(in the artist’s own words)

Almost any image can be called a “story”, but this is what I mean by story:

A story usually includes multiple elements that relate to each other in a staged fashion, whereby the sum is greater than the parts. In a “good story”, the sum is much greater than the parts. Literal relationships don’t much interest me, because life is generally much more subtle than a person’s literal interpretation of life. I prefer a little mystery to my stories that incorporate something to be solved (or not). My stories avoid linear relationships between their parts, i.e. “this element is here, and therefore that element must be there”. Again, life does not work like that, so why should a pictorial story?

Two dimensional pictures (paintings, drawings, or prints) are different than say a movie or a book in that the creator (me) takes hours, days, and months to craft the image, but the viewer (you) take it all in in a flash, i.e. “a picture is worth a thousand words”. So the “time” element is effectively taken away in flat art (a movie takes two hours to view and a book two days to read). So a story is very different in a single image than these other story telling forms. Not better, but different. Single, flat. 2-D pictures are, from my perspective, much more like a dream or a myth. Time seems to disappear and a subtle clarity can appear (or not).