Interview dialog by Jeffrey Carr

Philip Geiger is a  revered and extremely completed painter recognized for his home interiors, landscapes, and determine work.  Receiving his undergraduate schooling at Washington College in St. Louis and his M.F.A. from Yale College Faculty of Artwork, he started recurrently displaying in New York early in his profession and has proven extensively in quite a few group and solo exhibits. 

He’s represented by the Reynolds Gallery, Richmond, Virginia, Hidell Brooks Gallery in Charlotte, NC and has beforehand present work on the   Tibor de Nagy Gallery in NYC, NC. with a solo exhibition there in 2007. His work are represented in a number of distinguished public collections and have been reviewed by the New York Occasions, Artwork in America, ARTnews, and The New Criterion.  He taught for over thirty years on the College of Virginia at Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier than retiring to his present house and studio in Staunton, Virginia.  We met lately through a Zoom session to debate his portray apply.

Jeffrey Carr:  Phil, I simply completed listening to a YouTube interview with you from 2012. You mentioned the way you revise your photographs closely whereas engaged on them, and the way you’d sand or scrape down your work earlier than repainting.  Do you add figures and different parts into the image?  Do you do that from life? Or are you doing it from invention?

Philip Geiger:  Effectively, each. I’ve change into slower. I can work on work nearly indefinitely by sanding them, by rethinking the composition.  It’s not an environment friendly course of in any respect, however I all the time have dissatisfaction with the picture and wish to work on it again within the studio for lengthy intervals of time.  Then I would return to direct observational at a later date, making an attempt to get one thing again.

Philip Geiger; Black Mountain Story, 2018

JC:  So, are the figures in these work largely invented?  Do you utilize photographic references?

PG:  Not a lot photographic reference. The method may change portray by portray and determine by determine. Some elements could be invented and a few could be achieved immediately from commentary. I work from fashions a number of instances every week.  I schedule a mannequin and work immediately into the portray with the mannequin. It all the time conjures up me to work with a portray that I’ve already received going.

Philip Geiger; September 24, 2010, 22 by 18in.

JC:  So, you’re taking a portray that you already have going, and you will have sanded it down or scraped it.  Do you then simply sit someone down in a chair after which paint them into the image? Isn’t the house utterly totally different?  How can you combine the brand new scenario into the prevailing portray? 

PG:  I attempt to try this. I actually just like the accidents. I’ll oftentimes rethink the composition. The determine might be in some new place, or the size might be new.  One thing like that. However that struggle, that accident, of placing a determine into an current portray that wasn’t deliberate within the first place, and which will even be within the flawed place, is basically motivating.  It will probably counsel one thing new that might occur within the portray, a brand new discovery. It’s definitely inefficient to maintain working and looking out like this. However I see the portray as a search. I’ve by no means thought that I might plan a portray prematurely. I feel I might be bored if I deliberate out a drawing and knew the place issues have been going to go after which went at portray it. And in any case, this may be nearly inconceivable when you work from direct commentary as a result of issues are altering and the sunshine adjustments.

Philip Geiger; East Sunbathing, 2022 24 by 18in

Philip Geiger; The Perfectionist, 2018, 27 by 24in.

JC: You’re telling me that you simply don’t work strictly from commentary.  It’s possible you’ll incorporate plenty of commentary however you’re working very synthetically. By artificial, I imply that the method could contain quite a few methods of developing the picture that’s built-in into the ultimate portray.   The house in your work appears nearly completely artificial, relatively than strictly naturalistic. However most of the particulars appear achieved from direct commentary.

PG: They’re precise locations, however I elaborate on them.  I like elaborating partitions within the studio, corners, moldings, structure, and flooring. Within the studio, I form of really feel my means throughout the house to search out some drama within the house, some which means.  That search could be very gradual.

Philip Geiger; Frederick Road, 2018, 22 by 18in

JC:  Do you imply that you simply discover the drama and the thrill within the house itself relatively than within the figures or conditions being depicted?  I bear in mind seeing one among your work the place you closely reworked the picture with a purpose to create a sure impact of sunshine throughout the partitions.

PG:  The danish painter Wilhelm Hammershoi had this sense for partitions, French doorways and the shadows forged by framed work or tables. He cherished these issues and I’m certain he labored them slowly. I don’t know if he labored them away from commentary or not. However he appears to have elaborated on them. The richness appears necessary to him, the play of sunshine throughout these surfaces.

Vilhelm Hammershoi, Dwelling Room with Piano and Girl Wearing Black, 1901

JC:  To me, it appears that evidently in your work, as in Hammershoi, the depiction of house comprises and defines the figures relatively than simply being a backdrop or a setting for the figures. This jogs my memory of the early Vermeer portray of the Girl studying a Letter. It was restored lately, and the wall behind the girl was eliminated to disclose a portray behind the determine. To me, this adjustments completely the house and so the which means of the portray. What was your response to this restoration?

PG: I prefer it much less.

Johannes Vermeer, Woman Studying a Letter at an Open Window c. 1657–1659, Oil on canvas, 33 in × 25.4 in, Gemäldegalerie, Dresden

JC: So did I. Earlier than the restoration, the wall behind the girl was densely painted and was very lovely.  It makes me consider your very painterly contact. Your work will not be painted with plenty of element; the element is evoked relatively than described. You don’t simply copy; you evoke the shape.

PG:   That’s an amazing praise. Vermeer has all the time been a touchstone for me in my work. He finds a common high quality in what was proper in entrance of him, in that room in his home that he labored with over and over. The identical desk and the identical ermine coat and possibly the identical mannequin.  However he was capable of finding a density and emotion in these peculiar issues.  However his work shouldn’t be figure-centric. I consider him as trying previous the determine and zeroing in on the house between the chair and the wall, or a nook of a room the place a basket is hung, or there’s even a nail on the wall.  These occasions appear to draw him.  The figures strike me as nearly clean. I like them; they’re completely attractive.  However you nearly can’t know them. And in reality, there’s plenty of debate about who was the mannequin in his work; was it his spouse or this or that individual?  Identities have been faraway from them, and the entire place is the drama.

Johannes Vermeer

Johannes Vermeer

JC: Vermeer did plenty of shocking and surprising issues with scale and dimension relationships. In a single early portray, there’s a lady sitting at a desk, a determine dressed as a form of a Cavalier with a  big hat and along with his elbow sitting out.  The angle is skewed in order that he feels huge whereas she feels little. You appear to do related issues with scale and dimension relationships in your work.

PG:   I’ve by no means considered that as an issue in Vermeer’s work. They only appear completely excellent to me; every of them is completely felt. In that one referred to as The Laughing Woman, each little bit of it appears so proper and so felt that I don’t assume an excessive amount of concerning the house or the drawing in them. He did prefer to layer a darkish foreground in opposition to a lighter passage or a silhouette form.

Philip Geiger; Three, 2010, 24 by 29in.

JC: I feel that that is true of your work as nicely.  Expressiveness is created by the size, the house, and even simply the way in which a wall is labored. You create drama with folks strolling right into a room or strolling in the direction of us with one other distant determine silhouetted in opposition to a window or over within the nook.  You actually really feel the drama within the house. One other artist who does that is Edward Hopper.  Hopper’s portray evokes some indefinable which means that you simply wish to assume comes from a determine or another aspect within the portray, nevertheless it’s about one thing else.  It’s about the way in which he places collectively the house.

12-Philip Geiger; Percy, 2018, 24 by 28in

Philip Geiger; Peru, 2007, 28 by 34in.

PG: Yeah, it’s about him. I feel each Hopper and Vermeer have a sense for shapes that’s distinctive.  I’ve tried to try this.  To really feel the proportions of the divisions contained in the portray as having which means. I typically consider Vermeer as being the best form maker. Simply the quantity of a map in opposition to a white wall simply appears so proper.  The intervals really feel deeply significant; it’s the measures in between intervals within the portray that makes shapes.

JC: I’m desirous about Mondrian, who like Vermeer had this unimaginable sense of interval, the place every little thing feels excellent. However Mondrian made his work about simply these measurements and took out every little thing else.

PG: That’s by no means as attention-grabbing to me because the shapes in Vermeer. I’m wondering what Vermeer would have stated about this. Would he have understood our language of abstraction and of making an attempt to see shapes independently? Was all of it intuitive on his half? I want we might ask him. However you might be proper; they tried to separate that out within the twentieth century.  The form intervals in Mondrian don’t do a lot for me.

Philip Geiger; Theresa 9 A.M., 2007, 36 by 40in

Philip Geiger; Anna Asleep, 2002, 34 by 28in

JC:   I don’t assume portray received any higher by making an attempt to be reductivist. For instance, there’s Saenredam, the dutch artist who did very extreme white Church Interiors. Like Mondrian, he had a severely abstracted visible sense. However the intervals and shapes of his church interiors additionally create emotional responses and even concepts about divine gentle or cause or probity.  In contrast, artists like Mondrian aspire to be purely summary. However that’s clearly not what you might be doing.  Are you interested by creating temper or emotion by way of using house and the interactions of form?   

Pieter Saenredam (1597 – 1665), The Inside of the Grote Kerk at Haarlem (1636-7), Oil on oak, 59.5 × 81.7 cm, Nationwide Gallery, UK

PG: I don’t know what I might say about temper as a result of I couldn’t determine what it’s.  However I’ve emotional reactions to what I might name rightness in a portray. That’s why I battle with it for thus lengthy as a result of it isn’t all the time there.  I feel that the communication of an inside life that comes by way of a portray is why we’re focused on them.  It’s one thing I battle with, and I feel it ends in a temper. I’m clearly interested in very muted colours. In my thoughts, muted tones are extra suggestive of sunshine than good, native coloration.  And that, in addition to an emphasis on worth in my work, may create a temper that’s totally different from different kinds of portray.

Philip Geiger; September 24, 2010, 22 by 18in.

Philip Geiger; Translation, 2018, 20 by 24in

Philip Geiger; Dialog, 2016, 24 by 29in.

JC:   There’s an previous concept that coloration creates moods: good coloration creates robust feelings and muted, quiet colours create quiet feelings. That could be true, or it won’t.  Such as you, I’m not even certain what “temper” means.  The early work of Degas makes use of low saturation coloration.  He retains the vividness and the depth down.  Maybe due to his use of low-saturation colours, his moods are nearly indescribable. The colour-moods of Degas remind me of your work.

PG: There’s a sort of shimmering magnificence in his work that I might describe as being figure-first. His determine drawing is so good that the presence of the determine is all the time the purpose of the portray. What he does round them is one thing to enhance the determine and the motion of the determine. It’s an amazing problem for me as a result of I don’t draw the determine that nicely; no one does. I like his work.

Edgar Degas

Philip Geiger; Winter, 2018, 24 by 24in.

Phil Geiger; The Traveler, 2007

JC: Your footage are sometimes enveloped with a lightweight I’ve seen in interiors achieved by different American artists like Thomas Dewing.  There’s a heat, enveloping glow to those work wherein all people exists in a liquid, enveloping honey-colored glow. Do you’re feeling any connection to the various American artists who paint quiet, tonalist interiors, artists like Tarbell or Decamp?

Edmund Charles Tarbell (1862-1938), Inside with Mom and Youngster oil on canvas, 25 x 30 in. The Huntington Library, Artwork Museum, and Botanical Gardens

Philip Geiger; Morning, 2018, 24 by 26in.

Philip Geiger; January, 2018, 24 by 24 in.

PG: Effectively, it does appear like that. I see the similarity however I don’t take a look at these artists very a lot and I’m really not very accustomed to them. Somebody from that point interval that I definitely do take a look at is Vilhelm Hammershoi. I really feel extra related to that portray.  All these Boston painters like Bensen or Tarbell by no means challenged me sufficient, I suppose. They don’t seem to be as difficult as a Degas.  Degas could also be doing very various things, nevertheless it’s an actual problem to me. I’ve all the time received a Degas ebook there within the studio.  I’ve received the Hammershoi ebook there, and the Vuillard ebook.  These are the books I would take a look at each morning.  I do see the similarities with these different painters; there could be a Merrit Chase who would do an attractive ground or an attractive couch.  However I’ve by no means checked out them a lot. 

JC: You might be mentioning some basic European painters like Hammershoi and Vuillard.  However to me, there’s something quintessentially American in your portray, and I’m making an attempt to really feel the place you might be on this spectrum.  I sense a relationship with artists in our custom, like Edwin Dickinson, for instance. How do you join with somebody like that? And we talked about Hopper.

PG:   Effectively, Hopper for certain. I’ve made an enormous examine of Hopper and I’ve spent plenty of time portray outdoors. I’ve checked out all of his works very intently and I reply to Hopper so much. I like Edwin Dickinson, however I don’t fairly know what to make of it. I feel there’s an amazing thriller in his work and a few actual originality in what he did. The acute tonalness and greyness of the work are enticing to me. It appears nearly romantic; his meditations on funereal topics and demise.

I discover him fascinating, however I haven’t discovered a strategy to make so much out of that. All people seems to be at his self-portraits and desires to do some self-portraits. I’ve achieved that, possibly impressed by him.

Philip Geiger; The Opening, 1990, 30 by 36in.

Philip Geiger; Totally different Shirt, 2006, 24 by 18in.

Philip Geiger

JC: We’ve been speaking about historic painters.  However you and I got here of age in a vastly totally different creative universe than the one which exists now.  What are some painters of the seventies and eighties that you simply really feel an actual kinship with?

PG: My academics William Bailey and Lennart Anderson stay fashions for me. I love what they did of their work.  Each of them pursued their imaginative and prescient whether or not the artworld paid any consideration to them or not.  They pursued their imaginative and prescient fearlessly their complete lives.  There was a current exhibition of Lennart Anderson, and he’s getting some consideration. I like his work, and each of their examples are necessary to me.  There’s a portray that was the centerpiece of the current Anderson exhibition that’s owned by the College of Virginia. It’s referred to as St. Mark’s Place. It’s an early New York avenue portray with three essential figures.  One determine is leaning from a pole; he painted that by himself in a mirror.  One other determine is a person with a canine, and there’s a girl trying again. I appeared so much at that portray after they would grasp it within the Eighties, and it had a huge impact on me. The placing collectively of those three figures implied dense psychology.  They appear to pay attention to one another,  despite the fact that they weren’t interacting or doing something collectively.  The College of Virginia additionally owns the William Bailey portray referred to as Portrait of S, which relies on a Balthus. Each of those work have been necessary to me, and that was a second in time that was necessary.  Bailey would say to his college students, “Don’t be afraid to be influenced by different painters”.  He clearly felt that painters like Balthus or Courbet was completely reliable for artists to do, and to make a variation on one thing like Courbet’s Girls within the Grass.  I’ve all the time appreciated this instance; it appears to free me.

Lennart Anderson, St. Mark’s Place, 1969-1976, Oil on canvas, 93 13/16 x 74 1/8 in.© Property of Lennart Anderson Courtesy of the Fralin Museum of Artwork.

.

William Bailey, Portrait of S, 1979-80, Oil on Canvas, 52×42 in. Fralin Museum of Artwork on the College of Virginea, Charlottesville

JC:   Painters typically have their nonetheless life objects throughout the studio, and prepare them into compositions to color.  There are a number of nice Lennart Anderson nonetheless lifes like this. However William Bailey as soon as joked that he had all of his still-life objects in his pocket. I feel he meant that his still-life objects have been extra invented than noticed, and have been extra about purely formal visible relationships than about precise objects. Bailey’s meticulously painted backgrounds even make me consider a Brice Marden. In portray like this, the subject material is commonly only a pretext. Do you consider your self as principally a proper painter, in search of formal options? Or do you see your self in another means?

PG: I don’t wish to be a formalist.  I might be an summary painter if I did. I’m in love with the true world. I feel that it’s an amazing start line for making a portray. I need it in there; the entire wealthy complexity and interpretive potentialities of material. I’ve an affection for folks and I wish to get that into the portray.  The locations we stay in can mirror our inside life and are a part of it. I feel that’s value highlighting and making work about.  The world in entrance of us is a very wealthy topic; our lives, our homes, the city I stay in, my life.  I feel the ideology of modernism has dried out portray. It grew to become reductive by making an attempt to make it simply concerning the parts of portray in a increasingly more pure means.  I feel all this wealthy accidentalness of our lives, and the truth that we psychologize work and see ourselves in work and determine with work and have feelings concerning the figures in work, is all a essential a part of the richness.

Philip Geiger; The White Costume, 1989, 18 by 12in.

Philip Geiger

JC:   A variety of the work I see by youthful artists mirror gender or racial issues or are satirical, ironic, or humorous. I’m informed that youthful artists typically really feel their artwork ought to tackle social or political points. Their topic issues are sometimes very witty and even alarming. However the topic issues of your work appear very quiet and understated. I consider an artist like John Koch who paints equally understated material.  You depict younger ladies sitting quietly at tables, ladies sleeping, figures transferring by way of a room, gentle flowing over a determine from a window, or the occasional suburban panorama. And also you and I each often depict ladies in our footage. That males typically depict ladies has been a supply of controversy.  What is that this about?

PG: Simply to handle that concern, I see my work as celebratory. I do know there’s some critic on the market who received’t see my work that means and will interpret them with some darkish story, however I see them as celebratory. I like who it’s that I’m portray, both males or ladies. Folks in locations is a topic that implies a chance to make a portray. I just like the sort of house of figurative portray the place you don’t know precisely what is going on. These are evocative to me. John Koch’s work will be at instances a bit literal. In Koch’s portray, we all know what is going on. I just like the surprises and accidents in portray, the place we get to make our personal which means; the thought of an image about being in between issues occurring… or when one thing has simply occurred, or goes to occur and it’s not outlined. This open endedness fires my creativeness.

John Koch(1909 – 1978),  My Studio, ca. 1952, oil on canvas, Smithsonian American Artwork Museum

Philip Geiger; Virginia, 2018, 24 by 28in.

Philip Geiger; 4 p.m. 2001, 24” by 18in.

JC:   In your work, you may need somebody at a desk, and there could be some objects on the desk. However it’s not an outline of a desk after breakfast, a dialog, or another very particular occasion. I bear in mind a portray of yours with a deep house in which there’s a silhouetted determine, nevertheless it’s by no means a narrative about someone opening the door and welcoming the friends. You by no means appear to inform little tales in your work. As you stated, they’re very ambiguous. They aren’t folks simply posing, however on the identical time, there isn’t actually a narrative in there that I can discern.

PG: As for myself, I generally see a sort of dialog or correspondence between parts. I wish to have the looks of an actual place. Because of this I don’t paint completely something. I need the setting to be clear – it is a eating room – however the scenario to be much less clear. So I’ll do a chair and an individual or a flower and an individual or a window and an individual, and I’ll put these two issues in a relationship with one another that may be shocking, an imaginative affiliation or non-sequitur. The individual and the junk on the desk; you bounce between one and the opposite. They usually start to have one thing to do with one another or belong to one another ultimately. These are the sorts of issues that curiosity me as I’m setting the portray up. Does the again of that chair relate to the determine, in order that will probably be dramatic sufficient that we transfer from this to that? With out it being a literal narrative, these pairings would appear to me to counsel a sort of which means within the setup that may be shocking. I see that in Vuillard, the place a determine might be positioned someplace you don’t anticipate them to be within the portray. He’ll make us actually ponder an enormous previous chair within the foreground, and he makes us actually examine it. There might be some sample on the ground, and he’ll make so much out of it. The chair or the ground change into as attention-grabbing because the individual. That is very interesting to me. This multiplicity distinguishes a picture from a portrait, it’s now an inside drama.

Philip Geiger, Witch Trials, 2018

JC:   I bear in mind a Vuillard portray with a girl sitting, as you stated, in somewhat nook of the portray. He put somewhat orange piece of sunshine on her nostril and you find yourself that as a lot as you do on the girl.

PG: It’s indirection,  I like indirection and portray the place you see one thing like that.  We have been speaking about Degas, the place he may have some mannequin bathing however you then’ll see this sample that he’s layered within the background that’s completely musically lovely with layers of warms and cools laid upon one another.  You permit the determine to have a look at this sample. It’s a sort of indirection in making the picture.

JC:   With Degas, it’s all the time the surprising scene.  As an alternative of the mannequin dealing with you, you’re looking down at her again from a excessive viewpoint, in order that it’s an unfamiliar view.  Within the nice portray of the Belelli household,  Degas depicts a mom and her little lady staring off into house whereas visually being separated from the determine of a person sitting to the correct.  There’s a division proper between the 2 areas of the image.  Lennart Anderson’s Road portray can be dramatic, possibly his solely instance of doing this.  The portray has that wagon tipping over with folks operating, and the lady popping out of the door along with her mouth open.  Have you ever ever painted one thing that was intentionally dramatic or making an announcement in that means?

Edgar Degas, The Bellelli Household, (1858 – 1869), oil on canvas, 78 x 9in., Musée d’Orsay

PG: Effectively I consider the sunshine as being dramatic, and I’ve painted some very darkish work wherein persons are undoubtedly in shadow. Lennart Anderson painted a person in midair leaping out of a constructing in what I suppose was a suicide. I can’t think about doing that. I’ve by no means achieved something like that, beginning with one thing as literal as that. However I like the thought of divided work, just like the Degas portray of the Bellelli household.  Work that divide themselves into elements with folks doing various things in numerous elements of the portray.  That implies a drama which may be much less dramatic than a divorce however suggests an consideration or consciousness throughout the house.  I like the thought of dividing a portray in half and having two sides.

JC:   You could have a portray of a man developing out of a stairwell in the direction of us on the correct aspect of the portray, and proper throughout on the opposite aspect of the portray is a deep house with folks persevering with to a distant window. That is creating drama with house and light-weight and pictorial group, and never with dramatic material.  That is like what Degas does. In contrast, there are many modern artists who’re doing great work with very dramatic topic issues; wildly creative work, sexual satire, and social commentary.  Seemingly every little thing besides easy depictions of their rapid setting.  What do you consider all that?

PG: Effectively, it’s simply not me, you already know?  I like the concept that artwork doesn’t should be all the identical. All of us don’t should do the identical factor.  The examples we’ve been speaking about are what I’m most focused on. I’ve nice respect for these different artists nevertheless it’s simply not my temperament.  I can’t think about doing one thing like that.  I consider the themes in my work as being a lot quieter; not operatic or extraordinarily dramatic. I like Hammershoi or Morandi.  One thing as quiet as that: simply the relationships of this object to that object appears very significant to me. I’ve by no means considered portray as being an amazing automobile for social commentary.  Some folks can do wildly expressive work with closely loaded topic issues.  However I feel this could additionally get you drawn away from what is basically most expressive in portray.

JC: How necessary is content material for us painters? There’s a present up now of Philip Guston, an artist who addressed socially related and controversial topic issues.  Do now we have any sort of duty to make socially-conscious work?  Are work made for an viewers, or is it simply Artwork for Artwork’s sake? 

PG:   I don’t fairly agree with the dichotomy that you simply’re organising right here as a result of I’m very sympathetic to work that desires to have an ethical core. I feel portray that pursues magnificence within the quiet sense that we’re speaking about is possibly essentially the most ethical sort of portray. Work that may cope with topical points just like the Guernica, for instance, are simply very totally different.  It’s not my temperament to do the Guernica. However I feel that pursuing authenticity and wonder within the quiet means that we would affiliate with Vuillard, somebody who didn’t go away his condominium a lot, who painted his direct environment, is as morally engaged as Picasso’s Guernica.  I feel Vuillard is trying to find a type of the Good.  He’s making a proposition concerning the type of the Good that finally ends up being extra common than the Guernica.  I feel that there’s multiple strategy to have an ethical core to the exercise that we’re doing.  I don’t like this dichotomy of it being both Artwork for Artwork’s Sake or it being just like the Guernica, addressing struggle and peace and present occasions.  I feel the beauty of the artwork world now could be that you would be able to pursue one or the opposite, in accordance with your temperament.  We don’t all should do the identical factor.  A painter like Ingres, for instance, has dug deep into his concepts of magnificence and inside authenticity as it’s related to magnificence. That’s one of many biggest achievements an artist could make and is without doubt one of the most ethical contributions an artist could make. I feel Ingres did one thing new by extending human consciousness and capability within the pursuit of what he did so efficiently. I wouldn’t wish to examine myself to Ingres.  However I love that as a lot as I love Picasso portray the Guernica.  I feel that in the long term, it might imply extra. 

Philip Geiger; Home, 2016

JC:   You’re equating Magnificence and morality.
PG: Sure!
JC:   And that magnificence itself has an ethical power.
PG:   Sure!
JC:   I’m going to ask you one thing which I feel would provoke plenty of painters.  Is your material about magnificence?
PG:   I’m making an attempt.  I feel I’m making an attempt. I feel that that’s the connection. It’s absurd to match myself to Ingres or Degas or to their nice achievements of magnificence. However that’s what motivates me.  That’s what will get me turned on to make a portray.  We’re related to that. Why else would you undergo all of this when you don’t get to be in proximity to magnificence? It’s not excellent as social commentary.  Hopefully, we give it a brand new seen kind that you would be able to talk with someone else. I feel that’s on the heart. We wouldn’t be going about this backward form of exercise for some other cause.
JC:   That’s an ideal ending Phil. Thanks for sharing your insights and expertise and to your great work.