Roseberry Topping after Cezanne #2. 2010. Oil on board. 63 X 76cm (25 X 30in).
I have learnt to adopt an educational stance when asked about the adding of, "Homage to" in a title. To me, it is obvious I am "sampling" something from art, not claiming it as my own style, approach, invention; whatever the point may be, but I realize it needs to be explained sometimes. A lot of observers do not understand or agree with what I am doing with certain aspects of my work, so I have to be professional and accommodating, at times, in order to be as transparent as is necessary.
NB, Homage to ... in brackets, as part of a title, is applied when an artwork title does not imply directly from whom the art style source derives. "Impression of Roseberry" in contradiction to this, is sufficient in as much as it denotes the piece of work is an "impression" (in this instance) of something. Impressionism of course, as an art style, comprised several practitioners and was not the domain of one individual, although we do associate the classic Impressionism look to Claude Monet.
"Roseberry Topping after Cezanne #2" is a variation, of course, of the same idea - it is the same as saying, "Roseberry Topping. (Homage to Cezanne)", if painted in a proto-cubistic Cezanne type way. Many Cezanne inspired artworks are "under construction" whilst this site also goes through its own development. The Cezanne series of studies is forming its own sub-division within the body of work which itself is a sub-division of a wider landscape painting operation. The possibilities for an array of Cezanne approaches to "looking and seeing" Roseberry Topping acts like a dynamo for my energy as a painter.
The fledgling artist.
Abstract dimensions in my representational position as an artist are deep rooted and have been omnipresent from the beginning. Abstraction pervades all of my work. As a committed representational artist (another term is figurative) my work is "painterly" though, not overtly illustrative or descriptive. As much as I take a representational stand, I take a committed hardline "painter's" stand too. Art is notoriously complex and confusing and I need to add I am fully aware that illustrative and descriptive aspects to my picture making are of course evident, but when compared to true illustration my work can be judged as "paint promotions" and show what paint can do - my work is not subservient to the need to illustrate the visible world. Paint, I employ, to make visible my ideas. I represent things via tricks and methods of painting at the same time as preserving mark making, and the stroke of the brush.
My natural expressive handling, gesture and daub making to painting, as a student of art learning my trade, helped me see where I was going and became part of my ammunition as an artist. It pushed me to a position to champion painting and drawing in a 20th century enviroment which had a broken relationship with visual art. The photographs of me on this Artworks 17 page drive directly back to the time I was in the furnace of tackling both analytical drawing and pure abstraction. It was an immensely brave time (in an art sense). It was also unusual and I was exposing myself to a huge range of criticism, and it would forge me as a visual thinker and as artist who dealt with the realm of pictorial narration.