You do bring out an interesting viewpoint when you state that “I sense that you want the Gisele or Da Vinci to be more meaningful” - I do not think that I wanted to give Gisele or the virgin in Da Vinci more meaning. I would rather say that I read more in these faces than some other people and I paint them in a way to give the expression that I sense more meaning.

Did you read the recent article in the Science section of the NYTimes about our proclivity to recognize faces? And how a woman making a grilled cheese sandwich overcooked it and in the blob leftover, she saw the face of the Virgin Mary. The episode apparently achieved some publicity and the debris was sold for $28,000.00.

I am still curious about how you choose your models. The more closely I look, the more confused I get. You say you know some and others, not at all, but beyond the exercise of painting what pleases you, I sense that you want the Gisele or Da Vinci to be more meaningful. Treating them equally to your style is, well…oomplicated. Are you looking for a middle-ground?

As for working from models, drawing one’s child while sleeping fits well into busy lives. And besides, what could be a sweeter time spent?

Thanks for welcoming me to Art and Perception. Looks like I see a kindred spirit here and am happy to note this… Like you have said (“the illusion dissipates the more small, local galleries one visits and the less one reads in the papers or sees on television”), I will need to visit some more of the small out-of-the-turn art galleries - I am sure there is a lot of artwork that is flourishing, alive and well out there, just a matter of discovering it. I found a quote from Banksy this morning on Art New Blog (http://www.artnewsblog.com/) that I found very instructive and reproduced here verbatim…

“The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Any fame is a by-product of making something that means something. You don’t go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit.”

June,
Glad to see that you have enjoyed my paintings. At least someone is giving this a close look… I am planning on explaining the technique in an upcoming post very soon (in short, the subjects for my paintings come from photographs (photos that are either my own or already published) and as far as the women in the pictures, (I know some and the rest I don’t). I do not use live models - should start to look into this, but not too sure where to start.
I wanted to expand a little more on thought behind the titles for my pictures – which I once said were as important as the pictures themselves. I usually have a final ‘commentary framework’ in mind that I would want my pictures to project (even before I dab paint on the canvas) - they range from the descriptive kind to social commentary (In fact I am working currently on a picture of our President titled ‘Stuff Happens’ - that famous two line quote by Donald Rumsfeld on surveying the destruction of museums in Iraq’s capital). I have also noticed that quotes like that tends to stick on in the collective conscious and serves as an easy explanation for things horribly screwed up. Quotes like that also define and hurt a generation and sometimes you need pictures evocative enough to portray the perpetrators (just my humble opinion).
Every once in a while a face captures your soul so thoroughly that I just want to paint it and describe a significant aspect of the same - and that is when I develop one of my descriptive pieces.

Your questions are evocative and certainly will get commented on, wittingly or not.

But I would like to focus on the paintings. Do you begin with a standard digitized image - a photograph, for example? Or do you start with a painting, which you then digitize? Do you use live models? Do you know the women you use in your paintings?

I am always fascinated by titles, so I looked at yours. Next time I hope you write them out for us. They, like the paintings themselves, seem to range from the provocative (…mea culpa) to the descriptive (long neck with ornaments).

You do these out of an irresistible love of doing, as you say. But what goes through your mind as you are making decisions — do you change your ideas as the various elements and tools that you use come into play? Do you, for example, move from something you thought was merely descriptive to something that is social commentary?

I suppose I’m asking these questions because of the nature of the process. Your process has so many twists and turns to it that it seems like it might easily have the same kind of twists and turns of thinking.

Like you, my credentials are in technical fields. This seems to create in my style a certain methodical approach and a tendency to simplify problems by eliminating variables, and like you (I think) I am an artistic soul in a mechanistic world. The conflicts and paradoxes are a metanarrative that many, I am sure, experience.

I would suggest that with regards to question 4, this is already occurring. The figure is back. A new Humanism is on the rise. We are seeing the swan song of the system of training and exhibiting artists dominant for only a century or less. It only looks strong, but that is an illusion. The illusion dissipates the more small, local galleries one visits and the less one reads in the papers or sees on television.

It’s fine with me if many people still go to school and aspire to the gallery system though. Less competition.

I like the idea of relaxation but more as a topic than as a limited ambition.

Have you attempted to capture that subtle emotional life in a Self-portrait?

Or here is an idea for a painting (check first though with your wife): Self-portrait (Relaxing with Gisele). I can imagine an entire series of Supermodel Paintings, each model extending more than their lovely visages into your regular life. Going For A Run In The Neighborhood, Changing A Diaper, Cooking A Meal For The Family, Watching The Tube With The Wife.