Sunday, October 4, 2009


to what degree to be representational? this is my question! i'm riding on this crazy pendulum, swinging from abstraction to representation, trying to convey the beauty and power and mystery of nature. is it modern to be representative? (should i care?) abstraction is a hundred years old for heaven's sake.

does this ever get easy? (do we want it to?) if it becomes easy, does that mean we aren't pushing hard enough? i love to paint more than anything, but it's no tea party.


  1. Representational art is pretty old, too. (Or so I'm told.)
    The real line to ride is between thinking and not thinking.

  2. isn't everything we create representational, whether it has some modern or aged identity label attached to it? you, i know, paint from a place of looking, being, feeling. and you, as all, are changing every minute. so on any given day when you walk into your studio, the light and the world that holds it have shifted, as have you. isn't your only real job to trust that and keep moving the brush? that's as easy or as hard on any given day as the rest of life. and perhaps try gunpowder green tea for your party : ).

  3. Some people can only work out of a tension, created by whatever challenges they set themselves up for. It's interesting to hear you, of all people, fussing internally about representational work. You stride along that line (the continuum between absolute abstraction --Rothko black -- and absolute representation --take your pick of artists) so confidently.