perhaps should be called "thenonrepresentationalist"
all art that depicts another subject is an abstraction of the original. no matter how 'realistic' the subject is its always an emulation of reality. degree of abstraction blurs into non-representational work when the subject is detached from the visual vocabulary entirely.
depicting nontangible themes in an abstract manner is a bit conceptual and hard t ojustify into where it lies on the spectrum of abstraction. if you show your work to a friend who has no clue as to the content, and they are able to accurately comprehend the subject, then its an abstraction, whereas others may not "see" anything, making it non-representational. i guess what i'm saying is that the border between abstration and nonrepresentation is subjective and liable to change depending on the whim of the viewer. this only bothers me because of my own insecurity dealing with being labeled.
great mark-making and energy. the vector-swirls are an overplayed trend and having a statement in the third person annoys me (unless you use that as a press release)
 it just occured to me that 'truth' and 'intelligence' are abstract concepts to begin with (as there is no object which embodies every aspect of those ideas). is it even possible to abstract an abstraction? i think they cancel each other out, like two negatives. no really, you're representing what you percieve those ideas to look like and use a visual medium to interperate their behavior, its a creation of what you believe the ideas to be seen as. its representational art in that means. yet, paint cannot be 'intelligent', thus throwing my whole line of thinking in the trash.
goddammit, just paint objects already, taking notions and creating them into solidified forms as abstractions is hurting my ability to understand your intentions. i could argue that these are nonrepresentational forms of the ideas of the words you chose, or that they are meant as literal depictions of the objects and by virtue of the fact of them being represented interpretations become abstractions. but for the life of me i can't figure out how you can represent something which has no form and then make an abstraction based upon it.
The arrangement of colors, forms and movements on the canvas seek the highest quality of beauty and the purest interpretation of life.
to some this may sound a poetic and beautiful line. to those seasoned in the practice of speaking about art it carries a lot of bullshit. how does your choice of color, form, and movement accomplish these things? i see emphasis on formal relations of line and color, as there are compositional choices being made, but i don't get the impression that these are cognitive decisions that have the content weigh in on the concept.
again, i like the work, it has a lot of energy and vibrance, i think youre selling yourself short with half-attempts at fragmented concepts to express your work. the contrast between finished work and fluffy-art-speak in vague adjectives to describe the work is the weakest point right now.
the biography has its own characteristics of personality, yet it doesnt pair well with the stated objectives fo your work on the main page.
Last edited by Grief; December 3rd, 2007 at 06:57 PM.