The art of Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Monet has been a set of ongoing influences of my work. Despite the historical grounds, my work however does not escape modernity; it is in the color used in my work and the structure involved in he subject matter depicted. Examining the history of art informs one of it’s progression and organic “evolution” through time. I do not feel that I will, perhaps ever, add to the corpus of art in terms of its changing growth. I tend to believe this because I extrapolate so much from the past and synthesize it with the ‘now’, but seem not to create something that progresses towards the new. It is something that is difficult for me to imagine.

The Renaissance was the set of movements that derived from the historical past of art, but clearly moved on ahead through time. It succeeded in mapping the future course of all art and aesthetics, and even aspects of science, for the western world. But if a modern artist is creating something that will help enable the western world to move forward to different and new epochs of expression, aesthetics and intellect, can they do so without so much dependance upon the historical past and the movements of the present?

Or has this synthesis of past and present been the catalyst of moving forward to our cultural future, all along? If not, what is it? If it is, what are we missing that can inform us of this?

My work represents at best, only as far as I am aware, are extensions of what was and what is; past and present. But I’ll not know if it ever will foster, along with the efforts of other artists, the ongoing progression and evolution of Western art; the future.