Is what you see what you see?


Primarily I am a figurative painter driven by my love of observation. Whilst the threads of my work may ostensibly appear as they muse over societal issues there are concerns, which correlate with psychological examination. This may be construed as voyeuristic and has left me speculating, whether my work cross-examines anthropology and/or empathy and space.

Whilst many people take photographs and cease to look, for me observation is key. I use surreptitious photography as reference. I am essentially fascinated by people’s interactions within different environments and constantly search for moments to record through paint, interrogating the narrative behind those snap shots. I am examining ways as to how can I best encapsulate that ordinary, transient moment and make it engaging. To make the viewer slow down, stop and visually explore would be a huge achievement.


Today many of us appear so remote yet so connected, present but absent with others around, so for me the gaze or silent gaze are fascinating. We often rush to get somewhere, often stressed and exhausted. Once we arrive at our destination we do not always connect with those around us but communicate remotely using technology.

Maybe my paintings interrogate the subject-object* debate and question 'is what you see is what you see?' Or possibly at the same time that we are subjects we are objects in the world as well. Perhaps I have become a flâneuse**.


*Charles Saunders Pierce began writing on semeioticsemiotics, or the theory of sign relations in the 1860s, around the time that he devised his system of three categories. He eventually defined semiosis as an "action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs"


 **The female equivalent of flâneur - a man who saunters around observing society as recognised and recorded by Baudelaire