| | | | |
| INTERVIEW
OF MARTINE VAUGEL, FRENCH-AMERICAN SCULPTOR |
||
Cohen: |
What brought you
to be a sculptor? What made you decide? |
|
| Vaugel: |
When I was thirteen, I touched
clay for the first time, and immediately recognized my path. I knew I
would be a successful sculptor and that I would be teaching and be working
in France. I saw my life pass in front of me. At thirteen, I started sculpting
in my room, with my parents providing me the opportunity to be undisturbed.
My first commission came when I was twenty-three, for the Governor of
New York. |
|
Cohen: |
When you said you knew exactly
what you wanted to do, did you know what you wanted to say or express?
|
|
Vaugel: |
Well, I believed in the originality
of being a woman in the twentieth century and being a sculptor. Rodin
was my first teacher–I knew I was in a line of great figure sculptors.
Rodin and Camille, both were my teachers. |
|
| Cohen: | Oh yes, Camille Claudel. |
|
| Vaugel: | Who was his creative partner
and I recognized that the purpose, I believe, of their life’s sculptural
teamwork, was to bring people out of the Victorian age and into the modern
age; meaning moving past fear. The fear of the body and of nudity that
was–part of people’s problems due to religious doctrine. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, yes. |
|
| Vaugel: | And they showed people kissing
and making love, nude, in sculpture, which had not been done before. There
were lots of sculptures that were nudes, and some were about rapes, and
other fear based relationships. Rodin and Camille broke ground with the
new relationships between men and women, love based, and it was, you know,
accessible, acceptable, and the Victorian age started to crumble, due
to thinkers, writers and the artists at that time. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, although Camille Claudel
did not succeed, I mean, personally. I know that she eventually failed.
. . |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, I think she symbolizes
the epitome of the problems facing Victorian woman. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, that’s right. |
|
| Vaugel: | She was the symbol for all
of us modern women. She didn’t have a true relationship to a spiritual
source, because of the fanaticism of the church and the lack of religious
freedom that she suffered in her family. Her source of hope became that
of a man; her love for him became the center of her life. Of course when
love goes awry we are left with something greater if we have that connection,
without it, she suffered greatly. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, yes. I agree that she
was too dependent on Rodin. |
|
| Vaugel: | And, it was what destroyed
her, actually, but I would never call her a failure. In a sense she was
a modern woman caught in a Victorian tragedy. I believe very strongly
that the second half of the twentieth century, which is what I was born
into, is about bringing us out of that particular phase of the modern
age, of just the glorification of the body…into the synthesis of the spirit
and the body. About acceptance of spirituality that’s not based on religious
doctrine, using the freedoms gained in the past to sculpt in the present.
|
|
| Cohen: | Yes. And, I’m not sure how
I mean it’s very challenging, probably, to express spirituality in
the clay, or, I mean, in a sculpture. |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, but that’s what I’ve
attempted to do in my work. Most of my work is about an internal dialogue,
expressed in figurative forms, using abstract concepts and geometric dynamism. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, for instance, is “Woman
Holding Desire,” such an expression? |
|
| Vaugel: | ||
| Cohen: | Yes, now I notice that you
have several sculptures about the story of Genesis: you have Adam and
Eve, the Tree of Life, can you talk about your interpretation? |
|
| Vaugel: | ||
| Cohen: | Did you make any other sculptures
in relation to Biblical stories? |
|
| Vaugel: | I made David, The Fall, The
Ascention, ad others, I suspect. |
|
| Cohen: | So were you brought up religious
in any way? |
|
| Vaugel: | Not at all. My mother was
Catholic and my father was Jewish. When they married, they put a big picture
of themselves smiling over their bed and that was it. |
|
| Cohen: | I notice that you made the–some
portraits of some famous people like John Lennon; did you like the Beatles,
or, I mean, what they did? |
|
| Vaugel: | The Beatles, I believe in
their combined union, just like Rodin and Camille, the relationship of
these creative beings to each other was imperative to their creations.
And I am afraid I believe in art as a tool for the evolution of the planet.
Whether the rest of the world defines art differently is of no significance
to me. My life is dedicated to the evolution of the spirit that is the
creative force in Nature. I believe the Beatles are a great example of
the evolution of the planet through the use of an art medium. So is Michealangelo
or any great artist from the past. I think there’s a very constructive
force, and a destructive force, and the Beatles were part of the constructive
force; they opened a heart energy, like Princess Di did, they changed
the world. They certainly changed mine. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, mine too. I noticed you
had some historical figures, like Richard the Lionheart. |
|
| Vaugel: | I live in a small French village,
20 kilometers away is Fontrvaud, where he is buried. I did Richard the
Lionheart as soon as I got to France. He just came out. It wasn’t
a thought. |
|
| Cohen: | Now, I noticed you have one
sculpture called “Social Security.” I guess this is sort of
tongue-in-cheek. |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, yes. It’s one of
those sculptures that no one knows how to take. It’s very erotic;
it has a lot of sexual connotation because of the position of the hand,
but at the time, I was struggling through relationships and I saw that
there was no security in relationships, and although I kept on trying
to give all my power to a man in order to be secure, it didn’t work,
so it was a sculpture about the fallacy of thinking that one had any social
security in giving up one’s power. And then I realized that it worked
for males and females, who we could talk about it in political terms as
well as feminist terms. It’s the sculpture about the fallacy of
giving up one’s power. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes. Now, can you tell more
about the Passionist movement? I know that you say you started it? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes. I was being labeled a
realist, and I knew that I was not a realist. I know from what I do, you
can’t actually see a spirit leaving the body, you know, so I knew
I wasn’t a realist. I had seen all these other “isms”:
impressionism, expressionism–everybody had an “ism,”
and nobody knew where to put me, so they were calling me a “realist.”
And, I realized I was going to have to invent my own label because nobody
could label me correctly. And, I searched for what it was that was my
truth, and my truth is that I’m a Passionist. My work comes from
my passion, and so pursuant to that, I saw that it pertained to not only
art; it pertained to all forms and works of life, and the Passionist movement
was not simply about art; it was about the movement on this planet as
I see it, for salvation. It is about people telling the truth and coming
from what is real for them and what gives them passion, where there passion
is. And, this is not about sex; it’s about the passion of the heart.
So, my motto for my particular art was to “put the heart back in
art.” |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, but, I mean, you are
not against reason; I assume you want to combine reason and desire–or
reason and passion |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh, yes, absolutely positively.
I’m not against reason at all. No, I wouldn’t be here if I
couldn’t combine reason and passion. Any one-sided adventure is
a lost cause. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, now you were talking
about salvation. I mean, do you believe in a deity? |
|
| Vaugel: | No. No, I don’t believe
in any deity. I don’t base my beliefs on any gods. It’s strictly
a very personal relationship to a source that has been my guide my whole
life, and I can’t deny that, and I live with it, and that’s
what I listen to. It’s very experiential, if you understand. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, yes. |
|
| Vaugel: | One of the biggest influences
in my life was my father, and, the way that he influenced me was he was
Jewish and he survived the second world war. And, the way that he survived
it, was around three years before Hitler entered France (my father was
French), he saw what was going on, and he convinced many members of his
family to sign up for American visas. It took three years for the visa’s
to come through, and when the visa came through, that was when Hitler’s
armies had just entered Paris. He was constantly telling us that we had
to listen and look for ourselves at all time, because many of his family
and many of his friends did not believe that there was anything wrong,
and they are no longer with us, many of his family. So, what he taught
us was that it didn’t matter what the papers said or what anyone
said; we had to listen. And, he taught us how to listen to our own brains
and to search for the truth around us and to make our own judgments, because
without that, I would not have been alive. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, okay. Now, are there
artists who joined your Passionist movement? |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, when I opened it, it
was at the Robert Redford ranch in–I think it was 1988; it was in
a conference of–a Creative Coalition conference, and since then,
I have seen many people who call themselves “Passionists”.
This was a movement that I opened to the world at that time, and it was
definitely filmed and it was written about. I opened it to a room full
of artists, scientists, and media people. It is not limited to art; it’s
about people listening to themselves, forming their own opinions, living
with the truth and working towards a positive outcome on this planet.
|
|
| Cohen: | And, how did it happen that
you were invited to this conference? |
|
| Vaugel: | I was living in New York City
at the time, and I was always political when it was called for. In 1968,
I was on the barricades; in ‘66 I was in Washington, and I believe
at some point I was doing some anti-nuclear work in California, and because
I don’t have a problem with saying “yes” or “no.”-
when you are working on a giant monument, you have to be able to make
decisions. so, because of that training, I found myself the leader of
a Los Angeles outreach coalition that was working against Diablo Canyon
nuclear energy plant, and that led to people finding out about me and
inviting me to the conference. And, from there I went to spend four days
with Michail Gorbachev in Kyoto at the first conference before the Kyoto
accord, and I was one of four artists who were there to try to add the
voice of–the creative process, in a conference of scientists and
politicians, and religious leaders. It was great. |
|
| Cohen: | Can you tell me about your
“creative process”. |
|
| Vaugel: | I called my entire life’s
work, “Survivors, Worshipers, and Fools,” because those are
the three aspects of myself that are exemplified in my work. There’s
a huge foolishness that I’m still trying to overcome, which is all
the folly of my life. I’m a survivor, and I’m also a serious
worshiper of this inner source. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes. Now, I just want to ask,
I mean, I assume you have children? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, I married my husband,
Jim Vaccarella ten years ago, and he had two children that came with him,
Taj and Collin Vacarella,. And so, I am a step-mother. |
|
| Cohen: | I see. Were you interested
in having children? |
|
| Vaugel: | I was always wanting them,
but I could not–I wouldn’t do it until I was with the right
man, and I also, you know, couldn’t be with the any person until
I had worked certain things through with my work. Unfortunately, by the
time I was ready for a relationship, it was too late for me to have children.
|
|
| Cohen: | Yes. You have that sculpture,
a Barren Birth, what is that? |
|
| Vaugel: | I was making a study of woman
for The Tree of Life, and I got someone in the pose and I found out that
it was the Indian birthing position, so I started to make the Indian birthing
position, and when I was through with the sculpture, I realized that I
had forgotten to make her pregnant. So, it became The Barren Birth. It
is about birthing and not birthing, because I saw it as my birthing of
sculptures instead of baby, so it’s about birthing my creativity.
|
|
| Cohen: | Okay, before I forget, since
you lived in New York City in the sixties, were youI meanwere you involved
with the Nathaniel Branden Institute at all? |
|
| Vaugel: | No, I was not. I didn’t even
know it existed until ‘79or ‘78 or ‘77whenever Jonathon Hirschfeld came
into my life. |
|
| Cohen: | Oh, that was later, I see. |
|
| Vaugel: | And that’s when I met Nathaniel,
and I think it was Estelle was his wife at the time. I don’t recall the
people that I met, but Jonathon was my partner, and so weI met many Objectivists
and heard of the Objectivist movement, and had one as a partner, so we
had lots of all-night conversations, and that’s what brought me into at
least knowing that it existed. |
|
| Cohen: | Okay. Now politically, I mean,
do you define yourself in any way as a left-wing or right-wing, I mean,
Socialist or Capitalist, or you don’t put labels? |
|
| Vaugel: | I define myself as “undefinable,”
because it’s very personal. If we talk politics, I would become very aggressive,
because I am not at all pleased with the current political system in America
and feel more World oriented |
|
| Cohen: | Now, let’s seemost of your
work, was it private commissions? |
|
| Vaugel: | No, my work has basically
been through sales and teaching. If you know your craft, and you tell
the truth, people recognize the truth for themselves and then they buy
the sculptures. That’s what’s happened to me every since I was twentythree.
This is about a very personal and direct relationship with buyers. I have
my Web site, and now I make my sales through my site a lot. |
|
| Cohen: | So you like living in France?
|
|
| Vaugel: | Oh Yes! I have a sixteenth
century church and I’m turning it into a museum. So, in the end I’ll have
my own museum, and I will have by-passed the politics of art, which I
really abhor. The politics of, and finances of the art world, are abhorrent.
|
|
| Cohen: | Yes, I mean, I find it, too.
So, what do you think of post-modern art and all that? |
|
| Vaugel: | I made a sculpture that’s
called, “A Woman Hiding from God.” It’s a woman who has rolled over, and
she reflects herself in a pool of water, and her head is in the water,
like sandlike an ostrich in the sand, and basically, that’s how I feel
about the art world. It’s going on, but I don’t care. I am, post-modern,
pre-modern, echo-modern, I have my beliefs and I live with them. The art
world has its beliefs and I can’t live with them. I wrote a poem that
I really would like to read to you. It’s only five lines; I have it right
here in my head, it’s called “The State of Art,”
And, that’s what I think about art. I think that the truth in the world will come out. I personally find it has malicious intent. A true artist, will be unable to show their work should their work be different from the acceptable art of the time…vogue art. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, now, historically, do
you have observations about how it happened or why it happenedI mean,
all this break from the classical world of art? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, I do, I do have, and
it’s not going to make me a very popular girl, but yes I do. You see,
my first husband, when I was seventeen, was a twelve-tone composer. So,
I went to a lot of concerts in New York. I saw myself sitting in audiences
at Lincoln Center where the audience would get smaller and smaller with
every concert, because it felt so bad.. Music is about evolution, just
as I think all art is about evolution. Twelve-tone music would make us
feel the de-evolution and the black hole, and nothingness. |
|
| Cohen: | It’s anti-art, yes. |
|
| Vaugel: | And so, this abstract music,
which took the seven-tone scale and turned it into twelve, and divided
it up in such a way that it was, extremely cacophonic and painful to some
listeners. I have no problem if an artist wants to do that, but, you know,
everyone can listen to what they want, and so the audience got smaller
and smaller. Well, that music came over at the same time as did several
other things, from Germany, Like the scientists who created the atomic
bomb and the movement in art which has led us to where we are now. But,
Art is intellectual and it went through the mind. And so, people were
able to intellectualize the destruction of art without feeling the pain,
as opposed to music, where you could feel the destruction of music and
it was very unacceptable, and it practically died as a movement. In art
the destructive force was able to survive because it was intellectualized.
And, because there was something to purchase and there was money to be
made Because, not only was it able to be intellectualized and packaged
and sold…. but it is the large galleries, museums, etcetera, and collectors,
that fund the art schools, which continuously pump out the same genre
of art. And, that’s because they’re getting funded by the same people
who are then making the money in the galleries and the sales, and one
hand is washing the other. I would not recommend art school to anyone.
|
|
| Cohen: | Now, I understand that the
conceptual art is a part of it. This is really, then, the intellectualization
that you were talking about? |
|
| Vaugel: | It’s the epitome of it. There
was an art school that I’m not going to name, which had, (when one opened
the catalogue of the art school for painting), a photograph of some young
student in a black T-shirt saying, “When I came here, I was a painter,
and now I know I’m a performance artist,” and that was the painting part
of the program. So, it’s abhorrent to me when values that I believe in
are trudgeoned, such as the word “contemporary.” All of us are contemporary,
and yet it has now become a noun. “Contemporary art,” is a specific kind
of art, and everyone who’s not in that genre of art is no longer considered
“contemporary.” I cannot be called “contemporary,” I am only called “reactionary.”
|
|
| Cohen: | Yes, yes. However, are there
any other sculptors or artists that you canand that you like, today?
|
|
| Vaugel: | Of course, many. |
|
| Cohen: | That’s good. Let me just ask,
the sculpture, Old Siren, is there a story behind it? |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, yes, she was an “old
siren” in the sense that she was B-movie star, and also, she’s very arresting,
just as the sirens on the rocks were. When you start looking at her, she
really holds your attention. |
|
| Cohen: | I always loved Rodin, and
his sculptures, and it sort of felt like that nobody really carried on. |
|
| Vaugel: | I think because Bernini came
to France, you know, and he really turned on the French sculptors like
Carpeau, Puget and, they really whole-heartedly embraced his esthetic
and that’s what’s at Versailles and in the Louvre, So, I came to France,
where they pulled the flesh from the bone, as opposed to the Roman school
which is very flat. But of course, I’m sure the people will disagree with
me who liked the Roman school, you know. |
|
| Cohen: | You must get a lot of people
who disagree with you, no? |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh yes, these are just my
personal views of the great sculptors on the planet, how they helped evolve
each other. And, Bernini was in front of Rodin. Look up , Villa Borghese
in Italy, on the web and you’ll see the sculptures of Bernini, and you’ll
see a great classical figure sculptor. |
|
| Cohen: | And so, after Rodin? |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, I think every figure sculptor has a line he
stems from. Other sculptors have other masters they learned from. Rodin
and Gustov Viegland were my masters. I look at them as the persons who
have taught me the most; the closest to me in thought and action. |
|
| Cohen: | I see. Tell me about Viegland’s work, I am not familiar
with him. |
|
| Vaugel: | Viegland was a great Norwegian sculptor. The content
of his work is completely about humanistic values. It has timeless values
and emotional content that is extraordinary. He was very modern, and very
abstract, even though it’s completely figurative. You cannot appreciate
Veigland or Rodin without appreciating how abstract their work is. |
|
| Cohen: | In what sense is it abstract? |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh well, you can follow any form, choose any form,
and you’ll find a continuation of the lines as you would in a great painting,
the composition. And, to be even more direct, if you look at The Thinker,
you can still see the two-by-four marks on his leg where he hit him with
a piece of wood in order to create the form. If you look at the Walking
Man, it’s completely abstracted out. His forms are abstract; his content
is modern. He was, as far as I’m concerned, the first real abstract sculptor
who worked with the figure. |
|
| Cohen: | Okay, now do you like any other sculptors after Rodin
and Veigland, I mean, contemporary sculptures? |
|
| Vaugel: | I really think the Italian Marino Morini’s great,
And Zuniga, who was from Mexico, and, Giacometti, I find fascinating.
|
|
| Cohen: | Giacometti is very abstract, no? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes but his work is also figurative, he combines
the two. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes. Okay. You mentioned abstract. I’m trying to
understand exactly what you mean by abstract. That the lines continue,
and what else makes it abstract? |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, there’s a concept inside of every sculpture.
There’s an equation between lines and form within every sculpture. Every
sculpture, every person, standing or seated or in any position, has got
an abundance of lines and forms, and it’s the understanding of how to
make these lines and forms relate that creates an abstract sculpture.
Some people synthesize it down to simply abstract forms and lines, and
other people who work with the figure in a figurative manner, work with
the lines and forms, and then also use the lines and forms in a representational
way. In other words, you can still read that it’s an arm and a leg. For
example, if you look at a piece that I have called “The Mantis,” have
you seen that one? |
|
| Cohen: | Yes. |
|
| Vaugel: | Okay. There is an abstract line running through it
that runs through the rib cage through the leg. You can follow a line
right throw the entire piece and it’s a very powerful abstract line, and,
any greatin my mindany great figurative sculpture has those qualities.
It’s a synthesis of a movement into it’s basic tenents. |
|
| Cohen: | Well, that’s okay; I think I understand. |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh, I do have something else
to add to that, yes. If you look at great musicagain, I’ll make a parallel
to musicthere are themes, and then there are. |
|
| Cohen: | Variations. |
|
| Vaugel: | Variations on the themes,
and then there are also repetitions, repetitive lines in music, so that
you hear the same three notes again and again and again. Well, great sculpture
will do the same thing; it’s like a popular song. It’s just so full of
juxtapositions of lines and rhythms that it’s like music. It’s like learning
to read music, when you can read sculpture. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes. Okay, now I understand,
now. Yes, I think I heard something somewhere, that when they said that
sculpture was music, like in clay, or something like that. |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, that’s me; I like that.
|
|
| Cohen: | Actually, they said that sculpture was a music that
froze, like in a moment in time, or. . . |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, that’s okay too. |
|
| Cohen: | Before I forget, since you’re French, I just wonder
if you’re familiar with the works of Victor Hugo? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, and I mean, do you regard him as a Passionist,
also? |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh, of course. Oh, of course, of course, of course.
I camemy parents are French and I was born in Americaand I came back
to France because my cultural ancestors, the ones that mean the most to
me are right here. You know, I resonate to the culture, and definitely
Victor Hugo is a part of it. |
|
| Cohen: | Okay. Another thing, since you’re a teacherI mean,
did you find that some of your students became great sculptors also, that
you can admire? |
|
| Vaugel: | You know, I’m more involved in looking to what came
in front of me, and trust that whatever is coming after me will take care
of itself. |
|
| Cohen: | Okay, so you’re an optimist, to think that the good,
that the light of art will win in the end? |
|
| Vaugel: | Oh, absolutely. I believe in light; I believe in
light and truth and justice and freedom for allyou know, all those good
things. I’m definitely an optimist. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, that’s good. Did you develop a special method
for teaching, like certain principles, so you can summarize? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, I do. I work with those abstract lines and create
geometric grids.. I teach people how to seeand produce the same grids.
I’ve taught many, many painters how to see. I’ve even taught several classes
for cosmetic and plastic surgeons, so that they could learn how to see.
Because, seeing geometrically means being able to see the points and bony
landmarks and references in the body, and being able to triangulate those
references, and it’s a method by which you can’t fail to see the truth
of the figure. So, my classes involve a very special way of seeing. We
use horizontals as the proportions, verticals as gravity lines, and then
diagonals are the energy that runs between the points, and we grid both
the figure and the portrait out, in a very graphic, very linear way almost
two-dimensionally. And then, it becomes very three-dimensional as you
work in the round. But, it’s a way of seeing which I teach. |
|
| Cohen: | I see. I think, yes, it was Leonardo DaVinci that
says you have to know how to see, or to learn how to see. |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, well I will tell you something very wonderful.
When I was teaching in the New York Academy in New York, there was a show
of Leonardos anatomy book. Drawings, that someone else did based on his
anatomy lessons, And, all around me, outside, in this show, were my proportions
and my geometric relationship, I mean, he used them. And, I had no idea
he used them till I saw his notebooks diagramed. Also the masons who built
the cathedrals in France in Chartres and all over Europe, they were called
the Masons of Aquitaine, and in an architecture book I found my method
of triangulation. Using the geometry I use.was used to build the Cathedrals,
and it’s called “Sacred Geometry”. |
|
| Cohen: | So, you mean that you sort of discovered a method
that was used in the past? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, I discovered a method that was used in the past
by the two people that I know who used it for sure were Leonardo DaVinci
and the masons who built the cathedrals in France. |
|
| Cohen: | Yes, that’s amazing. And, did you publish any book,
I mean, about your method. |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes, I’m trying to publish a book about my sculpting method, and I’ve got it almost written and I’m trying to find a publisher. I speak French, but I don’tI couldn’t write it, or write anything. I’m legible at French, so I’m going to have to get a translator for any language except English. But, I do think I would have it done. I would very much like to have my book published, so . . . |
|
| Cohen: | I understand that you are coming to talk at the Art
Advancement Seminar in October? |
|
| Vaugel: | Yes in New York, At the Pierre Hotel on October 6th |
|
| Cohen: | Do you have anything you would like to say in closing? |
|
| Vaugel: | Well, yes. I had a very big revelation this year.
I always knew that the purpose of my life was to create art. And, I knew
that from when I was a young ;girl. But, this year, I discovered that
the purpose of art was to create artists. And that’s really just amazing,
because that’s who the art is talking to. If it wasn’t for the great artists
from the past, I would not be whom I am able to be. IT IS THE TRUTH OF
THE ART OF THE PAST ADDED TO OUR PERSONAL INNOVATION AND PERSPECTIVE THAT
CREATES THE ART OF THE FUTURE. I was able to look in Rembrandt’s eyes
and see the pain and suffering that he endured. I would never have been
able to take the trials of my life, were it not for knowing that even
great artists like him had to go through it. So I see the purpose of the
art that was left behind, to inspire and create artists of the future.
Because artists in every generation are forward thinkers who have the
possibility of speaking the truth. one can say things that have deep significance.
There are so many ages where hidden meanings were in everything, and one
could find a communication through art from one generation to another.
And, that’s what I believe in. I believe in leaving my work for future
generations to understand what it was to be a woman born in 1950, a woman
of the twentieth century. And, that’s what I will leave to the future,
and that’s who I work for. |
|
| Cohen: | That’s very good, very inspiring. | |
| Vaugel: | Thank you. It is my truth. | |