This is very much written for myself, a cathartic waffle…
Over the last year my work has been a process of rediscovery and discovery. Some time out from painting has led to me coming back fresh needing to work out what I am trying to do. The return to image and subject matter, mainly figural, has complicated this return. At time my work has felt a bit jumpy, never fully following through a particular aspect. Develops have been made in the use of paint, the drawing, the iconography, composition, meaning and awareness of my contemporary context.

Simplify iconography/meaning- figures/space. At this stage it is important to specify what aspects of my work I wish to take forward to avoid stagnating.

I think my iconography needs to be simplified. I think I have had and have a natural tendency to flitter through ideas. I need more confidence and permanence in what I am trying to do. I need to stop over complicating the situation. What is clear is my consistent desire to work with figures that appear to be floating and falling between realms. The addition of other supportive members has at times been successful but I perhaps need to focus on their being a lead actor who is supported, not distracted, by the cast. Protagonists and attendants will not necessarily be lost.

My subject has shifted slowly in type. I think I am moving away from narrative constantly and understanding how and why. I think I am interested in moments in flux with no need for cause or aftermath and figural motifs not stories.

These have gradually become less heroic and tragic in the classical sense. They seem to now be more witty and cynical. They seem to be about a desire for the heroism and tragedy which perhaps my past figures searched for. I think I have perhaps lost believe in notion of the heroic and tragic figure. I currently seem to see it as pretensions and supportive of false ideologies.

Ideologies seem to be a wider theme which underpin my work. The manner in which we control, form and order ourselves in every sense interests me. Setting this up and attacking it is of interest. Grids and the division of space seem to be the recurring motif for me to deal with this notion. The binary opposition of two halves has been an important consideration throughout the past year. I want to progress this further but need to avoid some of the literal and thoughtless transpositions of such ideas which have seen it become a formulaic gimmick.

This is the what; that being particular types of figures which exist in particular types of space.

The how seems to be something which can now be expanded through the narrowing down of the what. These motifs need to give me opportunities to develop particular formal fascinations. Broadly this fascination is with the linguistics of paint. More specifically (and in a rough order of preference) it is the depiction of light, flesh, space, line, figural forms and surface variety.

These particular interests can be developed largely through the continued act of painting. Occasionally, however, I need to realise that technically development is not entirely produced through osmosis. Some more objective and considered thinking needs to be applied to each stage of the painting to make steps forward. Else I end up sat inside a similar set of procedures which I am giving a little more embalming shine too. Consideration before, during and after each stage of a painting is need at times to consciously push a certain aspect forward. This is happening, for instance, with my current attempts to improve my understanding of the painting of flesh. The consideration of colour in particular is actually seeing me produce incredibly dead looking surfaces and seemingly go backwards. But by honestly accepting my ignorance and attempting to teach myself I am hopefully laying down foundations for future strides forward.

Contradicting this statement I also need to keep myself open to surprises at every stage of the process. From discovery of new imagery through to new methods of painting I need to stay open minded. If I restrict my methodology to a particular set of predefined principles then I limit any more natural spontaneous development. Such a realisation renders an article like this pretty useless. I must not become too didactic or follow a doctrine too closely, for this would result in limiting painting to the boundaries of language. With this comes the acceptance for the need to make mistakes and have failures. If I am not then I am stagnating.

I think such formal developments would be aided by a less prolific output. Over the last year I have produced a lot but perhaps never slowed down and really allowed any one piece to be given the time and attention to develop. It is probably about fear. Fear of dedicating myself to a set task and then not reaping the rewards. A faster approach seems to allow me to care less. I don’t want my sketches to become less prolific. I just want certain more finalised work to be more considered. Hopefully this will aid them without suffocating them. This particular thought could be misguided.

I think my creative process in general, as a science, works reasonably well. I generally start with found or photographed imagery. This is processed through a series of drawing techniques. These could expand to include printing and large scale drawings from projections. These are then processed through small, often collage based, works. Eventually images are found which call out to be turned into larger more finalised pieces. It seems a bit formulaic but it is a method which I seem happy with and keep returning to. I shall stick with this structure mainly. It seems to allow things to appear from nowhere and more objective considerations. Mainly it allows different approaches and paces of work. I think the conversations between the parts could become more exciting though.

My initial shift back towards subject matter and image was the direct result of two years reading history of art. The influence of Titian and French painting (David-Manet) was huge. Whilst positive the influence soon became crippling and the work verging on pastiche.

Over the last year I have tried to offset this with the development and awareness of my contemporary context. This has done two things. Firstly it has widened the net sufficiently to avoid any overt or singular reference point. It has also made me understand what painting, particularly figurative painting, is about today. Whilst not looking to be limited by fashions or history it has contextualsied my practise.

Over the next year I want to develop my understanding of contemporary and historical painting further. I want to find new artists and to find out more about the ones I know. The continued education through visual analysis seems the best way forward. It is so explicitly clear that the more I look at other art the more my own practise benefits. It’s pretty obvious but something I have been prone to neglect.

Outside of other painters I wish to continue developing my understanding of theory and other related issues. Over the last year teaching and lecturing have forced my hand on this; making reading essential. My dyslexic tendencies mean I find reading a genuine labour. Yet I must continue to pursue it as it aids the whole creative process. Gerhard Richter’s ‘Daily practise of painting’, ‘Barthes ‘Camera Lucida’ and Deleuze’s ‘Logic of Sensation’ have been the stand out reads of the last year in terms of theory. I have a small pile of readable books to get through in the next few motnhs and need to keep on top of them to ensure further progress.

In this regard the blog is perfect. It provides a place to discuss such issues. The discussion of specific texts means that I go back over what I have read and reassimilate it. It stops me lying to myself as it is a measurable record of what I have been reading, looking at, thinking and articulating. I perhaps need to be more regular in my postings.

Which brings us to meaning. This is the factor I am least concerned about. I am constantly annoyed by the fact that people find what I say or write about my work more interesting than the work itself. I think this is been apparent for quite a while. At a recent solo exhibition a few people said they had not been to sure then read my blurb and were impressed.

Writing about the meaning of work is supposed to be a vehicle to articulate what the work says. In reality it should always be a weaker sentiment than carried in the actual picture, something should be lost in the linguistic translation. Yet what seems to happen is something is gained.

I don’t think this means my works are not about what I see them as being about. Whilst pretentious I think I tend to be honest about what emerges from the images. What does emerge tends to be themes which reoccur. I don’t think they need discussing here. I think what is true is that the meaning is there but the clarity of its expression and the sophistications of its articulation are lost. The weakness of the images construction, in terms of image and its formal qualities is not strong enough. What this means is that I need not concern myself so much with meaning. I don’t think I need to explicitly think about it as I think it is something which should come from the working process. A closer focus and development of more tangible and specific aspects of the practise should allow it to, hopefully, be more clearly revealed.