What fascinates me about mythology, folklore and legend is the inherent truths interwoven that are, I believe, meant to be conveyed and applied as lessons of experience as true today as they were when the stories were created. It interests me how modern perspectives (and this is probably true historically, in so far as we're explained) are distanced from these core elements and what that too explains.
I suppose in many respects it was being introduced to Da Vinci through Dan Brown's best known novel that I regained interest in art, not that I'd strictly lost it... I just hadn't looked beyond immediate impressions. I hadn't, for example, been aware that Da Vinci was quite possibly the greatest master of code or invention, not having explored art in that way.
If we accept that 90% of what we share in informational terms is non verbal, then the greater exchange in any human terms is, in someway, displayed. This then gives any artist unboundless opportunity by virtue of what they command - the instruments, inclusion, suggestion and degree of expression along with the choices in how they do so.
Most exchanges are made unconsciously. Dali explored the subconscious psyche by releasing the conscious reigns of controlled imagery within surrealistic frame terms. Art historians are still attempting to unravel the dialogue contained within Da Vinci's works (especially the Mona Lisa). This fascinates me along with ancient symbolism which today forms a background of information underpinning modern everyday things - these messages are so familiar that we don't consciously notice or remark upon them, and yet we don't overlook them either, we just don't think about it - like breathing.
This interest had led me into researching paralinguistics, parapsychology, and the oldest known or associated origins of basic forms in patterns, gestures and vocalisation. Having said that, artwork does (it seems) necessitate proof of ability at one level before another is appreciated. So it seems necessary to produce or attempt photo quality realism in order to demonstrate underlying skills (and their development) as well as express thoughts, experience, philosophy and understanding in other forms. That's why, in respect to some of my work, I personally consider it to be Neo-Stoic in preference to abstract, surrealist or any other term.
I do think that there needs to be something an artist wants or feels compelled to express before a painting has depth beyond simple perspective and initial impression. Otherwise, it seems they're just filling canvas and/or creating forms without meaning and that's limiting the appeal for me. What motivates me to paint any subject are the feeling(s) I have, wanting to share these and for others to see and feel and know that which makes me want to share.
