An Interview with_Nicolas Burrows
Nicolas Burrows is an artist, illustrator and Senior Lecturer on the Illustration Programme at Camberwell. He is also one third of the creative studio Nous Vous Collective.
In 2016, during a six month spell as artists in residence at the House of Illustration, Nous Vous explored the theme of ‘working together’. Here the creation of a collaborative drawing machine helped Burrows to develop and explore new methodologies through experimental practice based research. Since then he has continued his investigations and we are very privileged to speak to Nicolas about his exploratory approach combining analog and digital technolgies.
Nicolas, how are you?
Alright thanks.
Thank you for speaking to us and sharing your research.
It’s been really interesting watching you experiment with technologies in the studio, you appear to be testing a combination analog and digital workflows. Could you please describe the process(es) and tecnology that you are using in your research?
I’m using an AxiDraw that we’ve just got for the programme. I’ve been creating these drawings and digital 'paintings’ using collage processes and custom brushes in Adobe Illustrator that I really like, but I want them to become physical objects. I’m outputting these files through AxiDraw and using different paint/ink applicators to try to make a version (or versions) of what is on screen.
The early iteration of the drawing machine (2016) translated a collective physical approach to create analog outputs. What does the digital component now bring to these new works and ideas?
The idea of making an image that looks very spontaneous and perhaps even crude, but has undergone a convoluted process is really interesting to me. That’s what I'm playing with by using this process.
I’m always looking for something to get in the way of my decision-making or my mark-making because this disruption leads to more unexpected images. I don’t really like the images I make if I'm too conscious of what I'm doing – there needs to be another ‘player’ or some kind of resist, force or agency to work with. Collaborating with other people and using intentionally difficult processes or tools (like Nous Vous’ drawing machine) are examples of this approach. Working with plotters and going back and forth between digital and analog spaces is another way of getting to this point.
What challenges have you encountered and are any of the results unexpected?
I’m trying to achieve something very specific and ambitious and I don’t know if it will work. So that’s the biggest challenge. There are very specific technical things that I need to work out, like the pressure of the brush/pen on a surface, what kind of ground works best, what paint applicators and consistency of paint/ink work best, etc etc...the drawing is easy and fun, and working out how to move to painting is difficult and tedious. All the results of the paintings tests have been unexpected. Mostly I think what’s unexpected is that it’s forcing me to learn about the basics of painting in a technical way.
Has the integration of digital technology impacted upon personal methodologies, for this project and beyond?
I’ve always used digital technology in my work. Plotter-drawing has been around for at least fifty years so it’s not new, but they’ve become more accessible and integrate into the way I make work. I use Adobe Illustrator a lot, outputting to lasercutting to create physical collages and relief printing blocks, so using AxiDraw became a logical extension of my workflow and opened up some new possibilities.
To what extent is the process of translation important to this project and how does the technological component effect change?
The idea of translation is important, specifically how things change or degrade through translations. I’ve always preferred using exact copies or working with original mark-making (ie blowing something up/using a scan rather than re-drawing something bigger) as I want to preserve the original energy, awkwardness etc of a line or a cut or a brush-stroke. Digital technologies (and things like photocopying) allow for this.
With the work I'm talking about, I'm essentially drawing either on paper or directly on an ipad, composing in a digital space, then I'm outputting those exact lines through the plotter, translating these gestures into an analog space, keeping the benefits of working digitally (total preservation of lines / ability to make changes) whilst introducing mess and chance with paint etc, so you potentially end up with an interesting hybrid.
Are there implications for your work beyond this project?
I’ve just received Arts Council funding to develop this further. If I can make it work then I'll be making large-scale paintings using this process. If I can’t make it work I will be making large-scale images using a different process. I’m already thinking of other ways to achieve what I want without using digital means, so it might even push me back into a totally analog way of working.
How might your research impact upon the integration of technology into your teaching or the wider arts curricula?
In a basic way, learning how to integrate this technology and use it creatively means I can teach it as a means of producing work. In perhaps a more impactful way, this and other processes have the effect of breaking down and slowing down the image making process, which can open up discussion about what’s going on in the act of drawing and painting.
And to follow on, how necessary do you think it is for students to embrace technologies as part of their workflow(s)?
I don’t think any particular process is necessary. But I do think that curiosity is absolutely integral to the development of practice, and being curious can lead to working with unfamiliar technologies. I think students should use whatever tools, skills and processes they need to use to make their work, whether that’s the body and a lump of clay or a screen and some generative image-making software. Flipping back and forth between different processes can really open up your practice and present new and unexpected possibilities.
Currently the machine outputs an analog drawing, would you consider a digital output and if so, what might this involve?
I’m not particularly interested in creating digital outputs, because I like what happens when the translation between analog and digital fails or gets messy. I’m also becoming more interested in creating physical objects. Although I've made a lot of physical work as well over the last fifteen years, most of the work I've made as an illustrator exists only as digital files on a hard drive and has a short active lifespan as an editorial illustration or an image in an ad campaign. Making physical objects is a way for me to own what I'm making and control what happens to it.
How do these works sit alongside other work in your portfolio?
Currently these works don’t really exist – my portfolio is mostly collage-based, and so visually they perhaps don’t quite sit alongside existing work that closely, although the approach is very similar. I’m trying to create a new body of work that is more representative of what I want to do, so I don’t mind if it becomes slightly different.
It’s a big question, but in your opinion what are the implications of emerging technology for the discipline of illustration?
For me Illustration is the approach, rather than the appearance. There is a skill in illustrating something and by that I mean visually communicating something through images. The tools are changing but the visual communication skill inherent in the discipline is still required. Things like AI might mean a wider toolkit for illustrators, artists and designers, or they might mean that these roles become more prompt-based. If you look at the way the discipline has developed over the last one hundred years let’s say, all the technological developments that have happened haven’t really changed the way illustration looks or acts that much – if you look at a contemporary illustration by someone like Jack Sachs and an image from the 1920s by A.M. Cassandre for example, there’s not a lot of difference, and they’re being used to sell things within the same political and economical structures. Procreate replicates traditional physical media, blender allows for creating sculptural forms in a digital space. I think that as long as things need to be communicated to people, then the act of illustrating will require a similar skillset, whether practitioners are physically making the work or not...but perhaps I'm being naive and AI will do everything in five years!
www.nicolasburrows.com
In 2016, during a six month spell as artists in residence at the House of Illustration, Nous Vous explored the theme of ‘working together’. Here the creation of a collaborative drawing machine helped Burrows to develop and explore new methodologies through experimental practice based research. Since then he has continued his investigations and we are very privileged to speak to Nicolas about his exploratory approach combining analog and digital technolgies.
Nicolas, how are you?
Alright thanks.
Thank you for speaking to us and sharing your research.
It’s been really interesting watching you experiment with technologies in the studio, you appear to be testing a combination analog and digital workflows. Could you please describe the process(es) and tecnology that you are using in your research?
I’m using an AxiDraw that we’ve just got for the programme. I’ve been creating these drawings and digital 'paintings’ using collage processes and custom brushes in Adobe Illustrator that I really like, but I want them to become physical objects. I’m outputting these files through AxiDraw and using different paint/ink applicators to try to make a version (or versions) of what is on screen.
The early iteration of the drawing machine (2016) translated a collective physical approach to create analog outputs. What does the digital component now bring to these new works and ideas?
The idea of making an image that looks very spontaneous and perhaps even crude, but has undergone a convoluted process is really interesting to me. That’s what I'm playing with by using this process.
I’m always looking for something to get in the way of my decision-making or my mark-making because this disruption leads to more unexpected images. I don’t really like the images I make if I'm too conscious of what I'm doing – there needs to be another ‘player’ or some kind of resist, force or agency to work with. Collaborating with other people and using intentionally difficult processes or tools (like Nous Vous’ drawing machine) are examples of this approach. Working with plotters and going back and forth between digital and analog spaces is another way of getting to this point.
What challenges have you encountered and are any of the results unexpected?
I’m trying to achieve something very specific and ambitious and I don’t know if it will work. So that’s the biggest challenge. There are very specific technical things that I need to work out, like the pressure of the brush/pen on a surface, what kind of ground works best, what paint applicators and consistency of paint/ink work best, etc etc...the drawing is easy and fun, and working out how to move to painting is difficult and tedious. All the results of the paintings tests have been unexpected. Mostly I think what’s unexpected is that it’s forcing me to learn about the basics of painting in a technical way.
Has the integration of digital technology impacted upon personal methodologies, for this project and beyond?
I’ve always used digital technology in my work. Plotter-drawing has been around for at least fifty years so it’s not new, but they’ve become more accessible and integrate into the way I make work. I use Adobe Illustrator a lot, outputting to lasercutting to create physical collages and relief printing blocks, so using AxiDraw became a logical extension of my workflow and opened up some new possibilities.
To what extent is the process of translation important to this project and how does the technological component effect change?
The idea of translation is important, specifically how things change or degrade through translations. I’ve always preferred using exact copies or working with original mark-making (ie blowing something up/using a scan rather than re-drawing something bigger) as I want to preserve the original energy, awkwardness etc of a line or a cut or a brush-stroke. Digital technologies (and things like photocopying) allow for this.
With the work I'm talking about, I'm essentially drawing either on paper or directly on an ipad, composing in a digital space, then I'm outputting those exact lines through the plotter, translating these gestures into an analog space, keeping the benefits of working digitally (total preservation of lines / ability to make changes) whilst introducing mess and chance with paint etc, so you potentially end up with an interesting hybrid.
Are there implications for your work beyond this project?
I’ve just received Arts Council funding to develop this further. If I can make it work then I'll be making large-scale paintings using this process. If I can’t make it work I will be making large-scale images using a different process. I’m already thinking of other ways to achieve what I want without using digital means, so it might even push me back into a totally analog way of working.
How might your research impact upon the integration of technology into your teaching or the wider arts curricula?
In a basic way, learning how to integrate this technology and use it creatively means I can teach it as a means of producing work. In perhaps a more impactful way, this and other processes have the effect of breaking down and slowing down the image making process, which can open up discussion about what’s going on in the act of drawing and painting.
And to follow on, how necessary do you think it is for students to embrace technologies as part of their workflow(s)?
I don’t think any particular process is necessary. But I do think that curiosity is absolutely integral to the development of practice, and being curious can lead to working with unfamiliar technologies. I think students should use whatever tools, skills and processes they need to use to make their work, whether that’s the body and a lump of clay or a screen and some generative image-making software. Flipping back and forth between different processes can really open up your practice and present new and unexpected possibilities.
Currently the machine outputs an analog drawing, would you consider a digital output and if so, what might this involve?
I’m not particularly interested in creating digital outputs, because I like what happens when the translation between analog and digital fails or gets messy. I’m also becoming more interested in creating physical objects. Although I've made a lot of physical work as well over the last fifteen years, most of the work I've made as an illustrator exists only as digital files on a hard drive and has a short active lifespan as an editorial illustration or an image in an ad campaign. Making physical objects is a way for me to own what I'm making and control what happens to it.
How do these works sit alongside other work in your portfolio?
Currently these works don’t really exist – my portfolio is mostly collage-based, and so visually they perhaps don’t quite sit alongside existing work that closely, although the approach is very similar. I’m trying to create a new body of work that is more representative of what I want to do, so I don’t mind if it becomes slightly different.
It’s a big question, but in your opinion what are the implications of emerging technology for the discipline of illustration?
For me Illustration is the approach, rather than the appearance. There is a skill in illustrating something and by that I mean visually communicating something through images. The tools are changing but the visual communication skill inherent in the discipline is still required. Things like AI might mean a wider toolkit for illustrators, artists and designers, or they might mean that these roles become more prompt-based. If you look at the way the discipline has developed over the last one hundred years let’s say, all the technological developments that have happened haven’t really changed the way illustration looks or acts that much – if you look at a contemporary illustration by someone like Jack Sachs and an image from the 1920s by A.M. Cassandre for example, there’s not a lot of difference, and they’re being used to sell things within the same political and economical structures. Procreate replicates traditional physical media, blender allows for creating sculptural forms in a digital space. I think that as long as things need to be communicated to people, then the act of illustrating will require a similar skillset, whether practitioners are physically making the work or not...but perhaps I'm being naive and AI will do everything in five years!
www.nicolasburrows.com