There’s a long history of artists making magazines—Avalanche, 0 to 9, and File all come to mind. As an artist, primarily working in the more traditional field of painting, how does Editorial fit—or not—into your art practice?
I rely on the opposition of the two projects to keep them both going. I typically can’t paint when I’m putting together a new issue, it’s too hard for me to split my brain from Richard-Branson-entrepreneur-mode to the childlike vulnerability required for making art. Artists talk about the necessity of being involved in the art community, like going to openings, meeting other artists, studio visits, etc. I hate openings and socializing so I use Editorial to interact with the art world. If there’s ever an exhibition I want to see, I’ll review it from the comfort of home. It’s a rabbit hole effect, learning about what inspires other artists, or what they’ve stolen from where. I reviewed Koak’s recent exhibition Breaking the Prairie; the title’s taken from a 1930s Grant Wood mural. The work was meant to challenge masculinity and liberate nature and femininity, but my research sparked an obsession with Grant Wood’s hyper-masculine prairie scenes which I’m now pulling from for my own work.
What are your hopes for the future of Editorial?
I’m such a Taurus I just want it to stay the same forever. [Laughs.] I don’t want it to get bigger than it is, but maintain the same kind of niche loyal following. I should be more lofty.
Speaking loftily, what would your dream story be?
A dream story...I actually do want to feature a celebrity in Editorial one day, but an irrelevant one like Cameron Diaz or Ray Liotta. And I want more scandals!