Kamui, Bares Teeth
02.23.2010
Detail from Back At The Market, 2009
The true identity of illustrator and graphic designer Kamui might as well be a daisy-chain of Matryoshka dolls. It's the kind of endless anonymity befitting an artist named after Japanese spirits and devoted to painting subjects often treated as internet punchlines.
But ignore the 4chan runoff. These funny animals, even when they're ankle-deep in very gay things, speak to a deep tradition of art that has existed forever—as cave paintings, cultural myths, Lisa Hanawalt's recent comic in Vice's Fiction Issue. And make no mistake: at a paltry 27, Kamui is gifted with talents decades ahead of his peers, churning anatomical precision against an ethereal, ornamental palette. Those dolls? One of them's probably a dog-eared James Jean.
What began as a distraction has led to ident work for a variety of firms (he keeps mum on just who), a few book covers (see below), and a salivating fanbase. Not too bad for a self-described "man-child born in the South, educated in the North, and now living the easy life out West."
Just don't utter the F-word.
Who is the man behind Kamui?
I'm a translator by trade, and paint mostly for fun, with the occasional graphic design and illustration job on the side. I've done some poster projects, a few websites, some identity work, and covers for a number of small-press comics and novels, mostly for friends and acquaintances. That's part of the fun of having a creative group of friends, really. The work I've done for them has been a way to collaborate on projects with folks who are creative in non-visual ways. And on the Fine Arts side of things, I've shown work in galleries in New York, SF, and LA, but I've never considered myself an "artist" in the fine arts tradition.
Details from Bang (l) and Baby, Leave It On (r), 2010
Why do you distance yourself like that?
For me, art is a form of communication. I'll monologue occasionally, but for the most part, I want it to be a part of a conversation with some audience, whether that's friends or random folks on the web or clients who have hired me. In that respect, I've always been more of an illustrator/commercial artist. Sometimes I'll feel guilty for not having big, deep things to say with my art, but at the end of the day, that's just not me. Mostly, though, like I say, I'm a Sunday painter. It's something I do for kicks. I would want to go back to school and really work on pushing my illustration before I made a jump to full-time artist, and even then, I'm a little afraid of turning my hobby into a career. There's that chance that it'll be the best job ever because you're doing what you love, but there's also that fear of taking something you love and killing it with the reality of the daily grind. I suppose the truth of it is probably somewhere in between those two scenarios—like any job, there would be fun projects and dull moments. Part of the joy of my current setup, though, is the variety. I get to spend the day translating, which is also creative work that I enjoy doing, then hang that up and go paint at night. I feel like if I cut one or the other out entirely, I'd miss it, and be more likely to get bored with whatever I was doing. Maybe some folks just aren't built for job monogamy?
Monsoon, 2009
As for Kamui?
It's a holdover from my high school years as a weeaboo, I suppose. It's a Japanese name, but one you rarely hear on actual people. It crops up in fictional characters and stage names. The erudite excuse I give people when I'm feeling self-conscious is that kamui are a sort of animist deity in the traditional religious beliefs of the Ainu people (indigenous to Northern Japan). There are good kamui and bad kamui that inhabit the trees and the mountains and the fields, kamui that live in and protect individual homes, and so on. But the straight dope is that I read it as a name in a book somewhere and thought, "Gee, that sounds cool," and there it was. I should be thankful, I suppose, that I didn't wind up as LacrosseDolphin1983 or MisterSparkles69 or any of the other sorts of painful names people come up with for screen names and logins. I have very little attachment to the name at this point, but it seems silly to change it, after all these years. My hope is that, whatever the shallow meaning that may have clung to the name when I chose it, now people associate it with me and my work. That it's become what a name should be—a symbol that points to an individual person: no more, no less.
Details from Lord Vennyson's Court (l), 2010 and Marbles (r), 2008
Speaking of LacrosseDolphin1983... How did you come to paint these subjects, to work in this genre specifically? Cartoons in the 80's were littered with fluffy-eared protagonists, but it wasn't till the internet and, sigh, Redwall that I first heard of 'a furry'.
Oh Brian Jacques, how many children must you corrupt before you are satisfied? I read my fair share as well, and gulped down the usual suspects from Disney as well (Robin Hood, The Great Mouse Detective, et al.), but I don't know that any of them "made me furry," really. Made me open to the idea of it later on, certainly—by the time the internet and the fandom came into the picture, it was all familiar territory. I think my first exposure was the result of surfing the web for artists. As previously admitted, I was very much into manga and the Japanese aesthetic back in high school, so I'd frequently surf around various Japanese artist's pages, and eventually that lead to broader image boards (back in the day when image boards weren't peppered with grotesque photos and image macros, which is how you know I'm old), and there, mixed in among the human fantasy art, was some furry stuff. I found it intriguing for a lot of the same reasons I found the Japanese comic aesthetic intriguing—it was taking a medium I was familiar with (comics, on the one hand, and anthropomorphic animals on the other), but associated with content for children, and applying that lens to more mature, sophisticated themes. I'm not talking porn here, necessarily—I think it was a good bit more surfing before that started to crop up—just things that are relevant to adult life. Adult relationships, that sort of thing.
NO On 8: Rings, 2008
That was also about the age when I was coming to question my sexual identity (haha, I was a late bloomer...). I grew up knowing zero gay people, and this was before topic exploded on the popular culture front, so I'd just assumed I was straight. Eventually, the fact that girls did absolutely nothing for me got me questioning, and it was only at that point that I was like, "On the other hand, yeah, I actually think I totally could be into doing it with a guy." There was no huge epiphany moment, just a steady building suspicion. I basically wound up gay by default. With that in mind, it's a pretty easy jump to see how a kid with questions about his sexuality who just happened to stumble upon a disproportionately gay male enclave on the totally anonymous internet who also happen to be extremely open and accepting could find that a comfortable spot.
Break Time, 2007
Ornamentation figures heavily in your work. The James Jean comparisons aren't a stretch. It's all incredibly confident, incredibly deliberate.
Haha, it wasn't always! And looking at my art heroes, especially the folks who work in ink, like Winsor McCay or Walt Kelly or Eisner or Bill Watterson, there's a ton of confidence left to earn (and skill to found it on left to acquire!). But I've always had a love of ornamentation. It may all go back to an early fondness for the Art Nouveau movement, and the insanely detailed work of Mucha and his contemporaries. Today, illustrators like James Jean and Sam Weber take a lot of inspiration from that period, and I take a lot of inspiration from their modernized version in turn. This is quickly turning into me gushing about all the cool, real artists out there, but I do think it's healthy for every artist to have art heroes and things to aspire to. I'd especially encourage the furry artists out there to make sure they're looking beyond the community for inspiration, otherwise there's a big risk of stagnation. Just like I don't think there's anything about furry art that precludes it from also being "real" art, there's nothing about non-furry art that makes it less useful as a teaching tool to folks who want to pin ears and a tail to everything they do.
Cover for The Seventh Chakra, 2009
What is it about commercial design that attracts you? All of your pieces feature multiple elements that seem so perfectly assigned. Your cover for The Seventh Chakra, for instance.
Again, I think it goes back to art as a conversation. When I'm working on a cover piece for a book, I want it to say, in the case of Chakra, "Hey, check out this cool thing I read. These two dudes' relationship explores an interesting duality, and there's mention of tantric religious philosophy, and it's a little trippy and a little violent and a lot of fun." The more of that I can cram into an image, the more engaged I am in making it (which is why a lot of my cover stuff tends to be tragically busy tableau work...). At its core, commercial art that doesn't communicate clearly to people is failed commercial art. On the flip-side, I'll go to the MoMA and see a white painting on white canvas, and the only thing I can imagine the artist saying to me is, "Fuck you, man. You paid admission for this shit." "High art" feels isolated and exclusionary to me. It's as if the mark of a work's worth is how baffled it can leave the hoi polloi. I don't know that I'd call myself a populist artist (I'm certainly drawing a subject matter that's only of prime interest to a small subculture), but it's at least material that people can understand and respond to.
Fire Breather, 2009
How much of an investment is a single painting?
The time and energy question is a tough one, both because it varies greatly from piece to piece, and because I do lose track of time so easily when painting. The majority of the pieces I post online are single-sitting paintings, so anywhere from three to eight hours? Covers and other work for clients tends to take longer, obviously. Maybe two to five sittings? Granted, that works out to somewhere between six and forty hours, which is a huge spread... But that's the ballpark, anyway. I'm not the type who can crank out a compelling sketch in 2 minutes -- my sketches basically look like mud flung on a sheet of paper -- but I'm also not the type of person who can patiently work away at the same piece for hundreds of hours. I get bored and distracted and it starts to feel like work. Once the love affair is over, it becomes a matter of tying up loose ends to get it presentable as quickly as possible and getting it out the door. Just how long the honeymoon lasts varies from image to image.
The Watcher, 2008How does this compare to your day job as a translator? I've always been curious about what gets lost in translatio--wait, what language was it again?
Japanese to English! That's what I went to school for, actually -- making me one of maybe two people I know who is currently using his undergraduate degree. I mostly work on video games.
Woah. How much editorial control do you exercise when localizing your average Japanese title?
I can't name titles because of contractual obligations, but if you're into games and play titles brought over from Japan (especially RPG-types), then you stand a decent chance of having played at least one of them by now. The amount of editorial control varies considerably by publisher, and by project. Sometimes you wind up with a rated-M, anything-goes script and a producer who's willing to go to the mat for you, and you can sneak in some pretty amazing material. Other times, it'll be a project with an established IP like your Marios or Disney characters, and the massive corporations behind them keep a stranglehold on the way they're represented. It's kind of a mixed bag.
Returning to your art, do you think you manage to get any of sort of message across to your more rabid fans?
First off, I can't really wrap my head around the idea of having "fans" to begin with. Maybe that's because of the anonymous nature of the internet artist, or maybe I'm just harshing on my work like every other artist does, I'm not sure. I hope that the folks who check out my work get something out of it. Whether that's the same thing as I'm trying to put in, I couldn't say. I think that lack of specificity is one of the nice parts about this form of conversation. We're used to expressing ourselves unambiguously in language, but it can be fun and cathartic to paint something more open-ended and put it out there to see what sorts of responses it gets. That said, I think the reason I tend to stick to representational work and shy away from heavy abstraction is because I am still working within a conversational model. I've never been motivated to create art that only I could understand or react to.
Big, deep "ideas" aren't always genuine either. With your past work, what have you tried to explore?
At the very least, I always feel pretentious when I consciously try to make something "high brow." A majority of my art heroes are illustrators and commercial artists as well, so that's informed my work. I suppose that's a feedback loop—I like what I like, so I like the people who do that well, then seeing their work makes me want to make work like theirs... "Theirs" in this case being people like JC Leyendecker, Norman Rockwell, N.C. Wyeth, or McClelland Barclay—folks who did covers for the Saturday Evening Post featuring little snapshots of American life. I have plenty of other art-crushes on people with less wholesome, retro, or realistic styles, but they're definitely a big part of my DNA. They painted around the idea that the everyday can be elevated to the status of the mythic, and that really resonates with me. As a non-religious sort of guy, I feel like this life in this world is what it's all about. Celebrating that by capturing fleeting moments, emotions, relationships, etc., putting them into a kind of universal, visual form, and sharing them with other people makes me happy.
Doxie Brush, 2008























