At first glance, the statement that Jonathan Lasker's (bn. 1948) abstract paintings seem to be making are solely about painting, but look deeper and they also appear to be a conversation about our world.

In the '80s these paintings made an argument for abstraction that engaged with figure-ground perceptions -- formerly the terrain of figuration and narrative -- against the simpler Abstract Expressionist field or a Brice Mardenesque minimalism.

Also this art established another understanding of "subject matter" or "narrative". However they also appeal to notions of power and hierarchy, abstracted statements about our being-in-the-world. Within these structured philosophical arguments, intellectualised sensual paint contest space with graphic scribbles that bring to mind the hustle of urban noise.

Lasker's intent to make narrative without narrative, that reified moment, seem to be a shout to younger abstractionists about another way to speak painting, yet they also radiate a new way to understand of painting's materiality.

The interview was conducted by fax between London and New York.

KF: Since the '80s your work has introduced a different attitude to abstraction. Like Thomas Nozkowski at the time, there seems to be a move against the grain of a "pure" abstraction or an ontological questioning of Modernity (Levine). Instead there is a different type of "content" in the paintings, (found as a "readable" figure-ground quality). Did you feel this then? How did this come about? Deliberately invent or think it up?

Jonathan Lasker: I would say that the content of my work actually originated in the late '70s. You're right when you point out that certain received ideas about the "ontology" of abstraction seemed insufficient to me then.

Perhaps more precisely, abstract painting which was about nothing than its own ontology (per se "Minimalism") seemed insufficient. My idea was to combine the ontology of painting (its surface and physical presence) with the topic of the ontology of forms and things in space (figure/ground relationships).

I was seeking to make "abstract pictures" which could be broken down into their constituent physical elements. I wished the forms in my paintings to be experienced as "things of paint" on top of another "thing of paint" (the ground).

KF: Why was it important for the "abstract" pictures to be "abstract" then? Are the same things still at stake today, 25 years on?

JL: In the late '70s, I experimented with recognizable forms. However, I soon determined that I wanted to avoid forming narratives in my work and as soon as one has a recognizable figure or object, a picture or narrative begins to form.

By using abstract "figures" I was able to form rudimentary pictures that remained temporally static. Although all pictures are "temporally static" suppositions about recognizable forms bring you to question the action in a picture, which would indicate a time duration and narrative.

My goal was to bring the viewer to the threshold of narrativity without crossing over, to bring the viewer to the state of pure pictoriality. Therefore I decided to use unrecognizable abstract forms as surrogate figures. This would convey the pure condition of being a thing in space.

I am interested in this state of being, as an object of contemplation as well as a means of questioning how and why we occupy the space of the world. In an age of failed narratives, this kind of "time-out" has become necessary. And abstraction is particularly suited to providing it.

Abstraction brings us back to a pre-historic state before our presumed comprehension of the universe. This is actually where humanity and its culture is presently, despite all assumptions to the contrary.

KF: Your titles also hint at this "content". How closely do you plan your work according to their names?

JL: The titles of my paintings are decided on after the paintings are complete. The titles are intended to loosely parallel the spirit of my paintings. My titles are intentionally contradictory (at times, oxymoronic) as are my paintings.

KF: There is a sense that your work has been the same, or I should say, "appeared whole". Yet in looking at the older catalogues there has been a lot of change. The activity seemed to have progressed steadily, do you -- in the back of your mind -- envisage doing something else? Or expanding into a different terrain?

JL: I have no immediate plans to change the course of my work, although I would never rule out such a change. Basically, my paintings have had an ongoing discourse through the utilization of three basic, found elements: figure, ground and line. The changes which occur are based on which new visual "topics" can be expressed through these elements.

KF: How do you come across a new "topic"? Say for example in "Drawing Blanks", if there is a new topic there?

JL: Drawing Blanks, as most of the paintings in my current exhibition at the Timothy Taylor Gallery, is what I would call a "Coloured Scribble" picture. The ground of the picture is covered with coloured doodles or scribbles which are, at first, drawn by me very quickly (albeit automatically/subconsciously) with a porcelain marker and afterward very precisely over-painted in oil paint with a #2 sable brush, which gives a very clean almost mechanical line.

The effect is a high contrast between the very intuitive flow of my line and its very precise execution. That, for me, is a topic that is peculiar to this particular series of works.

KF: Do you consider your work a kind of mapping, and if so of how?

JL: I do not regard my work as "mapping" as I do not regard my paintings to be completely flat.

KF: You have exhibited your paintings in different countries. Do you consider how they'll be received? Or adjust your groupings or paintings accordingly?

JL: Not really. I just do what I do, no matter where the exhibition is.