Q: Nicholas could you try to briefly describe your work

A: My work is a reflection of the realities of my life. The experiences accumulated over the years of hard life in Belarus and the United States. My work is very multifaceted and involves a lot of styles, ranging from photorealism to expressionism, and ending with geometric abstraction. It is the result of my life's journey, and my philosophical vision of the world. My creations is life itself, reflected and a bit transformed in some lens of human perception.

Q: Nicholas, some of your work rather contradictory, how can you get people to accept these ideas? People often prefer Banality isn't it?

A: Certainly, I have many works of a very controversial character. Many of them on themes of terror, suicide, murder and some of them on the issues of medical ethics and general fundamentals of humanity. I can not force anyone to accept my art. All I can is just to explain the work and give the people an opportunity to look at the problem through my eyes. Such works as the Torment and Murder in Istanbul wery much autobiographical. Torment is kind of resounding to the scene of crusifixion of Christ, but also is a sort of self-portraiture, depiction of a being whose life is tormented by many impossibilities. Murder in Istanbul is about murder and love. Such works as The Last Judgment is a vision of society and science of the future, it's a quite different world where issues of death are often dealt with the use of advanced surgery and implantation of the cloned human organs. Thus death temporary surrender to science. The science has possibilities to repeatedly extend the life of a man. Hence the name - The Last Judgement, by analogy with the biblical story of the forthcoming resurrection and the Judgment Day. Undoubtedly, extended possibilities of medicine raise an ethical questions - no matter how good or bad person is, extension of life will be possible to purchase for everyone posessing, more likely, large sum of money. It has nothing to deal with life in heaven deserved by living the life without sin, more likely there will be more rich sinners in this medical heaven.

Q: Beside your expressionist oeuvres you produce a lot of a photo based paintings, especially the images of museums. Tell us more about this paintings.

A: Yes, of course, many people might have a question why the artist has several styles in his work. My photo based paintings reflect the external world, whereas the expressionistic tend to penetrate into the complex world of the human soul. Why are so many images of museums - the question is easily answered. Museums with visitors is a metaphor of human life. The past and present, and the future - all could be found in my museums. Also, of course, a museums is a very visually rich and complex material, a great subject for painting.

Q: Nicholas, how do you explain works such as a Thousand years and Midday suicide?

A: A Thousand Years, this sculpture is just a drop of semen on a square of glass. Thousands of millions of years this sperm transmitted life of one organism to another, hence the name. Midday suicide is very cruel piece of art. It depicts the collapse of a young and sexually attractive woman. The reason - the midday heat, excess hormones just an unfortunate accident ... Death can happen always, and nothing will stop the cruelty of death. Such is the material world...I don't think my work is difficult to understand. I think they quite iconic for the modern life.

Q: Who among twentieth century artists is most important for you?

A: I will not pretend to give a final opinion and my choice could be a quite personal. I must mention Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, Kasimir Malevich, Alexander Deineka, Edward Munch, Piet Mondrian, Salvador Dali, Donald Judd, of course, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Richard Serra, Francis Bacon, Gerhard Richter, Cy Twombly, Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, Yue Minjun. Of Course my girlfriend who might be considered most important for me because she could outperform them all. This is for me, there is some limits she did not crossed yet to do this for everyone. I admit that almost about everyone can still achieve 15 minutes of fame, even after the death of Andy Warhol. But the matter is, how to make a lasting impression and historical trace to last hundreds years, which is capable to do just a few among people. And finally, not everyone wants fame, right.

Q: Which Gallery shows in New York you saw in person from past decade?

A: I will mention the three, which is my personal favorites. This is "Day is Done" by Mike Kelley at Gagosian, "Center of Gravity" by Tim Eitel at then Pace Wildenstein, and "Proper" by Luc Tuymans at David Zwirner. "Day is Done" was like a feeling of a childhood dream, something reminding of primary fears and first found love, something quite personal but common for everyone. It is hard to tell, that this show was poised to commercial success, performance is hard to sell. Not alike some paintings. But, definitely, for me this was an absolutely pleasant, deep and inspiring experience.
Tim Eitel really caught me with his show. In time I was working on my own exhibition "Time and Measures" and Eitel's subjects of people in museum rooms brought me directly to the opening of his show. His take was more intimate and subtle, more meditative isolation and less decorative effects compared to my own art. I liked his show and, definitely, his approach influenced some of my latest works.
Show by Luc Tuymans was simply but intense, delicate, political, striking. His paintings are quite opposite to mine - he does not tend to make them technically finished and execute each one in a day, what is really interesting. It produces spectacular effect altogether with his compositional ideas, which is, in my opinion, takes him up to a few months to outline and put in the logical sequence.
Also I there was memorable shows by Piero Manzoni, Michael Chemiakine, Dana Schutz, Cecily Brown and few others. There was an excellent show by Marlene Dumas at The Museum of Modern Art, as well i recall group show titled "What is Painting" at same venue. I admit that MoMA, of course, strongest Art institution in the city. There was great shows at the Guggenheim as well: quite remarkable was "Spain" and "Russia!". Velazquez still looks and feels like a legend, as well some famous Russian paintings looked magnificent. Several Whitney biennials were quite good, but i have to admit that it is really hard for some selection (sometime subjective and temporary) of Contemporary Art to compete with the art historical art selected during the centuries.

Q: Do you agree that people like Charles Saatchi are responsible for much of the speculative character of the contemporary art market? Do you think this speculation has inflated prices for contemporary art? Do you expect the market bubble to burst soon?

A: Definitely, there is a trends, and there is a trendsetters. Also there is a demand for art by some wealthy group of collectors. Do you know, most wealthy people know each other in person. For example: Warren Buffet will call everyone in this Forbes Top 100 list to greet ever person with being there. There also is something common with acceptance of values of Art by the wealthiest group. There is other group interested in having high values stable - it's governmental agencies. They will not let art market go completely down under any circumstances. Dismal of highest values may result in destruction of governance, fall of the currencies, what is unacceptable for both- wealthiest collectors and government itself. Art is close with design; and design and architecture is what makes our outer worlds. Art produces most ideas reempoyed later in architecture, design, music, art is an ultimate tourist attraction. Art will always be a value, until humanity exists. But in the quirky waters of Contemporary Art, there is, of course, less stability than in Historical Art. Remember, for example, Stella Vine. She was propelled by Saatchi, but she never repeated success of group Young British Artists, neither financial, neither curatorial. Peter Doig is completely opposite example - exposure that Saatchi gave to his art resulted in museum shows and ultimate market success. And about the market bubbles - market can sometimes collapse for some artists who, for example, produce excessive quantity of painting and offering them all for sale at same time, thereby creating a gap between supply and demand, or for the artists whose works price for whatever reason, has been relatively overvalued. Also the art market prices are affected by difficulties in the balancing of the economies of major countries that affect changes in the art market and the falling prices of art objects. The fall in prices, demand and supply of quality works by artists from some countries may contrast with the increased demand and supply of quality works by artists from other countries. Crisis happened, for example, to Eric Fischl's market in the past, and may happen to Damien Hirst, for instance. But, for Eric Fischl things normalized, same will happen to any other prime figure at the Art market. Of course, in many situations art could be a quality investment, and while you have a plenty of good connections- you could buy art, advertise it, and resell it with the whooping profits. But you shouldn't think art will necessary bring you a monetary gain - it is a cultural value, and in many cases while buying art you show generosity and charitable effort toward more beautiful society, better living and the memory of our age for our descendants.

Q: How many artists could make a living from art?

A: It depends on volume of market, volume of currency available to be spent on this market. It depends on number of collectors. On their education and on their criteria of the value and necessity of a works of art. It is a highly competitive market. Most Contemporary Artist who make living from art are the famous ones, they control main share of the market. The rest will be those whose career is a part time, either their art will be produced without interest in the commercial appropriation of the work, either artists fully dependent on the support granted by the Art Institutions and Grants, rather then on purely commercial market. Sometime, after career mostly based on institutional support Artists receive appropriation of a purely commercial market, at the auctions and most of commercial galleries. If government would have such intention, it is possible to expand art market, by the informational and promotional support given to the art in the educational system, newspapers and television, and by government fueled support to the yearly museum acquisition funds. As well as, it is possible to build more museums, local, national and international importance. Both - government run and private institutions.

Q: Whom, if anyone, should you listen to for an advice while acquiring art?

A: You should listen to your own feelings and reason. You should buy art you will be comfortable with, art which will give you a new heights. Emotionally and intellectually. I advise you to be familiar with the History of Art, before spending something on art. Myself I have a great library containing all most significant works produced in the history. I admire most of art starting from Ancient Egyptian Art. I admire a lot of contemporary artists. If you are planning to gain while buying art just because of already existing market trends, and without affecting market yourself, you could hire an advisor. But you should remember - not you, but someone else will be responsible for financial risks. Sometime, buying art just for profit might make you feel uncomfortable living with it. Sometime is is much better to keep art at museums of private galleries, rather than living with it, or having it at your offices. Your own Ego should be reflected in your collection, than you will be happy with your treasures. But never be afraid to make surprising choices.

Q: Do you believe in necessity of philanthropy in Art?

A: Yes, most masterworks could have been impossible without it. Just remember "Sistine Chapel" by great Michelangelo, it was the Charity and Church who have commissioned masterpiece. At other hand, I see great Art as a guiding help for the Governance, so in my opinion, this help could be a mutual. And in many cases it is. For example, New York's mayor and influential businessman Michael R. Bloomberg always supported the Metropolitan Museum of Art with a huge donations, same Bloomberg does to many programs at MoMA and British TATE, some other museums. But, not always such donations reaching to all artists deserving them.

Q: Do you think Art should be popular?

A: More popular is design, a simpler by-product of art. Design is everywhere. Acceptance of Art is possible to teach. Even Mass Acceptance. We have Mass Media and Education for it. Popularity could be achieved by two ways - it could be done by the means of education, or you could use a primary instincts to attract a lot of public to certain work. Both ways are rational. For example, Banksy uses logical way to get a lot of attention, making his art in the public places. He has a great support of a press. But i do not really admire variety of his works.

Q: Are paintings a better investment than sharks in formaldehyde? Diego Velazquez canvas still look terrific for 400 years and it is much easier to restore.

A: Some Egyptian mummies still look great thousands years past funeral. Investment is when fashion will not quickly change. Most of Masterpieces are above the fashion, it is timeless. Sharks could be replaced in the worst case scenario. You buy conception of this work rather than a physical shark. This particular sculpture was produced art historically first, thus making it quite important, seems to me. You could look for example at my painting "Murder in Istanbul" - it is above time, but not necessary a tool of speculation. I'd rather donated it to the museum forever. … Read More