My paintings could be described as depictions of people from the perspective of an overthinking bald man who’s closely observed yet never felt fully connected to humanity. I try to push the boundaries of what can be done with paint to uncover a spectrum of mankind’s traits; dark, bright, opaque, transparent, orderly, chaotic, simple, complex, etc. Rather than just portraying people as they appear on the surface, I’d like to think these paintings ask questions about what’s not so readily apparent with regard to human nature. What truly makes them? What are they proud of? What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? But then also, like what if their ears were different colors, and other super philosophical stuff like that.

I spent years painting in a natural style. This brings up an interesting question: What does it mean to do something “naturally”? Looking up the definition sounds boring but I feel like “natural” basically means something that wasn’t forced to be anything other than what it is, right? So painting in a “natural” way implies that colors, proportions, etc. are not invented or poetically interpreted. But also, painting in a “natural” way should mean that the painter is not going against what they feel compelled to do. They are simply working as nature intends.

Here’s where things get tricky, because when I painted in a “natural” way, it actually felt unnatural. And painting in an unnatural way honestly feels much more natural to me. This presents a paradox that undermines the very nature of…well, nature. How can doing something in an unnatural way be more natural than doing it in a natural way? Damn, we’re getting into some deep territory here. I know I was supposed to write a bio but this suddenly seems way more important. We may have just proven that the sum and substance of our entire existence is the antithesis of itself! Who could be worried about where I grew up and what I studied in school at a time like this??