CV

Zio Ziegler is an American painter and sculptor born in 1988.  He graduated from RISD in 2010.
He currently lives and works in San Francisco.

 


From 2012 :

Painting is my attempt at self-understanding. I create an experience for the viewer that parallels my own search in creation. This process, my examination, is a constant balance between reason and intuition. I make in order to understand, rather to explain what has been made. 

Whether I am painting on a public wall or in my studio, my craft is a vehicle that shows me how to turn every crisis into an opportunity. The naiveté and freedom I see and admire in the physical world directly influence the most primitive aspects of my work. My materials are the tools I use to try to understand my human condition. The paint, surface, and subject matter parallel my subconscious call to action and often manifest themselves in the same forms; however each form displays varying levels of emphasis, color, line and pattern. I paint how I feel, not how I see. Rather than finding a concept and executing it in a linear fashion, I react to my questions, life and awareness. My work is not about a final product, rather the process that helps me solve a problem.

I've often been asked what my symbols mean in relation to one another, and while I hint at their meanings with a reference in a title, their meanings are as ephemeral as the process itself. This transience of meaning serves as catalyst for each viewer’s understanding. Because each painting lacks a singular explanation, the viewer is faced with self-reflection of his or her own life and internal pursuit. My paintings have subjectively different meanings for each person that views them, and through the observer’s own balance of reason, context, and intuitive reaction, each one serves as a starting place of thought and reflection rather than a means to an end.

There is no conclusion, only more questions. There is no meaning except for that which the viewer designates. My paintings begin with an existential journey, and can only end with an absurdist conclusion - the rest is just a vehicle for conveying this.