I wrote this about a year ago. Shelved it. Recently I rediscovered it and decided it wasn't too bad.
Can a painting be made out of something besides paint? What makes a painting, a painting? Who has the right to answer this question? Art schools, the market or painters themselves? There are no rules to painting, or to art. Only conventions and all conventions are free game to be questioned. They aren’t set in stone. Chaos won’t ensue if the conventions are not followed, will it? Some of these issues I’m concerned with were raised during the late 60’s and early 70’s. I don’t think the issues were ever resolved or could be resolved. And I certainly never agreed that they were. Every stage of my process is important. Every step from conception to sketch to preparation to execution to titling to display is considered and realized for itself. But it’s not systematic. Intricate but not formulaic. At each stage I’m open to intuition. In general, slightly off lines seem to have more character than perfectly drawn straight ones. I favor the wet to the dry, the soft to the hard, the bright to the dull. Complexity is arrived at through reading the work piece to piece to piece. When I was younger, I tried to pour everything I knew or was interested in, into one piece. Now I don’t. It’s honed, more singular and specific. I want the "viewer's" experience to be as such.