My body of work that I did for graduate school is entitled "Relative Existence" and it's kind of an interesting name and was suggested by one of the members of my graduate committee. I'm the kind of guy where I really don't like to name things and put labels on them, I just like to make art. Heck it was hard for me to name my kids. I guess these images are like kids, except it took a little less work to get them here (well not on my part, my wife does all the work with bringing the kids into the world, except for my small contribution).
My artist statement regarding this was whittled down and re-examined multiple times (such is the life and toils of a grad student) and it wasn't until after I kind of snapped one day and finally wrote down what I was feeling about my work and avoided all the art speak crap, that I came up with something that actually meant something. It was eventually refined, and brought to a very concise and understandable few sentences, but I am looking at adding an addendum.
The artist statement I had for grad school worked for that time, and it felt complete and good at the time. But since then I have come to realize that an artist statement truly is a living, breathing document, and can be adjusted and added upon as the work progresses. Here is my original statement.
" The imagination is the tool of creation. Before something can exist physically, it must first be envisioned mentally, as an idea. Fantasy morphs into a reality and I am transported to a realm where I can walk along canyon floors and grapple peaks. I am forging these worlds…my primordial creation."
I liked it, but now it seems too concise. I want to say more, and I am starting to understand what I want to say. It's funny how grad school gets you started and it isn't until after grad school that you really start to make sense of what happened to you the past three years. I haven't quite figured out how I want to say the rest of it, but it kind of goes like this,
"Creation and science work hand in hand. One does not defeat the other. Creation defines the why, while science explains the how." That's really pretty rough but the gist of it is that I am a firm believer in God, but I am also a very practical human being and I look at the world scientifically. Science is fascinating, and Creation is inspiring. Then why can't the two work together? It's not a question of who is right and who is wrong, it's more about what is truth. My goal is to try and open up a dialogue between people of faith and the atheist community and let them discover common ground. There will be differences, obviously, but currently there is such an attitude of disrespect on both sides and it really bothers me. This is where my work stands now, by using myself as an example of creator and ultimate scientist when I create these worlds. Enjoy!