​According to Tate, ‘Painting is the practice of applying paint or other media to a surface, usually with a brush. In art, the term painting describes both the act of painting, and the result of the action – the painting as object.

The intention of my new work is…to paint. But paint what? Nothing. Nothing definable at least. That I leave to you, the observer and your apophenia. I paint for the action of pure painting, the sensual release that I attain from the practice of painting, and perhaps transmit via the painting as object. Paint on top of paint, paint beside paint, colour vibrates next to colour. Tints, tones, shades and hues vary. Paint covers colour, colour reveals paint. Lines makes shapes, shapes make lines. Painting is done.
​
So, having defined what (a) painting is and why I paint, what does ‘the painting as object’ do?
To define what it does is more difficult, as it may do many things, but let’s try to simplify it.
Does a painting pass information? Sometimes, but not always.
Does a painting provoke emotion? Often, but again not always.
Does a painting make us think? Hopefully, but once again, probably not always.
If we consciously engage with a painting, is it intended to do the above? Generally, a painting is created to do all or at least some of the above in varying combinations.
But are the notions of openness, empathy and thought purely conscious? No, of course not, so how does a painting interact with out subconscious? 

At what point do brush strokes on a canvas coalesce into an 'image'. or at least an idea, as opposed to being just an abstract expression of depth? When and how do these marks attain the critical mass necessary to become greater than the sum of their parts?

I'm asking this question in regards to my own current paintings; although it is applicable to all paintings.  On the whole this consideration would suggest that it is solely the concern of figurative painting, not flat abstraction. However I intend to argue that all painting is by it's very nature flat abstraction. And that it is only via the process of apophenia that we ever make that mental leap from brushstrokes to idea.  

Over the next few weeks and blog posts I will consider critical theory from many commentators on art; including Clement Greenberg, Leo Steinberg, Donald Judd, to assist my evaluation of this theory. 

So apophenia...not  a very well known word I grant you. However I feel it is entirely the most appropriate  word to describe the thought process behind my latest body of work. Via apophenia we see patterns or images where they may not actually exist, we all do it, that face in the clouds or the wonderful boxing octopus that is really a coat hook. Of course these are simple observations, but apophenia can be a symptom of something more serious such as schizophrenia. It can also explain the modern tendency to create and believe in conspiracy theories, seeing a pattern in random events where none exists.

On the whole in this blog I will be looking at how the observer may see patterns in abstract or none- representational  art, but on occasions I will widen the field to consider these other aspects of the apophenia. But for now please take a look at the two tonal studies at the top of this post and see what you think; I'd love to know what you can see in them.