I suppose I might say my work is abstract, but that would be confusing, since my work is representational, figurative. When I paint an apple, it pretty much kind of looks like an apple, its a two dimensional representation of said three dimensional apple. If I paint that apple with a naked man, a naked woman, and a serpent with legs and feet, then that apple becomes something else – still representational, but it now represents a concept, an abstract concept. So would that work, that apple, that painting itself,- be called abstract?

Much of what I paint brings abstract concepts into the concrete realm, the challenge there being a maintaining of the existence of that concept which, as an abstract, cannot truly, or accurately be represented, it can only be alluded to. The non-rational (or irrational) cannot be rendered as rational because then it is no longer non-rational. The intuitive cannot be intuitive if its intellectualized. This is the problem with these two realms, these two worlds which are like oil and water, one is one and the other is the other, and never the train shall eat.

I’ll be covering this more deeply as we move along this treacherous, deceptive path of mind and body, things and such that I’ve already alluded to in my recent “It’s Not a Tree – its only what you call a Tree” post posted found with the link below.