Accuracy of representation in my work is a vehicle of exploration. I demonstrate quality and craftsmanship in a piece so the viewer can enjoy the expression and interpretation of the piece. I affirm the importance of the visual aspects of painting as a way to demonstrate the aesthetic value of the work. Artists of the Formalist movement determined art’s value purely by its visual aspects through elements of formal analysis that include descriptions of color, space, line, volume, texture, and composition and sought to reveal the essence of a thing instead of merely presenting its outward appearance through extreme simplification. Though I do not consider myself a Formalist, I am inspired by the principle of Formalism and seek to incorporate it into my work though simplification of form and color to enhance the aesthetic experience. I use basic contrasts of complementary colors or group values together, for instance, to catch the eye or evoke an immediate human response.

Formal elements provide dynamic visual interest in my work. In Spray Bottles (left) I painted two very ordinary spray bottles which in untainted reality are not particularly interesting. I arranged the bottles compositionally to face in the same direction to the left of the canvas with the purple bottle nearly touching the edge of the canvas on the right side. The two bottles and the shadow cast by the yellow bottle create three main forms. The form in the middle of the composition is the yellow bottle surrounded on both sides by the purple bottle on the right and the blue shadow on the left. The temperature difference between the lighter-valued, warm-colored bottle in the middle sandwiched between the cooler, darker blues and purples sets the yellow bottle apart as the focal point of the painting. The limited palette strengthens its composition through low-color saturation of the green top of the purple bottle by not allowing it to distract from the saturation of the intense yellow bottle.

The portrait Jasan with Red Hair (right) contains a similar limited pallet and also divides the composition between warm and cool, with an obvious division between the orange and blue background, and a subtle division between the warm yellows and reds on the light side of the face and the cool blues and greens of the shadow side. A photograph of the two bottles or Jasan in their environmental reality would have minimal visual interest, but as a painting, the manipulative choices in composition, color, and shape transform their reality into dynamic display while maintaining their representational appearance.

Emotion Interpretation

In a 2004 study titled “Reading Nonverbal Cues to Emotions: The Advantages and Liabilities of Relationship Closeness, R. Weylin Sternglanz and Bella M. DePaulo examined the perception ability of close friends, not-so-close friends, and strangers in reading clearly-expressed emotions and concealed emotions. The obvious assumption was that increased personal familiarity would allow for greater ability to perceive emotion (246).
The method of the study involved half of the participants assigned as “senders” and the other half assigned as “judges.” The senders in one set were instructed to conceal their emotions in their description of an experience in which they felt a particular emotion, and in another set they were instructed to express their emotions clearly. During this time the judges watching video tapes without sound were asked to interpret the senders’ emotions divided between four different types of dyads: “a male sender and male judge; a female sender and female judge; a female sender and male judge; and a male sender and female judge.” All participants related six stories: happy, sad, and angry—first expressing their emotions openly and then concealing them. Manipulation checks were initiated in which senders rated the intensity of the emotion to ensure that the senders actually experienced the emotion (251-252).
The surprising result of the study was that while friends were able to more accurately interpret emotion when the emotion was positive and clearly expressed, friends were no better than strangers at correctly identifying emotion when the emotion was negative or concealed. “Strikingly, it was the closer friends who were especially inept at identifying concealed negativity. They even tended to be a shade worse than strangers at seeing the disguised sadness and anger” (248).
The authors suggest a hypothesis that close friends may be reluctant to notice negativity for fear that the perception of negative emotions may weaken a close relationship (260). Whatever the cause of the misinterpretation, there are indications that friendship and personal familiarity give no advantage in understanding facial expressions. “In fact, in many instances, people are no better than strangers at interpreting even their own videotaped facial expressions” (Ansfield 135).
. It does not matter if the viewer is personally familiar with the subject in my portraits because concealed emotion presented in the paintings gives equal opportunity to all participants. My work removes the tools of emotional interpretation by removing facial cues and dares the viewer to pursue emotional interpretation or specific appraisal of personality.


In this work (“Nellie” 2102, Oil on Canvas) the subject visually confronts the viewer through eye contact and body language. With hands on her hips she stares directly into the viewer’s eyes with a slight smile that could be interpreted either as hostility or congeniality. The light source that illuminates her from behind shadows but doesn’t hide her face, and the cool green background brings forward the warmth of the light on the forms in the front, revealing a sense of three-dimensionality and bringing the image to life. Representationally her likeness is captured in this piece, but personally knowing Nellie does not necessarily make the task of interpreting her concealed emotion any easier.

Artist Statment

My work challenges the viewer’s understanding of human interaction. I take away the tools of emotional interpretation by removing the subjects' facial cues and dare the viewer to pursue emotional exploration or specific appraisal of personality. The goal of my work is to create conflict through a series of portraits with divided emphasis between posture and eye contact, simultaneously inviting and dismissing interactive engagement. Through posture that refuses to acknowledge or make eye contact with the viewer I vicariously repel the viewer, and deny participation in the work, like a visual form of the silent treatment. In a similar yet opposite way I also confront the viewer through an uncomfortable forced encounter with the subjects' eye contact that deliberately breaches the viewer’s personal space. The two dimensional surface to denies escape until the viewer has left the room.

Rather than assigner of concept, I am a facilitator for meaning. I put the responsibility of extracting significance upon the viewer as challenge to look introspectively and uncover personal meaning. I set the stage, and I control the interaction, but the viewer must finish the work and add the content. I provide only enough information for the viewer to fill in the gaps and create their own meaning or story. Other than my personal interpretation of the subject, my paintings do not themselves contain a particular idea, but are instead designed to promote individual application. Thus the viewer is able to see both what I see and what I don’t see.

The only accurate interpretation of my work is a personal one. That a certain pose, composition, or lighting causes a person to feel any particular way about my work reveals that individual’s unique perspective, biases, and distortions of perception that change only the observation of the work. During this process the painting itself remains unchanged and individually significant to someone else. I press the viewer to internalize their understanding of human connection and learn something new about the way they view the world that they may discover more about themselves than the work.

Painting and Photography

Painting and drawing visually have much in common. The principles of art that make good photography also apply to good painting. Both are two dimensional representations of a visual idea. But the difference between the two goes beyond visual presentation. Both photography and painting require intense study and keen awareness; the difference is in the process and creation of the image. Photography is instantaneous. There is very little time or need to examine the subject beyond the recognition of composition. It is an immediate reaction that stops when the shutter closes. Painting takes a lot of time to create the final image and requires intense concentration. Painting is not necessarily better than photography, but the value for me in a painting over a photograph is in the meditation of the artist who carefully decided the placement and character of each brush stroke. Every stroke is a separate perception and attempt at understanding the subject.

I recognize the importance of time and meditation in my work, but some painters try to cut the amount of time it takes to complete a painting by projecting a photograph onto a canvas instead of drawing by hand. I understand why someone would want to take this shortcut since it provides a perfect representation without having to actually understand reality, perspective, proportion, or anatomy. While it is possible to make a nice painting from a projected image, I think this type of art is much less interesting, and the painting often feels lifeless. I also believe this shortcut is dishonest if left undisclosed since the viewer assumes that an accurate drawing is the result of intense study. Artists who take this shortcut cheapen the value of the painting process, and assume that accuracy in representation is the end goal. But if accuracy is the goal, painting has no chance against photography since even the worst photographer can capture a more accurate representation of reality than the best painter.

That's Not Art

I imagine that many Americans are feeling pretty burned out politically after the past election, but if I can be forgiven, there is a comparison I would like to make between American art and American politics. In both there are essentially two camps (I know this is an extreme oversimplification, but please bear with me): one group values the establishments of the past, and the other presses for new strategies and ideas. Politicians and artists in one camp attack the other other camp, and, with both politics and art, neither is willing to accept the other and the divide grows wider. In art both sides claim that the other side is not art.

I overheard a few days ago a painting professor telling his class that accurate representational painting is not art--that a teacher cannot teach a student how to paint because they will never learn to be creative. I of course disagree with that philosophy because while It is true that mechanical representation is boring and lifeless, creativity that is dictated by inability is hardly creative. This example represents the tension between the side of art that admires and appreciates the skill and dedication required to create visual interest and beauty, and the side that rejects the aesthetics of the past or seeks to illuminate some great unknown or question perception. The problem, as I see it, is that neither side can see the value of the other side.

I taught a painting workshop last summer in a city several hours from here. Near the location of the workshop is a university with an art program. Many of my students were students of this university who came to my workshop to learn HOW to paint because they could not learn it there. They complained to me about how terrible, in their opinion, the art program was and described "swirls of paint" and "throwing mud at canvas" from painting classes they took there. I was sympathetic because I felt like I had also been a victim of an academic art imbalance.

Realism and traditional skill in representation are uncommon in academia. A person who wants to learn to paint representationally may have a difficult time learning it at many colleges or universities because many art professors don't appreciate it, and/or they don't know how to do it.

Without diversity of artistic recognition and appreciation art is like a hand with all thumbs, making for some pretty awkward stuff.

My work is obviously representational and I appreciate traditional skill and craftsmanship, but that doesn't mean I don't also appreciate work that is far different from my own. In fact I had the opportunity recently to view the work of an art graduate student that I found absolutely exciting and fascinating despite the fact that I had absolutely no desire to create work that was similar in any way to hers. He work was conceptual in nature and challenged social rules and forced the viewer to reevaluate their instinctual obedience to these rules. I loved the way it was presented, and I thought it was exceptional, but I knew I could not make work like hers. I don't want to, and I think that's ok.

I believe in balance. Imagine if Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, Tea Partyists and Occupiers, and artist of all kinds learned to appreciate the perspectives and values of those they currently see as rivals. A wheel and and engine may be quite different, but neither can get very far on its own. There is a benefit to accepting differences and working together. Like a sophisticated machine, each part plays an important role.

Art should be a celebration of diversity in all its forms. Let's stop saying "That's not art."

There are basically two aspects of portraiture in the way I approach it: getting a likeness of the subject and positioning that person in a pose that looks and feels natural and matches their personality. I want to separate these two aspects and see what happens. I will paint a portrait with the subject making eye contact with the viewer that is simplified to its basic element and focuses only on capturing a likeness of the person. Then I will paint a portrait where the subject refuses to make eye contact with the viewer and the focus is on the pose and composition to capture a feeling of the person without the importance of capturing a likeness.

I've been working lately with portraits that deliberately make contact with the viewer as a way to create a feeling of confrontation, but when I position the subject in a way that feels like he or she is deliberately avoiding eye contact with the viewer, it seems to me that this feeling of confrontation is amplified.

I must explore this more.

I See Little Things

I want to slow down the world, cause it to pause for a second and look, really look, the way I look. Experience the way I experience--experience the details.

Painting for me is about learning to see. I don't paint with my hands; I paint with my brain, and I paint with my heart. Painting for me is a process of learning, and I've learned a lot so far, but I feel like I have much more to learn. In fact I do not believe I can ever possibly learn everything there is to know about painting, and I find that satisfying. It means painting will always be exciting.

Painting is enjoyable because of the challenge. I decided to paint portraits largely from the fact that I saw it as the most difficult subject matter. I knew that if I were to paint still lifes or landscapes no one would ever know if a tree or an apple were misshaped or out of placed, but if an eye or nose is even the tiniest bit off it is obvious to almost anyone.

I sometimes have a hard time talking about my work because the challenge I overcame to to paint a particular piece was the learning process I experienced during the time it took me to paint it, and since I learned from the work, I no longer see things in the same way, and I am not the same person I was when I painted it.

In order to appreciate my portraits I think it is important to understand what I am not doing. I have no ambition to create some great change in the world. I don't care to make a grand statement or give the impression that see things more clearly than anyone else. But I do see things a little bit differently than most people, and the difference is in the details. I see little things. I see colors and shapes. I see faces as planes and values. Portraits are nothing new, but in a world saturated with images, I want to call attention to the beautiful details of reality.