Interview with Visualize
  Interview with Visualize by Tobias

First  of  all,  who are you and where
are you from?

My  real  name  is  Timo  Harju,  also
better known as Visualize, and nowdays
I  am  in  groups  like Pulse, Jamm R.
and  Radio.   And  I'm  from  Kouvola,
Finland.
 
Why, how and when did you get involved
with the demo scene?

I  got involved with scene actually by
coincidence.   I  had  just  gotten  a
Amiga  500,  and  I met this one coder
who   lives   also   in  my  hometown,
Kouvola.   He asked from me that did I
know  any  graphician  who  could draw
well?   I  told  him that I could draw
some.   At  that time I was working on
Deluxe   Paint   on   Amiga,  and  the
graphics I drew were just plain awful.
And this was in early 1991, I believe.
I  had  no  experience about pixeling,
but  in  some  strange way I liked it.
So   I  just  kept  on  practicing  my
skills.
 
What  type  of graphics do you like to
work  with most?  Please describe your
style and technique.

What  type  of graphics I like to work
with  most?   I  like to draw humans a
lot.   Especially  ladies,  because  I
have   a   serious   homophobia.   But
seriously,  I  think  that  people add
life  to  your  drawings,  the kind of
life  that  other  things  won't.   My
technique    is    mostly   based   on
influences.   Some  of  my 'idols' and
influences  to  mention:  Dave McKean,
Bill  Sienkiewicz,  Simon  Bisley  and
H.R.Giger.   I have only one rolemodel
from the scene, which is Ra of course.
Of  course  there  are  lots  a  other
talented people around.  But I like to
keep  my 'idols' few numbered.  I like
to  keep  my style very colourful, and
have lots a details in them.  And when
it comes to my pictures, I always keep
the  wise  words  of  H.R.Giger  in my
mind:   'There  is no point in drawing
something   that   you   might  aswell
photograph.'  Therefore  I always have
some unatural elements in my pictures.
Things  that cannot be found on nature
or  somewhere else for that matter.  I
also like strong contrasts.
 
What programs do you use?
I  used  to  work with Deluxe paint on
Amiga,  but  nowdays I have moved more
to    PhotoShop's    direction.    But
sometimes   I   still   finish  up  my
pictures in Deluxe Paint.
 
What  do  you  think  about  pixelling
versus   using   whatever   tools  are
available?

Hmmm.  I have also done a lot of other
forms  of  art  like  Pencil skecthes,
painted  with oil colours, used pastel
colours  and  so on.  But I think that
pixeling  has  it's  sides.   First of
all,  you  are  so much in control, so
unfortunately there won't be any place
for  a  artistic  coincidence,  if you
know  what  I  mean.   But  while  you
pixel,   the  work  can  have  lots  a
details,  things  that  you  can't  do
while  painting for example.  

But  some  people  seem to think every
type   of   graphics  except  pixelled
images  should  be  banished  from the
scene.  What is your opinion here?

Should  we allow only pixelled work in
graphics  compos, or should we perhaps
allow  any  kind  of graphics, even 3d
and   photographs?    Or   should   we
classify  everything and have separate
compos?

No,  I  think  that scene really needs
different  talents.   But  you have to
keep   in   your   mind  that  pixeled
graphics  is the very original form of
visual  art  in  the  scene.   So,  it
should  always  come  first.   I think
that  the  separate compos is the only
answer  in here.  And it would be kind
of  dull  when  there  would  only  be
pixeled art?

People  who  say  that the pixeling is
the  only way of art are in my opinion
very wrong.  But photographs?  I don't
think  that they would really fit into
scene.   Too  many problems would just
arise.

I  guess you're right about photos not
fitting  into the scene very well, but
the  problem  is that you can't always
tell  a  good pixelled image from a 3d
scene  or  a photo...  and vice versa.
And sometimes there is no difference.

What  about  photos  that  are heavily
retouched  in  photoshop  for example?
Or 3d scenes with pixelled textures?

I  think  you  are  right  about that.
There  seem  to  arise lots a problems
when   it   comes  to  these  graphics
compos.   But  I  have  two rules:  1.
Retouched photos are always fakes.  2.
And   3D  scene  is  always  3D  scene
whether  you  pixel  the  textures  or
anything.  But a good eye always knows
the  difference  between pixeled image
from  3D  scene.  I still haven't come
across  a  3D scene for example that I
would  have fooled me.  A good pixeled
image    should   always   come   from
nothingness.   There  shouldn't be any
'photo' in the background to help you,
or  some mathematical formulas to help
you  make the image more real.  A good
pixeled  image should be directly from
you, not from someone else.

Personally  I  don't really care about
'protecting' the art of pixelling.  If
someone  wants  to  pixel  because  he
feels he can make better pictures that
way,  then fine, but it doesn't have a
special   value  just  because  it  is
pixelled,  not  to me.  To me it's all
about what you achieve, not how you do
it.  What I meant was that do you then
think  it's fair when someone pixels a
image   to  the  graphics  compo,  and
someone    wins   with   a   photoshop
photograph fix?

I  would  like to answer 'yes', that's
the  way  I'd  like it to be.  But I'm
aware  that  it  wouldn't work, mostly
because of the nature of compos:

1) The voters are young males, most of
which  are not graphicians themselves,
and  this  means  that  photos of nude
women   would   always  win.   (Always
*wins*,  actually...)  

2) The entries are generally projected
on  a  fuzzy  'bigscreen', for a short
period  of  time, so you can't see any
details,  and  you  can't  go back and
look  at them in any order.  However I
don't like the idea of graphics compos
at all (regardless of these problems).
They    drive    artists    into   the
mainstream.   If  there were no compos
there  would  be  no  fair  or  unfair
rules,   there   would  just  be  art.
(Including  scanned photographs.  Your
own photographs, of course.)

In  that  case  it  means  a LOT to me
anyway.    You  are  right  about  the
result,  not  how  you  do  it,  but I
thought  we  were talking about compos
in  general,  silly  me.   My point is
that   it  is  not  fair.   I  got  my
placement  in  the scene because of my
images,  not because I only fixed some
photo's.  That's why I am always above
some   people  who  actually  scan  or
something like that.

But  you  are  also  right about that,
that  the  compos usually suck bad.  I
have  had  my  bad  share  of graphics
compos  in  my  past.   But I'm afraid
that  we don't have much of an choice.
Nowdays  seems  like artists draw only
for  compos.   It  is  rare if someone
actually  releases  a demo for example
that  won't  take  part  in any compo.
Compos  are  required  in  order  that
scene would actually survive.

Just a thought:  Maybe the scene would
be  a  better  scene  if there were no
compos at all?

But    wouldn't    you    think   that
recognizing 'not-your-own' photographs
would  even  be  more  difficult  than
spotting  a  copied  picture  in pixel
compo?   Of  course.   That's  why  it
wouldn't  work.   Not  in  compos,  at
least.

And what do you mean by mainstream? 

Mainstream is a way where everyone can
agree  with  one another.  The problem
with  originality is that usually it's
limited.    

Ok,  you  get to express yourself, but
to  me  drawing  also  means  pleasing
someone else, maybe save someone's day
by  creating  stunning image?  Or give
inspiration   to   someone  with  your
'mainstream'  picture?   

I  think  that  scene  would turn into
pretty selfish place if everyone would
only  do  the  things that please only
themselfs.   You  may  be  right about
that,   but   when  I  used  the  word
'mainstream'   I  was  thinking  about
graphicians  drawing pictures with the
sole   objective   of  maximizing  the
number   of  votes.   (This  typically
means  nude women.) Such work at least
doesn't inspire me.
 
Danny is leaving the scene, because of
the  growing amount of graphicians who
fake  and  steal images.  What is your
opinion on that?

I think that Danny's statement is very
profound,  and I believe that it tells
you  about  scene  more than you could
imagine.   And  yes,  I  have  a  VERY
strong  opinion  of  people who 'fake'
their  images  in  order  to  get some
'fame'.    These  are  the  very  same
people  that  poison  our loved scene.
They  take  out  everything  that  the
scene  stands  for.  I truly wish that
Danny's absence will teach the scene a
very valuable lesson.
 
What  do  you think about the scene in
general and it's future?

Eventhough  the  scene  has  it's  own
faults,  I still like it very much.  I
live  so  modest  life  that  the best
things   in   my  life  have  actually
happened  to  me  in the scene.  About
the future?

I really don't know, but it seems that
more  of  the  'original'  people  who
formed the scene are now leaving.  And
I think that nothing can replace these
people.  And the thing that worries me
the   most  is  that  'copying'  other
people's  styles has become a science.
I  like  scene  because it's all about
expressing yourself.
 
Were you at The Party '97?
No,  I'm afraid that I wasn't in TP97.
I  wanted  to be there so much, but my
work  was in the way, so I didn't have
any  'freetime'  that I could actually
use.
 
Do you have a homepage or a gallery?
Well,  I  have  a  sort of a homepage.
But  I  have  thought  about  making a
'real' homepage for me, where the best
art  of  mine  can  be  found.  But if
anyone     wants     to    see    this
'not-so-official' homepage of mine, it
can     be     found     from    site:
http://www.kouvolaregion.fi/tietopaja/
Timo.htm  This  homepage is made at my
work,  so it might be a good idea that
I make a real one instead.

Okay,  this interview turned out to be
more of a discussion I guess.  Anyway,
thanks     for    your    cooperation,
Visualize!