The following are pieces written on various topics at different times. They have been transcribed from the many places they were found. Some were written in sketch pads or drawing tablets while others were scrawled out on napkins or used envelopes. Please excuse the poor writing style. The writing is mostly stream of conscious with a few interruptions from the outside world. It has all been transferred from it’s original sources without corrections. Thanks you for your time, and visit the contact section to drop off a comment or idea if so inclined. Happy reading!

Written ‘94-’95 (Maybe)- On Art, Computers and Other Ramblings

The problem is realizing that you can do anything, but not being able to find anything you want to do. My guess is that is the justification for the paintings and drawings I create. They are the first and only things I have felt in years. ( The man sat highlighting passages from a bible intensely. There were book marks scattered throughout the rest of the book.) I feel these drawings more than any emotion, idea or physical sensation.  Do I feel them more because they are more powerful, or because there is so little feeling in everything else?  (I can’t stop thinking of her. I don’t know why; I know she isn’t thinking of me.) I go through stages where a great deal of work gets created and others when none does. In those when no work gets created, it seems to be a lack of motivation rather than ideas.  Is the work a form of therapy? Done simply out of a need to feel something? Anything? Theory: The lack of motivation may be equal to and/or coincide with the “non-necessity” for the therapy. I.E. The motivation is only in the need for feeling. This is: 1) Dangerously single minded and 2) Selfish (and/or self absorbed).(Called mother to express gratitude for her help. Got answered in insults to my career decisions, or lack there of. She is such an angry person. Where does she get it all? I can’t live like that, I won’t.) My work seems to move consistently in two directions: 1) Narrative- Illustration and comic books and 2) Paintings/drawings and mixed media. The Narrative (an impressive title for comic books): Do I do these drawings out of nostalgia? (or am I too childish to admit I like them?) They’ve become vastly improved recently; better rendering, penciling and especially inking. Very aesthetically pleasing- still going, and going, and going- but I keep drawing them. Am I stroking myself? Is that the motivation? Quote: “Schlock-art is well done stuff about much of nothing. A form of masturbation.” Am I still progressing and/or innovating? Or repeating myself? The comic book drawings are: 1) Enjoyable (pro or con?) 2) Less intellectually challenging  3) More meticulous- they challenge the hand more and 4) Patient- thought through. There’s that ridiculous argument again, “But is it art?” Who came up with that nonsense? More importantly, why? And does anyone ever really worry over it? Those poor creatures (so condescending, you arrogant bastard!) To assume that question was valid would be to assume that objects could be categorized as “Art” and “Non-Art” Sounds like a game show..... and where is DuChamp when you need him? (Thirty-one cents for a piece of lettuce added to my sandwich... how do they get away with it?) Equally senseless is the argument over what qualifies art as “commercial” of “fine/high art”. Why do people pursue such questions? In that space of time, they could be creating. Quote: “One who hunts monsters should beware that in the process, he, himself, does not become a monster...” I must resign myself not to get caught up in the tricks, the gimmicks. To strive to create in order to do or say something innovative, to explore and/or to learn. Not to churn out like pieces (good or otherwise) simply because I can. (Doesn’t that just bring us full circle?)  The computer as an artistic tool? The computer offers us a great variety of these tricks and gimmicks which it calls effects. These distortions, lighting, etc. are apply named, for they are more effective than affective. They have more of an effect on the surface appearance of the work and don’t necessarily change the affect on the artist and/or viewer. In other words, these effects are no substitute for content, composition, etc. Using a computer, one must not be seduced by using these “pretty” options and forgetting themselves. But in answer to the question of the computer as an artistic tool? Yes, just not unlike any other, not to be misused. Not as a definite end, but only as a means. Any tool can be used well, or poorly, explored or exploited. A bad artist will make bad art on a computer, despite these effects. (Did I just classify an artist as “bad”? Who died and left me in charge?)On the computer I can create pieces quickly and get a look at the ideas as they come. So maybe it’s just an elaborate sketch or memo pad (to me)? Next question: Why can’t I justify the computer as something to derive finished pieces from? Why can I only see it as a means, not an end? And why am I so adversarial with this issue? Problems with computers in art: 1) No Tactility- The pieces and process are sterile, flat and empty of physicality. One isn’t working with physical substances (paint, wood, graphite, etc.), but rather with tiny dots lit up in correspondence with a hand movement. This is A) Restricting- The pieces are absolutely two-dimensional. No surface interest (other than simulated), no materials. B) Sterile- Less felt (for me) More drawing skill, but movements are small, picture is small- no physical involvement. Oh God! Have I become a purist?!? No, but I do feel a closeness to my work (I’m very adamant, but do I believe it?) 2) No element of chance- The computer simulates mark making tools. Okay, then here’s the logical question- “Why simulate the process instead of doing it?” It’s program to simulate creates the exact same stroke every time the same hand movement is made. In life, this is impossible.

Written ‘97 (Best Guess)- On How People Justify Their Actions

I believe most people do not actively rationalize right and wrong in their own actions. If the discrimination does occur, it must be more instinctive, and according to very personal interpretations of good and bad, right and wrong. The belief is that criminals, deviants, and anyone whose behavior at any point has been interpreted as bad, wrong or evil (is there really good and evil?) somehow justify their acts in their own minds, as the right, good, correct or only viable action. My mother told me a story once. She was working for the state department of corrections, where she councilled inmates for  a time. When asked about his reasoning, a man convicted of armed robbery said, “Hey, at least I’m out there working, instead of sitting at home and collecting welfare.” Most would dismiss this as ridiculous, or as an excuse, and maybe it was. But some of it may have been partially true. Most people, not including the seriously mentally ill (and there are a few who truly are, hidden well behind those using it as an excuse), don’t see themselves or their actions as wrong or bad. Most find some way of casting themselves as the protagonist. However unreasonable their means of doing this may seem, they either truly believe in it, or somehow convince themselves to do so. So, people (inherently) have (or create) a reason for behaviors that even they themselves might have otherwise considered wrong, bad, etc. Does “the ends justify the means” ring a bell? Of course, all this right/wrong, good/bad is open to personal interpretation and/or individual priorities. And that is open to another matter entirely. The order of priorities are almost impossible to determine in an individual. This makes anyone’s decision making process difficult to understand and harder to anticipate. Two different decision making processes and/pr sets of priorities make up the labeling of an act as right or wrong once it has been committed. How one prioritizes his own morals, values and ideals is the primary factor in decisions regarding their behavior, assuming some thought is given action (and in many cases is not). But when some (great or small) thought is given to action, the individual most times has some form of reasoning, conscious or instinctive, to justify their behavior as necessary or even desirable. Another person, with their own set of priorities (usually differing from the first person’s), may see the same behavior in a very different manner. They may see it as unnecessary or unacceptable. But this judgment is traditionally based on their own set of priorities. Where do these priorities come from? They are so widely varied from person to person. Do they come from upbringing, conditioning, fear, all of the above, someplace else? Where? Similarities in these groupings or rankings draw people near to one another, whether they realize it or not. Problem: People who specifically do the wrong thing to get a reaction, shock or emotion out of others. Question: Is it wrong to do the right thing simply because it is widely considered to be the “right” thing? Does that process, divorcing the act from the sensitivity of compassion and simply obeying an accepted list of right and wrong, lessen the act’s sincerity?

All artworks and characters are property and copyright of their respective artists and/or companies.