from a long line of long island baymen and decoy carvers, the sculptor mike combs has been bringing his distinctive view of man and nature to us for a little over a decade now. known for his intricate hand carved pieces, statements on hunting, fetishism, evolution, and man’s effect on the environment, mike has exhibited with some of the biggest names in contemporary art, and yet i’m willing to bet some of you are still not familiar with his work. with that in mind i decided to sit down and talk with mike for a while about his family, his work, and what lies ahead. the results of that conversation are as follows-

jm: so let’s start at the beginning. I’ve read that your family can be traced straight back to the mayflower. is that true or is it just a bit of combs family legend?

mc: allow me explain. richard Combs married Sarah Priest. Sarah was the daughter of Degreory Priest, who was one of the organizers of the voyage, and was on board. Deregory was a furrier and first went to Holland. evidently they weren’t treated too well which resulted in there journey to the new world. the men arrived first and women and children came a year later.

jm: is this early settler status meaningful to you somehow or it just an interesting factoid you can throw in to add spice to the mike combs “mythology?” 

mc: my family’s history and their trades are an integral part of my fine art. I enjoy tracing back the my lineage. these people were water people who persevered, eked out livelihoods on the water for 300 years. as a young boy it was inevitable i’d be struck by this, influenced by it. I would go down to the bay with my pop. I recall him often saying “It’s not what it used to be.” witnessing him breaking his ass for a day wage while it was coming to an end as a viable lifestyle; there was a sadness to that. I happen to be the first generation to abandon this lifestyle to pursue a career in the arts. I do enjoy tracing back the my lineage. It’s a reservoir for the work I do today, can you trace back when you started becoming a wise-ass?

jm: the wise-ass gene goes way back in my ancestry. my people were expelled from their homelands in the old world for just that reason i think. anyway, carving is something of a family trademark for the combs clan isn’t it?

mc: yes it is. when we first arrived on long island we did what most did and found occupations that were based off the natural resources. so the bay, and boat building, fishing, and hunting supported many families. along with hunting, of course, came decoy carving. it was originally an occupational neccessity.

 

jm: this all creates an image of a still diapered mike combs whittling with a bouey knife. when did you start carving?

mc: I started to carve when I was 10 years old. the first thing that I carved was a wooden knife. I realized that I could carve a knife which could hold an extremely sharp edge of it’s own. I do believe I accidentally cut myself with that wooden knife. It seemed to happen quite often. That’s when familial concern started to set in….

jm: did decoy carving get you interested in other arts or did your interest in art lead you inevitably back to the “family business?”

mc: carving waterfowl gave me some of my first brushes with form, mass… volume.  i found myself engaging the process and enjoyed it a hell of a lot. all of this was uncharted water for me. I could see that I had a sense for volume and form. i was comfortable with it, which was the segway to pursuing an art education.

jm: we both attended the the school of visual arts in Manhattan. you studied illustration didn’t you? why not sculpture?

mc: I had never had any formal training in the arts. what I was familiar with was self taught or influenced by family. my carving was what got me accepted into art school. I quickly gained a reputation for it, but personally… my mind was elsewhere. I wanted to find my own voice. one of my earliest memories is of children’s book illustrations. painting is a love for me. although I’m a sculptor I was formally trained in illustration.

 

jm: was illustration a concession to practicality? I know in my case I didn’t even have a clear conception of what “graphic design” was before art school. I just knew everyone kept pushing it as a happy medium between being an artist and actually earning a paycheck. they said “hey, you like to paint, but you use text in your images! you’ll love graphic design! plus you can make some money.” those bastards… a curse on all their houses!

mc: I was very much interested in painting and drawing. during my Master’s studies in Illustration I hit a serious crossroads though. a major change of course came when Thomas Woodruff, who I’m forever indebted, convinced me that I already possessed a portfolio that could yield work in the professional market. He asked me why not set aside some of these preconceived notions and pay a bit respect to this gift that I had for sculpture. This far in, I thought he was insane, but at that point personally things were feeling pretty stale and I was plateauing hard.

jm: so, did you actually learn anything in art school?

mc: for me art school was vital, though I’m certain I wouldn’t have continued If I hadn’t faced those risks of changing course. for me Art school wasn’t about learning line quality or tonal value, but more the entire experience of living in a city, immersed in the arts, and working with professional artist. It was all vital.

jm: you’re one of the few artists I know who has managed to stubbornly fend off any prolonged “day job” to subsidize your work. I know it’s been hard.

mc: it can be a strain but I’m learning the gymnastics to that aspect of things. too much focus on that age old reality can really fuck things up though. I’m doing my best to bridge the gap.

jm: do you feel like it strengthens you’re resolve, knowing it’s not the easy road? do you buy into the idea that struggle somehow makes for better, “purer” work?

mc: well I will say this much, It’s quite gratifying to conceive and execute an idea while under fire. cutting through those obstacles simply allows you to focus on what you do best.

jm: has it influenced the way you look at other peoples work?

mc: in some cases yes. often I can see when someone’s work was painless. It’s evident in the final product and it usually continues that way for the artist.

jm: early in your career you worked closely with the painter frank moore. I know you created the frames for a group of his works. it always struck me as a sort of unspoken apprenticeship; a glimpse into strata of the art world that still lay ahead. was it an important experience for you?

mc: very much so. during my last year at SVA, i became Frank Moores frame maker and assistant. It was an exciting time. we were working on some amazing projects. I did a total of about 25 frames, some at his studio upstate or on crosby st, and some of them at my studio on 28th street. although they were Frank’s frames he would give me a lot of creative jurisdiction on them. he was wonderful that way. Frank called them collaborations. he loved my ability to carve and he certainly utilized that. I recall one project where I constructed five gold-leafed adirondack style frames with at least a dozen and half beautifully carved insects, dragon flies, praying mantises, millipedes… all gold leafed. They were commissioned by the late gianni vercece, we had a blast.

jm: I’ve noticed that his work often dealt with twisting the natural world much as yours does, though in different media and in different ways. with your upbringing, and having grown out of an art form with as literal and utilitarian a take on nature as decoy carving, did working with frank help open up your thought process?

mc: Of course. the work I create is about my experience and influences, good, bad, etc. relative to previously asked questions all of this was new territory for me and working with Frank, in the simplest of terms, was so different than what I had done throughout my journey… unarguably it influenced my own process. I have a lot of gratitude for having had that experience.

jm: your work thus far can be seen as a sort of running commentary on nature and man’s place in it. contrary to what artists like to project, I know from experience, that often times the impetus for a series of artworks comes from an unknown place, and only later are the dots connected. did you explicitly set out to tackle man and nature or did you just do what came naturally, and realize the significance of the works as they appeared?

mc: perhaps it’s safest to say, for me, the work came “naturally” after attempts in many mediums. the work seems to be an extension of who I am, so my subjects are based on familiar territory as well as the unknown, both in medium and concept. that’s who we all are, one part familiar, one part unknowable. what feels natural to me is taking both of those aspects and watching them collide. that’s what feels natural to me…

<

jm:  though nature has remained the dominant theme in your work it seems to me that as time has gone on your method of exploration had evolved considerably. initially the “twist” on nature was a perversion of form. long, forlorn necks emphasizing the limp lifelessness of each bird. then came the perversion of context. a heart on a dainty, crisply folded piece of cloth. heads and wings on soft pillows to emphasize the root cause of these deaths, namely trophyism. since then you have started exploring the nature of that trophyism itself, the fetishistic aspects, the sexuality, and most recently with “apparel” you have abandoned the animal all together, in favor of the hunter. in a sense it seems as if your voice has gotten louder and louder with each piece. does that feel accurate and where might this progression be leading?

mc: yeah the work does explore some of man’s fears and perversities. why not? at an extremely young age it was apparent to me that we live in a beautiful but twisted world. what’s the attraction to fear? I’m not to sure. I try to put my finger on it often… It’s about security or the lack there of. the more I continue to peel it back the more evident it is to me. that’s what fuels my work, human nature.

jm: i seem to remember that when your piece ages three and up was first exhibited it had two heads! what happened? haha.

mc: this was a piece in a group show called Canalogy. the show was put together by a group of young artists in an attempt to stimulate environmental awareness about the guwaness canal, (which by the way is noted to be the most highly polluted canal in north america.) My piece was a large carved swan which survived post apocalyptic life. It originally had two mutated heads. it floated in the canal. the viewer would put a quarter in a slot and soot ten rounds at the bird, you know, carnival-esque. it was a play on man’s continuous consumption and natures adaptation. at the show, as time went on, some three thousand rounds were fired into this poor swan decoy. eventually I ran out of ammo so the crowd started to get rambunctious, and this primal out-break was building, the onlooker’s started throwing stones. it started out with tiny little pebbles… then larger ones… a bit bigger… then bean sized… It was kind of funny…. but then some overzealous participant (who I later found out to be under the influence of L.S.D.) threw a brick sized piece of concrete at the swan snapping its poor little head right off! talk about adaptation. the piece had evolved into something else right in front of my own two eyes. I often wonder what that little prick is up to today?

jm: he’s probably in art jail getting violated by pointillists… talk a little about your most recent piece, apparel. it seems like a jump into new territory in some ways.

mc: up until apparel the work was about the objects, the trophies, etc. apparel happened to be the piece which is about the person, the hunter, the man behind the object. it’s a jacket for the guy who’s a general in his own mind so to speak. It was a lot of fun coming at it from that perspective. I’m not through with that aspect of things.

jm: those patches! wow. where’d you get those things anyway?

mc: (no comment)

jm: I can imagine the decoy carving community which nurtured you starting out as very proud but becoming more and more flustered with each more explicit piece. what was the reaction to trophy or the leda and the swan back patch on apparel, or your untitled double headed dildo piece? what did your father think?

mc: my father was the person who originally encouraged me to go to N.Y.C. and pursue a career in the arts. he figured I had as much of a chance making it as an artist as I did as a bayman. that required open mindedness on his part. he is a great influence on my work today. he is a true gentleman. he’s worked very hard. he understands what I do today and excepts it. my fine art is purely mine, worrying myself in regards to what someone else may think, letting that govern what I want to say… it’s totally damaging to the work. i’ve been at this for some time and allowing fear to dictate what I create destroys me. for me carving is a spiritual connection. i love to create, and It’s seems love and fear cannot occupy the space. It’s taken me a while to say this but, today, I carve first for god, second for me, and the rest can go fuck themselves!

 

jm: hey! god doesn’t like swearing, alright? so what do you think about explicit artwork in general? for instance andrea fraser’s piece this summer where she fucked a collector on tape for 20 grand. at what point does sex in art become a beer commercial gimmick?

mc: explicit work? Well, I avoid… I don’t enjoy being spoon fed let’s say. most pornographic work is bit of a yawner. gender bending work’s not my bag. how lasting is it? is it important? you know when work moves you and when it doesn’t. next.

jm: we’ve talked a lot in the past about the element of craft in art. the sense of accomplishment and reward a viewer can take away from a beautiful painting or sculpture. that feeling of “wow, how did they do that?” it’s obviously a factor with carving. is craft loosing it’s ground in favor of bare concept as a criteria for “great art?”

mc: in the beginning, for me, it seemed craft was everything, a must. today I find myself defining craft as i go. I wouldn’t say its being lost to bare concept. I find charged work, the work which carries real electricity, to be the work in which both elements support one another equally.

jm: as i’ve stated here many times i get tired of reading about art: artist statements, explanations, concepts, criticism, etc. when you read all that then look at a totally underwhelming piece… it’s a crutch. i for one just want to be moved by the work without any accompanying required reading. how do you feel about it?

mc: i agree to an extent. i enjoy work which supports itself. i do often find myself following up on an artist who grabs me though. I enjoy process, learning how that artist evolved, how he or she was influenced, what makes their work important to themselves or to the art world in general. that sometimes requires research.

jm: how do you feel about guys like jeff koons and damien hirst whose art at this point is largely manufactured? do you have any thoughts on the artist as art director? is it a racket or just the natural progression once you’ve gained the resources?

mc: well I recall jeff koons saying something that today really strikes me. he mentioned that if he were to do his work totally on his own that he would only be able to finish one piece a year. why would he want to do that? i agree. if i had my choice i would have four assistants. remember you are talking to someone who was an assistant. i believe in it. my work is laborious, parts of my process could be executed with guide hands. also these two cats are both serious “showmen” their shows are like huge productions. and lets not forget they are both also serious businessmen. i don’t like everything hirst does but I did like is last show.

jm: i’m gonna throw out some names, any thoughts? ron muek. richard serra. robert smithson. duchamp. mathew barney. joseph cornell. jake and dinos chapman. tom friedman. roxy paine…

mc: serra’s torqued ellipses blew me over I wanted to live in them. the chapman’s installations are borderline for me, perhaps shtick, perhaps not.

jm: now that i think of it, you hardly ever mention sculptors when we talk art! do you even like sculpture?

mc: your being a dick… you know that I enjoy sculpture. i have a broad mix of what works for me. now, to me, duchamp is one who hats should be off to. I have always had love for joseph cornell as well. barneys films and props I enjoy, etc…

jm: o.k. how about these names? any thoughts? cy twombly. walton ford. john currin. bill violla. lucien freud. matthew ritchie. neo rauch. inka essenhigh. fred tomaselli.

mc: violla changed the way I saw things. i left his retrospective feeling as if I had taken drugs. It was extremely exciting, the show was charged, and i happened to be strait.

jm: is there anyone whose work you’re really into right now?

mc: I get a kick out of tim hawkensens, toland grinnel, and jamie morrison.

jm: yup, geniuses, all three. anyone you want to pick a fight with or call out as a hack? haha, now’s your chance!

mc: no, that’s not my bag… oh, actually walter and poloma munoz and kevin o’callihan kiss my ass!

jm: seeing as how you’ve exhibited with a bunch of the people I’ve named in previous questions I think it’s safe to say you are “part of the art world.” what are your general feelings about it’s inner workings? do you ever feel like a hustler? do you feel like having to sell yourself detracts from the experience on the whole? most importantly who did you have to fuck?

mc: hey, If you can’t handle the heat get outta the kitchen.

jm: kitchen huh? pretty kinky. do you ever catch yourself tailoring work to your audience? asking is this sellable? etc. 

mc: nah, we’ve talked about this before, It doesn’t work.

jm: how have your brushes with criticism been?

mc: i don’t know. my job is not worrying about that. they have their job and I have mine, which is making work that continues to haunt me. I can’t care what the critics think. the idea for me and my work is to liberate my thoughts not to lock them up.

jm: so you have a one man show in the works for summer 2005. what’s the concept?

mc: come see yourself: the trophy room the parrish museum, april to may, southampton new york.

jm: any new work to be added or is it more of a “career so far” kind of thing?

mc: It’s a bit of both. I’m really looking forward to this Installation.

jm: seeing as how this is the nonist and all, I ought to ask something about your personal philosophy… do you have one or are you a strict “seat of your pants” type?

mc: i’d have to say i’m a nonist myself. i truly don’t have any thoughts of note, haha. I will say my son has given me serious direction, he has shown me to put one foot in front of the other.

jm: are you religious?

mc: no.

jm: do you think there is such a thing as “truth” or is reality just totally subjective?

mc: my pop always has a way of saying things, one profound thing I recall him saying was “mike, It all means shit in the end”... we will leave it at that.

jm: what in your opinion might a nonist be?

mc: a nonist, in my opinion… well what qualifies me to be one is the fact that what i believe is based on what I hear and learn. I have no proof! i take no stand- If there is a god how the fuck am I to know who it is? I like the concept of the nonist because its a disclaimer of sorts admitting “i don’t have any correct answers.” i don’t know… live and let live?

jm: anything you’d like to say to our readership out there that I haven’t covered?

mc: not really… spread the wealth?

jm: alright one last question, your a father now, are you planning to make it 6 generations of wood carvers? or are you gonna let the poor kid make some money! be a dentist or a plastic surgeon or something?

mc: i’m not planning anything like that for him. I never had to go through any of that shit myself. Isn’t the Idea just to provide a life better than mine? I have no real complaints with mine, i’m sure he will figure his out, with any luck he’s gonna tell me what to do!

jm: thanks for talking with us mike, best of luck on the next show.

for more info on the history of decoy carving in mike’s family check out the combs decoy museum online, soon to have a brick and mortar counterpart. for more about mike’s work and his path thus far check out his personal page as well. further information can be found at the hamptons.com, the parrish art museum, and through the james cohan gallery.