​

2015 STATEMENT

 

Simplification and categorization is something that as human beings is engrained within us. We cannot just be people. Instead we have to place one another within a different race, nationality, emotion, language, belief, religion, state of wealth and so on. Categorization and separation is almost infinite for us. Its how we are educated and without it we would not be where we are today.

 

 

‘Past behaviour is the best predictor for future behaviour’. I believe that this habit to consistently categorize makes us predictable. If you could scrape together the entire history of human beings and sculpt it into one person, you would be left with every emotion that a human has ever felt, which gives us a blurred view of the future. Although so much pain is caused directly as a result of this consistent individualization, war and terrorism for example, I have always thought that there is also beauty in our need to categorise.

 

 

This ability is also built within the way we see. We see different colours and tones, line and shapes which from a distance look highly complex but upon closer inspection you begin to see a collaboration, with one colour simply sitting beside another. Much like the generality of human beings, upon closer inspection, everything that once seemed built up to complexity, becomes simple and comprehendible.

 

 

 

(2013 STATEMENT)

My work is about the simplification of my subjects and the subtraction of information in terms of detail. The subtraction varies throughout my larger scale work, depending on its importance. My work also portrays elements of character. In terms of the visual expression of character, Paul Wright helped to create stability when explaining and exploring the characteristic elements in my work. I try to create the illusion of meeting someone for the first time so only a glimpse of character is portrayed, creating a more inscrutable result. Each of the images shown are built up of block colours, becoming more defined as the layers progress to the surface. It is important to acknowledge that a more obvious way of conveying character in a painting would be to use loud facial expressions and brash body language; although I believe that this would overpower the formal (subtraction) aspects of the work. The idea of subtraction can be risky. If pushed to its limits my work could be made up of two or even one colour, which I think would take away from the characteristic elements, deeming it weaker as an art work. I find it important to portray enough information and find a balance when considering my concept.

 

​

The scale of my work has become larger over time yet I try to create a life sized result in terms of composition. My subjects are everyday regular people in aim of allowing the audience to form connections and to remove the idea of intimidation that can easily come with this scale. For example if I was to paint celebrities, the subjects would elevate the work in terms of its connection to the public. The paint has a particular freedom to its application. The spray paints that I use are low pressure so when applied the particles are less forced and almost fall onto the canvas. For this reason ties with Jackson Pollock can be made. The media used in my work is important primarily for the way it allows me to mix colour like no other medium I have experimented with. The particles lay beside one another as opposed to mixing together yet the colours are perfectly blended from a distance and give a more abstract feel when viewed up close.
​

‘Tv has made going to the theatre seem pointless, photography has pretty much killed painting, but graffiti remains pretty much unspoiled by progress.’

(Banksy, 2006)


It is necessary to assume that my work can be linked or associated with graffiti, directly as a result of the medium, yet my work has no connection with the stereotypical link of rebelliousness or politics that comes with this art form. My Practice could also be linked with print for my similar process of making work, yet my work doesn’t consist of stencils in a traditional sense. The process is much more complex than this, which means that I cannot make endless copies of an image, deeming each one less valuable than the other. It is difficult to categorize my practice although I link my work closest to painting. The content and the environment in which it is displayed, makes the work what it is. My work is intended to be presented in an exhibition space. Weather we agree with Banksy or not is irrelevant. His statement is an attack on some of the most traditional arts and I see my work as defending these historical practices. To use elements of his art form and make them blend into an exhibition space (almost literally) helps to expresses that his methods can be portrayed in a more formal way and therefore almost connecting his art with the very practices that he attacks. 
​

The backgrounds of my images have become dependent on the space in which they are presented. In this case a white exhibition space. This technique makes my works appear as if they are directly on the wall, making the categorical line which separates the more formal gallery arts from graffiti, even thinner. Humphrey Ocean has influenced my more recent works. His recent show in the National Portrait gallery gave me a great idea of how to loosely record a subject in colour. Also compositionally I think I have taken a lot from him.
​

I find much of my inspiration from artists like Alex Katz, his idea of minimizing the extent of information in his portraits gave my initial work direction. Finally Shepard Fairey is an obvious influence of mine. He is perhaps one of the few artists that can be linked closest to my practice.