In part, my work comes from a sense that something is missing.  There is a lack, a loss, significant distance, or a gap at the center of it.  Painting and drawing seem capable of acting toward rebuilding, or at least some sort of compensation.  Maybe rebuilding is productive, reparative, or forward-looking.  Compensation, though, is tragic.  It tries to fill holes it can never fill, and ends up as a consolation, at best. I think my work happens as an oscillation between these two.  It strives for hope, but is also pathetic. 

The subject matter of my work is important...to me, at least.  But abstraction probably makes it unavailable much of the time.  I think this sets up an important parallel, if a viewer is engaged with the work.  The reasons the work might be engaging sit next to the reasons the maker is connected to the work, but the two likely don’t ever touch.   

I am interested in this parallel. What happens when we engage with something, but not for the reason it is important to the producer or the owner?  What happens when we like something while misunderstanding it, while we are off topic, while we are distracted, maybe even blocked from its essence or original intent? 

So much seems to be rooted in misunderstanding, distance that looks like it cannot close, but maybe there is a good side to this?  Maybe parallels can be ways of bing there, trying, coping?