hmm.. I don't really do prints.. but I do have this in a book/catalog from a show in summer 2012 ~ smaller than the original, of course - being in a book, but that's where you'll find it in print. Thanks so much for your nice words!
Love, love, love this piece! I took a painting class in university and, not to rag on the students, but a lot of the time nobody knew what they were doing and I guess didn't find their style and most of the time it was a bunch of boobs and penises with horribly mixed colors and neon backgrounds. Yes, because boobs and penises are still considered "shocking" in the art world... (sarcasm alert!) I see that even with the few pieces you have up in your gallery you have a consistent style that looks kind of effortless (in a good way), not overdone. I enjoy the names of your pieces as well but you don't have anything to say in the description! A classic question: Do you have a lot of meaning behind your work or do you let your paintings be what they are without working in too much thought?
aw thanks so much for the comment! yeah, college has a variety of people doing a lot of different things and coming from a lot of different backgrounds, but at that time in life (and for a lot of people, at all stages of life) I think a lot of people are highly influenced by what's getting a reaction from others. Hence, the effort to create shock factor. but.. genitalia is not necessarily shocking, so.. there's that. It would be tough to know what one's style is, too, so early on.. or maybe ever, really. I've never tried to find a "style".. I just keep letting what comes out come out. What comes out of me naturally is the most me I can be. It's a combination of every aspect of me. I have a pretty academic background, and could say that earlier on, I might've been influenced by that aspect - trying to make things look "real" as in photographic - but what does that mean? To me, what I've found over time and experience, is that that's what should be challenged - the idea of "real" - like something being tangible doesn't necessarily mean it's more real than the intangible. In fact, I think a dream or the unconscious is, in fact, more real than what's tangible.. so, I tend to want to get as far away from the magazine cover look or the uber airbrushed looking feel of things. Both in my paintings, and as a general way of thinking. I tend to not explain my paintings too much, so that I can leave the interpretations open. But a lot of time, they tend to give off a similar feeling as I was feeling when I painted them. As far as a meaning for the work(s), I do have that, but it's an overall intention - what comes out is a reflection of what's going on in me and around me. So, yes, there's always intention, but if I over-think it, then it stops being a natural flow. Like over-rending/blended/airbrush-y can be to the 'real' look, over-thinking can be to the feeling. But overall, the paintings come from all of what's going on, and all experiences past and present - academic and study, observation, etc in art AND in life past and present as well. Which is essentially how it is for everybody - what comes out is a reflection of themselves. And in turn can speak universally too. well, I could go on... but anyway... I really appreciate your comment. Thank you!
Great reply! I had a similar problem with concerning over something to make it look "realistic" (only in my painting class... my work is far from attempting realism at the moment) and my professor said to me, "You can never really achieve 'realism' in a painting because it is a painting. Even a photograph of something wouldn't necessarily be 'real'. The only things that are real are what's in front of us." - It kind of helped me to let go of wanting perfection in everything I create and just let my art be art (some might not consider my cartoons art... but they don't really matter to me). I love work that expresses itself and doesn't divulge too much detail in some kind of meaning. Sometimes you have to let art be art and don't try to speak over it.