what do you mean by "victims who engage in social spaces?"
victims _of_ social spaces?
people who are victimized upon entering social spaces?
victims who, in spite of their history of victimhood, engage in social spaces and thus manifest their emotional strength?
how do the white helmet things relate to this?

i don't know. maybe i'm just splitting hairs or being an overpresumptuous asshole. but i feel like there's something more compelling about this that i haven't quite grasped, and i'd like to understand it better.

Very abstract.
It's very cool, but I have to agree with Urea.

If I understood the concept better, I think I'd be able to appreciate this piece more.

Being vague is hip, but your message won't necessarily be heard.

I want to understand what you're trying to say.

--
-Heath

I think it's because I love you.

This is a really interesting piece. I like the fact that the message is vague. I really enjoy finding my own message in the work of other artists. Very cool.

Check out my site if you get a chance. I like to hear feedback on my work.
[link]

There is no direct symbolism - as though this means that, and that means that. Intentionality isn't really all that important. Your context decides what you want it to mean. You can make up whatever you want! (semiotics, cultural differences, or the notion of the death of the author - [link])

I personally like to appreciate the feeling I get from it. I guess, what i'm saying is, if I could explain the piece to you - then there would be no point in painting it. Of course, I want my audience to "get it", but it's impossible. The language of paint can mean so many different things, to different people.

The majority of what I usually put in my "descriptions/comments/notes" is romanticizing the idea that the people who engage in social spaces (particularly western [north american] spaces) are victims to society, or social spaces. I guess i'm just making note to myself of that feeling you get when you walk in a space with hundreds of people.. etc.. etc..

To be literal, I can however say that there is a bunch of figures and they have triangles for arms.

I'm interested in this experience of society and participating in social things. Most people see my paintings as taking it negatively, but with a positive hybridity. I guess you could call it uncomfortable or surpressing or empty - but most people also see a place for opportunity at work with some sense of humour.

Maybe that helps a little. But don't let my words sway you too much, make your own decisions. It hasn't ever been a measure of success or strength for my audience to "get it".

Thanks for your insight

lots of love!

--
[link]

read above

lots of love too.

--
[link]

It's also interesting how you call it abstract. Abstract, as defined in the textbooks has always been void of representation. I would be inclined to still label this work figuration.

Perhaps your thinking of something pushing away from representational rather than "abstract". The problems with labelling work is that the majority comes off from an aesthetic understanding rather than it's original motives. Abstract work is not just an aesthetic, and thus totem poles are not merely a style of carving a tree. You can see how this can be problematic. If I decide that the tree looks neat, and I appropriate that "look" or "style" or aesthetic and reuse it - then i've neglected the ceremonial value it once held. The problem with it today is that people are turning these things that meant far more than aesthetic into something purely aesthetic. The majority of the people wouldn't know the difference between a "modern" chair or a "minimalist" chair. However, in theory they have almost polemic meanings - minimalism came out of a desire to mean nothing, while modernism was a desire to find the ultimate meaning through elemental, universal forms. Deviantart also does a good job reinforcing some of these problems in the way they are categorizing art right now. The most often rebut to this argument is that although we lose all non-aesthetic values in our appropriation of visual culture we can't make art unless we appropriate. This is of course the dilemna in the end. Am I not allowed to make my own totem pole? In the end, I think it's important to think about it harder and see what could be problematic - and most of all, take responsibility for it. Over in BC there's been a big problem with First Nations culture being portrayed as an identity of Canada/BC merely to sell it's "naturalistic" side to visitors and has resulted in the commodification of cultural objects that had value. A good person who takes a positive aspect from this is Brian Jungen's work - [link] he makes traditional haida - west coast first nations "masks" out of deconstructed Nike Shoes.

I hope school is doing well ! Good to hear from you again.

--
[link]

Alrighty. Well first of all, when I said abstract I meant "out of the norm", not void of representation. I know you're trying to say something with this piece, you were just very vague on what that was, exactly.

Also, "abstract" or "minimalist" aren't labels, they're styles of art. The Man isn't making you conform to generic labels or anything. I'm not trying to lump your art in with everything else out there. I've seen very few art styles like yours. I just got my names mixed up.
Too add just one more argument, I feel that some "minimalistic" art is turning into the "modern" style, because it's becoming very popular in urban cultures. Like, "oh, look at this chair, what a new and interesting style, it's the look of the future!"

But maybe I'm just naive because I don't go to a fancy art school on the coast and so I haven't learned all the things you have over the past 2 years.

It's really nice to know you're still using DA. I'm glad to see your art again.
Lots of love back to BC.

By the way, lumping all your text into one ridiculously huge paragraph makes it incredibly difficult to read. Are you trying to blind me?

<3

--
-Heath

I think it's because I love you.

yea, of course... no need to conform to anything.. but without conforming then we cannot speak. If I decide that Apple means Jerry, then when I say apple to you, you think crisp, red, glorius, macintosh - while I am facinated with the beautiful curls of Jerry Springfield.

You can decide that Minimalism = minimal style, or Modernism = modern style - and really they have already. But, the problem when all you do is appropriate aesthetics is it loses anything else - Modernism is not merely hard rectangles - it was/is a movement that sought for a universal language that could transcend cultural/linguistic differences - that somehow by using primary colors and horizontal and vertical rectangles - elemental forms - anyone from any time, in any culture could get the same feeling. Monderism can be aesthetic, but it more often then not neglects its symbolic/deeper value.

Many people think of art as style. Would you agree with this? (not rhetorical)

--
[link]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if I think art is a style in itself, or if I think of art as the different styles that represent it? Or could you even be asking if I agree that most people think of art as style?

--
-Heath

I think it's because I love you.