in humanity. And your. Devotion to. Trying. And through. Through whatever means are accessible to you. To reach. And to change. And to inspire people. Through your art. I think is commendable. And I just wonder. If you feel like you are making a difference.

Well. That's not for me to judge. Now that would be. Either I would. And this would be genuine. I would be attacked as a braggart.

Oh I understand.

I'm a braggart enough. So I'm not going to be a braggart.

So the pieces that you're going to be. Oh sorry. No the pieces that you're going to be showing at South Hampton. That's from your latest series?

No two years ago.

Mm hmm. What are you working on now?

Oddly enough, what I'm working on is I've done, I have a series of three video triptychs, all made with the devices I took, mostly Final Cut Pro. They're triptychs, one, two, three screens. I finished the first two, and I'm working on the third. So it's going to be a triptych of triptychs. And one of them is already museumized.

Frank Gillette

The Iverson bought it. And the next one is up for grabs. ZKM in Germany, I'll buy the other one. They're also an addition of three. That's my most recent work. I'm working on the third triptych.

And so what's the imagery?

The imagery is the natural world and how it's being destroyed and how it's being used. It's being portrayed through one of the most fundamental of all metaphors. The metaphor, this goes back to Shakespeare, Hamlet, the fourth act, where he's addressing the actors to be for the play within a play. He says halfway through his soliloquy, and we should hold up a mirror to the nature of the world. Beautiful

Metaphor.

Hold up a mirror to the nature of the world. And so one of my devices will be in all three. As the triptychs become from one to two to three, they become more intense in this metaphor. I cast stones at mirrors in nature. So it's a casting of stones for the mirror of nature. The mirror representing nature. The mirror representing nature a la Shakespeare. The stone being its destruction.

But then where is its resurrection?

What's the direction?

No, where is its resurrection?

Oh, resurrection.

Yeah. If you destroy it, how can it be recreated?

Through awareness, substantially. I can't see. I shouldn't say this, but I'm pessimistic. For the short and medium term, medium reign, reign rather, I'm pessimistic. For the third, again, the triptych, third reign, I am less pessimistic. I wouldn't say I'm suddenly an optimist. It's not Candide speaking.

Frank Gillette

It's too ingrained. I mean, people, I mean, this war is a great distraction. The war is horrible. Horrific. Evil. The war is. It will not have the lasting effect of ecological collapse. By far. And people, ecologists for years now. When I met Bateson, he was, all he was discussing was ecological collapse in other terms. And he said, basically, we want artists to pick up this idea. Are you willing to do that? I said, absolutely. It's them that's on top. And I had it in my head anyway. But it was a great confirmation.

Frank Gillette

And Bateson is a very important thinker. He's unfortunately he's not he's largely inaccessible to people who are not already familiar with those ideas. So that's a limitation. But anyway, his last book before his death is quite accessible. Mind and Nature is its title. Marvelous work. But going back to your question, what can you do in the meantime, even though you're a pessimist?

Frank Gillette

I'll tell you how I'm a pessimist, if you don't mind. George Bernard Shaw, I ripped him off. George Bernard Shaw once said the difference between a pessimist and an optimist is that the optimist fears the pessimist is right.

And I think that's a great point.

And I think that's a great point. Did I say that right? Yeah. I messed up Shaw. I should have had it. I quote the book. Endless. We share a birthday. I guess that helps.

Oh, interesting.

Okay. What else? Let's see. Next question.

Well, I think you've actually given us a great deal to think about. And in the exhibition, you'll give us a great deal to look at as well. And I think that's a great point. See, this is the magic of the medium is that it gives you the outlet that you would not have had in your painting or in your writing or in any other form that you can use this technology to create something deeply expressive, very personal, but also universal in its message and its meaning.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Frank. It's been a real pleasure and look forward to seeing you at the opening in April and thank you so much for joining us today. For participating in this talk.

Thank you, as well. You were half of it, so. I will also send you the copy of my book, the most recent one.

Thank you, thank you. I think you have my address, but I can email you, make sure you have it.

Okay, I appreciate it. Take care.

Great,

You too. Enjoy the rest of the day.