I am interested in what the act of painting means and how it can explore multiple avenues of enquiry simultaneously. From existential questions, to an awareness of presence and mortality, to notions of masculine codes, all can be encompassed, for me, within the structures of thought and application of material that painting represents. When I die my paintings are what will remain. They contain my memories, hopes and dreams. An identity of sorts and the drive towards cognitive meaning, all within the political possibilities in painting.
I have recently begun thinking of these paintings in relation to "fake news" and how abstract painting might counter this. This leads me to position the materialism of the painting as literal and factual. Their facticity can be seen via the application and the materiality. Both enhance the reality of them as paintings, as metaphors, as political commentary, as philosophic position - and fight back against notions that facts are not exactly that.
As with any metafiction, these paintings self-consciously draw attention to their own constructed nature as fictions, albeit as factual ones. A dichotomy for any abstract painter...By questioning their own status we can see the analogies that exist for own lives as 'free' 'individuals' within a societal framework that is at constant war with itself.
The titles for the paintings are in series to illustrate their ongoing and developing nature as well as a direct address to the viewer as a paratext that controls the read of the painting. Power is contained in the ability to direct meaning and the discourse inherent in these paintings is one of interrogation of the means and ways of the excise of Power. The 'expressions' of individual autonomy are imprisoned and directed by outside forces, even by myself, in these cases. Where does freedom lie then?
The reoccurring motifs are means by which to utilize quotation marks to set the individuated marks (or 'moments') within controlling devices which question their own ability to be free. Using speech bubbles from comix and graffiti outlines the relationship to urban and vernacular means to display ones stance without power is acknowledged. This is done alongside methods of technique that allow for the same to be done via the history of painting. Both are celebrated as authentic and condemned as inadequate at the same time. The question remains then - does one invest enough into this to create a worthwhile life, an existential authenticity? I think so.
The motifs originated as non-particular 'autographs'. They became political through the move and counter-move of display and erasure, of commitment and censure, by intuitive response and imprisonment by surrounding barriers. Loud, colorful shouts of resistance constrained by boundaries, penned in to acceptable positions, governed, redacted.
A question for you to ask is this: what is the relationship between the various elements? How much are we isolated ourselves? What are the political ramifications in our current state when groups seem to be increasingly segregating themselves even when they share a similar general outlook? Who wins when this happens?