I arrived very late to the game. I was living in New York and playing in hardcore bands, making experimental music until I was 30. Then, I came back to Sydney, unsure of what to do next. I renovated my parents’ house to help them sell it – once sold; I did a painting off the cuff on the ‘for sale’ sign. That was it for me. I was hooked. Two years later, I enrolled at art school as a mature student.

I was at a point when I was painting very realistically and the work itself was becoming too tight and closed-off. I tried using syringes and odd instruments to paint with, but this was only satisfying to an extent. I found that the more I emptied out figuration, the more possibilities there were. By reducing the work to colour, form, material and surface, and by limiting your choices, actually makes you focus on very specific elements and opens up new ideas and ways of thinking about making.

Ahh, there are so many! I even called one of my exhibitions Too Many Heroes, as there are so many artists whose work excites me. I am very interested in the era of the High Modern, The American Light and Space artists, and The Zero artists from the ‘50s. To name a few: Donald Judd, John McCracken, Larry Bell, Anne Truitt, Carmen Hererra, Robert Irwin, Robert Morris, Heinz Mack, Lucio Fontana, Otto Peine, and James Turell. Later, Isa Genzken, Martin Kippenberger, Ugo Rondinone, Pamela Rosenkrantz… I could go on, but I think this gives you the idea.

I’m not trying to create an optical illusion as much as I’m trying to manipulate aesthetic experiences. The viewers’ perception is challenged, which hopefully slows down the viewing experience. Heinz Mack, who coined the term ‘total vibration’, inspired me. This is where the reverberation between the viewer and the colour is at its maximum output.

Technology is one of the many tools I have in my ‘paint box’. My work plays back and forth in a conversation through processes, and experimenting with technology is only one element. The technology I use is a decade old. I don’t rely on new developments to determine direction or ideas. There are some classic examples of artists who were on the cusp of technology, and decades later, their work looks historic and is tied to that era of technology.
I also like it when a program struggles to perform my request or action; the accidents are great and absorbed into the process. I’m interested in the way a work changes as it’s translated through different media. Translating back and forth from digital image to object, and vice versa.

I always try to push the boundaries of taste. I also try to make whatever generates the strong primal gut feeling within me. What is beautiful to one person can be revolting to another. This was well described by Martin Herbert in a recent text about my work. He said that there was a certain guilt associated with liking it; “Taste is a wild card in art. Niesche’s work contains elements that, individually, might easily be considered tacky right now: gradients, gold, twirling sculptures, ‘the spiritual’, sunsets. Collectively deployed, they say he knows and doesn’t particularly care. Being cool is not cool; being cool is a historical category that is intimately allied with not letting your guard down, not being emotionally open.”

I was initially interested in glam culture: the sheen, the cosmetics, the posturing and attitude. Its androgynous nature and its performative quality. In terms of transparency and reflection, I was looking at artists like Dan Graham, whose pavilions had a shared experience and perception among the viewers. In these pieces, you look at the space and other viewers through the work. Perception is affected by its shape and form, and you access the space only via a particular pathway. It’s also perceptually challenging. I was also intrigued by a Bruce Nauman anecdote, whereby you are looking into a shop window and at some point during this desire-like situation, you are apprehended by your own reflection. It is these elements that dictated the materials. In all honesty, the materials chose me.

Yes. Not all shiny things though. I read recently that our interest in glitter and shiny things that sparkle could actually have its roots long in our past whereby the need for survival in the bush was hardwired to recognise the sparkle on the surface of water. I like this very much as for me it is a primal urge.

I don’t have a favourite. It is in combinations of elements that I get excited.

I’m interested in the historical point where John McCracken leant a painting/plank against the wall. It took up the position of neither painting nor sculpture, but straddled the two. I attempt to make work that emphasizes illusion as much as it emphasizes its objecthood. It is this tension between oppositions that drives and excites me. I did study painting though, so you could say that I am looking through the historical lens of painting when I make.

Absolutely. Opportunities have been in place, but being so busy last year I needed the time to think about what would be interesting or exciting for me to make. This year, it is on the cards.

Absolutely. Even without thinking about it, every decision we ever make in life is based on all of our experiences. It is impossible for me not to. I do not necessarily visualize my past but a ‘feeling’ associated with a time or event, from the past or the present.