Beyond Style and Image – Matthew Sepielli on Painting as Process

How tactile surfaces invite viewers to experience art in person

Matthew Sepielli discusses his approach to painting as a process-oriented medium, revealing how materials, mystery, and the physicality of paint encourage deeper engagement and redefine art beyond traditional style and subject matter.

A restless innovator, Matthew Sepielli has carved a singular path in the art world, defying conventional boundaries of style to reveal painting as a deeply meaningful process unto itself. His works offer a complex vision of painting, one that embraces the unpredictable and the tactile, inviting viewers to move beyond mere visual engagement and into a realm where meaning is mutable and unspoken. For Sepielli, painting is not merely about representation but a pursuit of the art form’s intrinsic “thisness”—its irreducible essence. Over two decades, he has captivated audiences through solo and group exhibitions, each one challenging the limits of what a painting can convey. Beyond his studio, Sepielli has contributed substantially to the art community, from directing the influential artist-run space Tiger Strikes Asteroid to guiding the next generation as a professor.

Sepielli sheds light on his creative philosophy, the physicality of his work, and the distinct ways his career as an educator has enriched his exploration of painting. His insights reveal not just an artist committed to the medium, but a thinker intent on discovering painting’s untapped potential. Whether he’s working with traditional materials or experimenting with unexpected surfaces, Sepielli brings a transformative energy to each piece, coaxing it into a space where the ordinary collides with the fantastical.

Matthew Sepielli redefines painting with exceptional insight, challenging conventions while celebrating the power of materials and mystery in art.

How do you approach the idea of painting as a “carrier of meaning” beyond traditional concepts of style or subject matter?

I understand subject and style as things that don’t need painting to exist. For example, landscapes as a subject will be just as viable whether anyone paints one ever again. As a painter, I am interested in the things that only painting can do. By making many kinds of work, in many ways, I’m trying to get closer to heart of the medium. Hopefully this takes me out of the equation a bit as well and out of the way of the work too.

Can you explain how your use of diverse materials and tactile surfaces contributes to the unique “thisness” or specificity of your paintings?

Paintings are singular objects, but often we’re content to see reproductions of them and accept these as a suitable replacement for the object itself. I want my surfaces to be tactile and complex enough that they are difficult to reproduce (though I do make the concession and try: it is after all 2024). Hopefully, this makes people seek out physical painting as the ultimate source of their experience. With all this nonsense about “alternative facts” and willful misinformation, I think it is increasingly important to seek out original sources for experience whenever possible.

You describe your initial ideas or subjects as similar to a “MacGuffin” in film. How do these prompts evolve throughout your creative process?

I don’t think of the creative process as being that different than thinking about my work and what I want to do with a painting. My thoughts wander and ideas change- this is all productive. Where the ideas evolve more radically is when they are mixed with material and action: when I start painting (this a continuation of the creative process). From here the inherent physicality of painting takes root and begins to mutate my initial ideas, turning the every day into the fantastical and the familiar and factual into the fictional; this, I believe, is the way painting is a unique carrier of meaning.

How do you balance the interplay between the everyday and the fantastical in your work, and what role does this transformation play in your artistic practice?

The transformation happens almost as soon as the work begins. I don’t mean fantastical as something overly wacky either- in this case it is just what is outside of the everyday. I am not sure I balance these things in the painting so much as I try and make space for both to exist simultaneously somewhere in the work. Then they can sharpen each other, pressure each other, highlight each other and so forth.

You mention that your works often resist clear interpretation, even for yourself. What impact do you hope this sense of mystery has on viewers?

Like many people, I appreciate a good mystery. Mysteries insist that you bring your own ideas and thoughts to them, if you are going to think through them, to unpack them. I don’t want my works to declare meaning- this shuts down the interaction with the work too quickly. I hope viewers see my paintings and become curious enough to spend time with them, to unravel them, by combining who they are with the work. I don’t suspect viewers will get to a meaning with a capital “M” for their efforts but rather begin to acclimate to the painting and its manner of being.

In what ways has your time as an educator and director of artist-run spaces influenced your creative output and exploration of painting?

I haven’t been a part of an artist-run space in a while, so I feel pretty removed from those communities. I do appreciate the D.I.Y. ethos many of them have, and that stays with me. Teaching makes its way into my work regularly though. Delaware County Community College, where I teach, has a really great group of students. They are very resourceful and open minded, which is something I hope I do a good job of encouraging in them and following myself. If I am going to push for these qualities in them, I need to be willing to embody them too. I never believed that the way you think and operate as a student should end just because you graduate from a school, nor do I think that a recognizable approach to making art is an inherent sign of artistic maturity. To borrow from Walt Whitman (in a way)- I think we need to be large and contain multitudes and if we happen to contradict ourselves along the way, oh well.

EDITOR’S HIGHLIGHTS