![Matt Murphy, Deluge [Red Tide], 2022. Acrylic on panel. © Matt Murphy. Photography courtesy of Mel Taing.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/589c93769f7456ed1d20ae68/1676671447806-BF6CE60MKWFVH3U97A92/1A3A2136-Edit.jpg)
In 2022, Google’s team in Cambridge collaborated with us to commission two large-scale artworks welcoming visitors to a revamped lobby space designed by Utile. Boston-based artists Cyrille Conan and Matt Murphy were tasked with creating multimedia installations on walls opposite each other.
Conan re-interpreted the Google logo as a minimal, organic, and geometric abstraction. The artwork comments on technology, while pointing out that human innovations are grounded in universal and enduring laws, such as geometry. The resulting mural composition showcases mathematical relationships like tangents, crosses, parallel lines, perpendicularity, and symmetry.
Working from a design concept loosely inspired by the theme of convergences, Murphy painted on shaped canvases. This technique grants the painted objects freedom from the constraints of the traditional picture plane. The animated concave and convex shapes float across the wall, igniting a kinesthetic push and pull while simultaneously acting as an interface between the architectural space and its inhabitants. The seemingly irregular forms arise from an intersection of numerous ellipses, which echo the geometric shapes in Conan’s work on the opposite wall.
art_works caught up with Conan and Murphy to reflect on this process.
Cyrille Conan, KAVOUT, 2022. Latex on wall. © Cyrille Conan. Photography courtesy of Mel Taing.
art_works: Tell us about your commissioned artwork. How was this overall experience for you?
Cyrille Conan: I was commissioned to paint a Google logo for a lobby in Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA. I generally work in a non-objective, geometric abstraction language. My paintings contain many iterations of lines, spheres, and colors in different compositions and scales. I knew it wouldn’t be too difficult to morph these into words. I had occasionally toyed with this idea in the studio, and the experience was surprisingly effortless. The very first idea was quite similar to the final design.
Matt Murphy, Deluge [Red Tide], 2022. Acrylic on panel. © Matt Murphy. Photography courtesy of Mel Taing.
Matt Murphy: I have not had many chances to make a work for a specific space, so in that regard, this project was an exciting opportunity. To first consider the dimensions of the wall and then carry out the project to a particular chromatic vision was challenging, yet very rewarding. I began with a grid that informed the scale and proportions of the individual shapes. These shapes and their movement all directly relate to the scale and proportions of the wall that contains them. It was very exciting to work in this way, not knowing how the space would receive it, or how the artwork would transform the space. I am used to creating limitations for myself and my work but seldom have them made for me. It was a unique challenge for me to take a given set of parameters and try to find in it, and through it, light, space, breath, and, if lucky, poetic resonance.
a_w: In what ways did sharing physical space with another artist influence the direction of your commissioned piece? Did knowing that your artworks would be close to each other alter your process?
CC: I found out early on that the other artist featured in the lobby directly across from me would be Matt Murphy. Matt is an artist and friend with whom I had a two-person show not long ago. I admire his work and know for a fact that our paintings complement each other. Because of this, I didn’t worry too much about our styles not being able to gel.
MM: Cyrille and I have shown our work together before. However, we never had the chance to work on simultaneous projects intended to inhabit the same space. Cyrille is wonderful to work alongside. We worked in parallel, although not together. We both have busy lives, but it was great to check in and share updates and progress photos. Cyrille has tremendous energy and a sense of humor that is not lost in his work, which I greatly admire. We have different working methods and starting points, but I think that this difference heightens the play between our works. That interchange lies between the formal and the casual. I have a more formal approach and seek an end that appears unarranged, while Cyrille seems to have a more fluid approach that seeks an end with a sense of formality. I think this is fun.
a_w: What valuable things have you learned through past artist collaborations?
CC: Hmmm. I have learned not to worry too much about outcomes until you are in the process of making. Any possible issue can be worked through. After all, it is just paint, and anything and everything can be painted over and fixed if need be. In that same respect, I have learned to be open to whatever happens. By doing so, you might learn something new or find a new path in your process. It is scary, but sometimes necessary, to grow. Collaborations are a good way to help your work move forward.
MM: Listening. Knowing when to take a hint and when to not compromise. And above all, how to play with ideas and keep the exchange open.
a_w: What are some of the benefits (and challenges) of sharing space with other artists?
CC: I suppose that if the other work has no context or similarities, it could be challenging. Not to the artist, but to the work (and maybe the viewer). That is why we need curators. If an artist’s work is presented alongside others with a similar thread, it makes the whole installation sing! But if we are talking about sharing space with other artists, as in the people… there are the challenges of personalities. I think most artists spend a lot of time alone in their studios. This is beneficial to create your world as you want it. But being insular has its drawbacks, including learning how to navigate the vast amount of personalities out there.
MM: In this case, there was no challenge that did not seem like play. A painting creates its own space, which is independent of the space it exists within. This pull between the pictorial space and the real, material space is an old concern, but it persists. This is further compounded when that space is shared with work by another artist. How do these pieces interact, or do they resist interaction? Does the space they create feel larger or smaller than the actual space given? And what about the space between them? Where do we, the viewer, belong in all of this?
a_w: Have you noticed any unexpected outcomes when viewing your finished artwork in proximity to another artist’s work? Has the resulting dialogue brought anything to light in your own piece?
CC: Nothing like this comes to mind; I guess maybe I have worked with some good curators! I recently designed a mural for a pop-up exhibition on white vinyl adhered to glass. I painted some parts, and other parts were cut-outs so that you could see through the glass. I will admit that I was a little nervous that the artwork seen through the cut-outs might look strange through my mural or that it would be a distraction. But the opposite happened. The whole room looked great! And the artwork you could see through the mural just became these cool little moments. If anything, I found it inspiring. I think people’s perception of art (including their own) is related to their general outlook. If you are open to it, you will more likely be pleased or find something pleasing. The same applies to the opposite scenario. I try to stay open and take in as much inspiration as possible, while always holding my own practice at the back of my mind.