I often use the abstraction of form to describe relationships. Frequent concepts are the idea of “two,” but sometimes I look at events or larger political conditions and attempt to describe them.
This drawing is about equality and inequality. A line/wall divides the space of the canvas into half. Above is one figure occupying half of the space. Below, crowded into the other half are 99 figures. The single figure is surrounded by black – like a black hole it sucks in all around it. Like black in the sun it absorbs but does not reflect. Yes, it is abstract, but I don’t care to make it easy. Time needs to be taken with art. I also feel that time will be taken if the object is attractive.
This piece describes a failing.
This piece describes another failing, but begins to outline an approach.
Some of my drawings have been far less abstract:
The formal output in evidence here is something of a problem. It is uneven. It changes style. This unevenness in my artistic production makes it problematic for the art commodity market – it is not a consistent product. Unfortunately art has become a consumer product. Perhaps even worse, an item of exchange, a commodity that needs to maintain its supposed value over time, rather than a delight, or a provocation of thought. My lack of allegiance to a signature style is a problem in this commodity market. I am interested in the ideas; questioning my motives as well as my motifs.
Ideally, selling art would be an equal exchange: an artist would provide a piece in exchange for something of equal value. If an artist spends 20 hours on a piece, ideally the collector exchanges 20 hours of their production to acquire that piece. A chunk of that goes to the gallery, of course – artists need venues. But this exchange allows the artist to eat.