Questions by Alessandra Asciortino
of the Italian jazz magazine "jazzColo[u]rs"

Since you dedicated an entire website to JazzArt, and you also have
a non monographic one, why did you decide to give so much space
to music art?
    While surfing thru the web and visiting jazz sites I discoverd that "Jazz Art"
is a common feature. And since I wanted to be found by jazz lovers I decided
to help all the search engines by giving them what they look for... So it's mainly marketing. Here in the Munich area I'm known as a portrait painter. You'll find the link to my other art in the LINK-section.

So how is your artistic approach, how do you transform your works?
That is to say, how does your personal fascinated and inquisitive look combine with technology?
    As you can see on this website, I use two different techniques for my
JazzArt - digital and classical painting. I started with my digital works of
JazzArt two years ago.

    Generally, I produce my digital works in two steps: First I take photos at
the concert with a digital SLR-camera. Since the musicians are not that famous
yet, I'm able to get close to them on stage. Second, I "compose" my JazzArt
on the computer by overlaying and combining different pictures (Photoshop).

    Well, and the paintings are either acrylics or oil, depending on the situation.

Your digital art is reserved to jazz concert while your paintings are inspired by music titles. Why do you use two different techniques for these musical expressions?
    The difference originates in the process. While painting I listen only to one song. Over and over. "Tomorrow Today" was on my headphone for mor than
six continous hours. And after a while I hear more than the tune, I detect all
the fine instruments, the rythm, the ryhme. The song turns into a model, a landscape, a still-life... And my brush becomes an instrument, a voice, rythm, magic...

What do you prefer between digital art and paintings?
    I consider the computer or the camera as powerful tools, but still just tools. They have values and possibilities. So I can not say what I prefer.  I choose
the medium which conveys my idea the best. A line of a pencil drawing can
be as thrilling as a mural. I love to draw but the way I feel when lsitening to
Jazz it needs al the colors I can get. And to catch life music in real time the camera does it best.

Do you ever work together with the musicians – fine art and music
in "real time"?
    When I started to do my first paintings in connection with jazz, I set up
my aisle and painted while the band was playing. But the concentration was
split up between listening to the music and the technical aspects of painting.
And I felt that I had to interpret the music in my art, not the performer.

    Now with my camera I just concentrate on the music. I just shoot, shoot,
shoot while concentrating on the sound, the light and the performance.
I react and respond to the music. So at the concert I work  by all means in
real time together with the musicians. Their performance and my impressions
are two separeted things, though. Besides I wouldn't want to interfere the musicians with my work. So the "real time work" with the musicians is the shooting with the camera while the composing on the computer is the "real
time work" with my emotions. The results are images of what I envisioned,
what I heard and felt.

Improvisation is a very important jazz feature. How do you think
it could be expressed trough an image fixed in a photo?
    I never felt the urge to catch improvisation since it is only a formal aspect
and consists like any other jazz music of notes, rythm, sound and performance. So for the outcome of my visual and emotional perception, it doesn't make a difference if it is improvised or written jazz.

Have you ever thought of combining your digital art with paintings?
    Yes, I tried to paint the digital results. But then I had a 3rd level (photo, computer, painting) and the brain got to much power over the emotions.

So, when and why did you start to approach to music?
    In general, I was  into music all my life. Jazz jumped into my life at a
concert of Al Jarreau back in 1977 (I've been to nine Al Jarreau concerts, so
far) And since then, I was infected. Besides jazz, I like rock of the seventies,
soul, blues, ska, classic..

    For me jazz is pure emotions. It raises my spirit, touches my mood, gives
me balance and energy. And as a visual artist I want to make this power
visible. I don't have the ability to see music in certain colors, but I turn my feelingsl into colors and movement. As I mentioned before,  I'm not particulary interested in the musician as an individual in my art. It's just the music, the sound, the instrument. That's why I don't need the famous names. (Although
I would love to shoot Al Jarreau, for example... or the chance to get on stage at one of the international jazz festivals)

Which kind of jazz do you suggest the most?
    I'm especially into the instrumental jazz. From the classics like Glen Miller, Dave Brubeck, Charly Mingus, Count Basie on to Miles Davis, Chet Baker or
Pat Metheny. But also Passport, The Crusaders, Stanley Clarke and Wheather Report. And Joe Sample. Or Wynton Marsalis. Charlie Watts, Klaus Kreuzeder...
Then again, I like just the life performance of regional bands. They play with
such an enthusiasm, maybe not always perfect but with passion. And once in a while, I find a real diamond: "Turbolenz" (www. turbolenz.com) for example.