What makes an image readable? How far can I go with abstraction?
My solution for this problem is to make use of the different expectations of reception between photos and paintings. The reception expectation of a photo is of a very different nature that that of a painting.
By using certain aspects in a painting that at first refer to a photographical way of perceiving, one achieves to let the viewers search in reality for a reference in order to understand.
For me the challenge lies in postpone this as long as possible, the point is to get lost in this game of recognition.
My project is both practically as theoretically about the discipline in which I am working. It is a reflection on my working method, investigated theoretically on a bigger scale and from different perspectives, to eventually end up in the personal. While in practical terms it mainly is an investigation to what for me the essence of painting is, a painting is not only a painting but also an idea about painting.
What is my idea about painting?
To me painting is reflexive, it incorporates all influences from the outside, it evolves and still it keeps its identity. A painting cannot be made nor seen without being influenced by other images, a painting cannot be seen or made without being influenced by technology, which changes our view, experience and perception of the world over and over again. Yes, painting is reflective, it reacts and incorporates. That is why it invents itself again and again; it must in order to survive from technology.