Artist's Statement:
My images have a naive, whimsical quality. Macabre and odious topics are transmuted into approachable, vivid narratives. What appears childish at first sight; upon careful examination, reveals a complex interpretation of foreboding and exhilaration that necessitates a re-acquaintance with one's intuition. The Images suggest the inevitability of an archaic revival while impulsively generating a greater cumulative significance that beckons to the very near future; hence Techno-Shamanism. Wholly antithetical to the anthropocentric mode of logic, the images no less mock the abstruse mytho-occult spinsters as well. They have been extracted from the edge of our burgeoning psychotronic consciousness.
That’s it. His statement. I suppose he knows what he is trying to convey. I have had the benefit of seeing some of his work and, even with this advantage, am unable to connect output with the description and meanings of the work.
I hate it when pretension gets in the way of enjoying art. I am capable of enjoying images for image sake without needing to know what was in the artist’s mind but I am sure that there is much that I miss.
I recently spent a little time looking at a drawing of a small girl bringing flowers to a young boy. He was in a dressing gown, slumped in an easy chair. His face had a sharpness about it as if he were in pain. I got the clue of some flowers dropping to the floor, There was a grandfather clock in the background to which I attached little significance. I Googled about a bit and finally came upon an analysis or whatever of the drawing. The clock also symbolised a passing of time, the time in which the lad’s life was ebbing away.
I achieved nothing from the statement-writers work. His loss or mine? Both I suppose as I will not recommend his work – even by linking to it – and he by failing to get his point across in text or image.
No comments:
Post a Comment