Thanks for coming out to the show. If you weren't able to make it; the watercolors will be at the Village at Best Friends Animal Society for 6 weeks. Or you can look at many of them here on the website.
Below is the artist statement for the show:
I grew up in Utah where the Rocky Mountains, Great Basin and Colorado Plateau intersect forming some of Earth's most sublime landscapes. Though you can move away from such a place, you can never part with it.
My love of the Inter-Mountain West--its mystery and beauty, its expansive arid vistas and curious geologic formations--are the inspiration behind my artwork. Sometimes I paint it representationally, but as of late I am drawn to interpreting the landscape on a more abstract and universal level.
To abstract means to "separate" or "draw away from". I leave out specific locations and land formations, but maintain the sensory elements of nature: ambient light, texture, immensity of space, atmosphere, and temperature. By doing so I hope to connect with the viewer on a more intuitive level. I want each painting to be a window into the viewer's own experience of the land.
People have asked why I go back and forth between the representational and the abstract. Many think I should focus on one particular style, be more consistent, develop my own unique niche in the art market, etc. I always appreciate when people offer comments and suggestions. But the idea of creating a plan for the future style of my art career makes me claustrophobic.
I'd like to offer a different perspective on "style": Consider the careers and work of some of the most important painters in the last century: Georgia O'Keeffe, Richard Deibenkorn, Willem De Kooning, Wassily Kandinsky, Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Maynard Dixon, Claude Monet, Alexander Calder, Piet Mondrian, and Robert Motherwell. There are many others, but these artists are great examples of individuals whose work evolved dramatically over time. In their minds, consistency was another word for creative stagnation. These artists are important because of their unceasing pursuit of a creative vision. They valued artistic freedom over commercial success. Can you imagine if Vincent VanGoh painted sunflowers his whole life? Or if Claude Monet never got past his charicatures? Granted, in retrospect, these artists had common threads unifying most if not all of their artistic labors. But those threads of "style"were never contrived; nor were they planned. They were never based on a specific motif or brush stroke. Their "style" was always a natural consequence of their artistic journey, of being true to themselves and living in the moment; like the tracks of a coyote zigzagging around patches of sage and juniper. Style should never be the trail that you follow, but the tracks you leave behind.