When you look at my paintings there is an obvious distinction between the representational paintings and the abstract work. The subject matter is carefully described in the former, while the abstracts may seem to suggest subject matter, but only in the loosest possible way.

When I paint representationally it's because there's something I've seen that is beautiful or intriguing, and I want to explore that. So it's important to me to be faithful to the visual information; the proportions, color, spatial relationships. I do like to depart from objective perception by changes in scale. Objects painted larger than life seem to lose their passivity, and that affects the balance of power and the nature of the relationship between the painting and the viewer.

When I've been working representationally for a while it feels good to leave that particular discipline and get lost in abstraction. When I'm painting abstractly I usually don't have a destination in mind, I have to feel my way to some sort of conclusion, and that can take a lot of paint. Working that way requires me to pay attention to every brushstroke. You'd think that representational painting would be more demanding in terms of focus, but I find that in abstract painting a dishonest or thoughtless brush stroke can be enough to throw the whole process into question. In representational work there's always the measurable goal of verisimilitude to fall back on. With the abstract painting I feel like my integrity is always on the line, because I'm asking people to take me seriously according to a comparatively modern standard that has been shifting ever since its inception.