For the last thirty-seven years or so I've been concerned with formal elements of painting. Matisse, Leger, Stuart Davis, and more recently Al Held and James Rosenquist, have played a pivotal role in influencing my visual vocabulary.  It has taken some years of studying and dissecting elements of these afore mentioned artists.  I personally establish them as the most important artists serving my interests.  And by no means would I insist that these figures be every artist's choice.  It is within the unlimited "confines" of these historically significant painters that I find yet uncharted waters.

Many facets and nuances provide me with infinite possibilities for my personal exploration.  In my paintings it is my intention to combine my aesthetic vision with a very pragmatic, nuts and bolts approach.  I rely on very simple concepts to construct my paintings.  I strive to yield a lasting, resonant, and convincing visual illusion by optimizing my knowledge of color, principals of two-dimensional organization, theories of perception, and applying sound studio practices along with staying current with technology. (2007)

I have to say that by this time in my career I have very little interest in discussing, evaluating, and validating the historical implications of my work.  Reasons and intentions concerning the works of art that I produce have become part and parcel of the life that I live.  Separating, or even the notion of separating, my work from my life seems impossible.  I can't imagine inventing a scenario in which to produce art.  If one is interested in studying biology, astrophysics, or mathematics you set a course for study based on historical and contemporary theories and applications to gain information, experience, and professional standing.  The interest and the passion for these subjects must be present or the individual will not succeed.  How do you study art?  The interest is there, the passion is there, but what tangible information is available, except the theoretical,
the poetic, and the undeniable confusion about what art is and what art is not.

Should artists rely on historical and contemporary theories as a basis of study?  Should artists belie traditional means of studying art as an observer or should artists rely on being responsive and become participants?  There is no practical application, so to speak.  At this point the artist must rely on his own experiences, the subtle and the not-so-subtle consciousness of the culture he is producing art within.  The dilemma for many artists is defining those boundaries.  I consider myself, as a painter and print maker, a participant fully affected by my environment and my culture. (2005)

My concerns for color relationships, juxtaposition of forms, and linear configurations have remained constant over the years.  However, exploring the elements of painting has yielded a number of works that I see as being transitional; transitional in that they have posed problems and generated solutions in the evolution of my work.  Hybridization begins to occur from painting to painting.  Another form emerges -- more complete, laced with fleeting satisfaction and an intensity that asks for more. (1992)

Badgered by authenticity and cradled with preservation the chance begins again.  This time covering just enough to make some wonder, some believe. (1978)

Painting "art" is a matter of distinguishing or deciphering priorities that pertain to the fundamental metabolism of thought -- clearing away of the unwanted, a purgation of the mundane. (1975)

I reluctantly began using a computer about four years ago (2003).  I thought "The Blue-Screened Cyber-Monster" was a travesty, falsely alluring and stealthily luring otherwise unknowing pixilated prisoners.

Friends(?)  gave me two(!!)  computers.  I played around with an old version of Photoshop.
I bought a new computer.  I began finding myself discussing the latest software with total strangers!  I visited a digital studio/lab, left there and promptly bought my first digital camera.
I started experimenting with digital photo images that I might incorporate into my paintings.

The computer / photo images revealed visual transitions that I could more easily study and dissect than could be accomplished by ‘traditional’ means.  Suddenly, the access to images,
and their mutations, was something that I now had to explore more seriously.

Within months I had acquired a complete digital lab.  THERE WAS NO TURNING BACK!
I WAS NOW TOTALLY AND GLEEFULLY CORRUPT!
The learning curve.
The learning curve.

These works are the first in a series of new prints that are intended to explore the delicate balance of nature's precision and the electronically manufactured nuances, called digital images.  Melding geometric structures, with biomorphic and naturally occurring elements
has, for twenty or so years, occupied my thoughts.

The ever expanding understanding, use, and affect of the electromagnetic spectrum on our world is the fabric and impetus for my continuing work.  The prints included here are compositionally based on the ‘structural narrative’ of altar pieces . . .
altar pieces that were once painted on wood with egg yolks.

I hope an appropriate dose of human intervention, on my part, has been applied to all of this technology, so as to provide an adequate window for the observer to explore some of my aforementioned ‘world.’

Started in 2004 and completed in 2007, the prints are compilations of digital photographs that
I have taken, and computer generated images that I have ‘built.’  These images are combined and manipulated in Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator.  The final images that are to become prints are then color corrected, sharpened, sized and formatted for printing.  I then print the images with a Canon imagePROGRAF 8000 Wide Format Inkjet Printer.  All papers and inks are archival quality. (2007)