Here is what you should think about while viewing this work:

{  Options, limits, avatars, Wii, Second Life, customization, the American Dream, expectations, acceptability, politeness, subservience, muteness, anonymity, tattoos as dangerous, secret; seen as “permanent” in an impermanent world, revealing and covering “nakedness”, self-image, picking and choosing, anime, the digital world, clarity, books, what we want our children to see, things about which we’re ignorant or in self-denial, eating disorders, physical anomalies, gender identity, misconception of girl as little, cute, weak, quiet, flighty; the blur between primness and overt sexuality, individual vs. group psychology, loneliness, isolation, being lost in a crowd, Eastern vs. Western: group vs. individual, minimalism vs. accumulation, cute vs. heroic, undefined vs. black and white, and the illusion of the dialectic. }

Many artists aggressively avoid the possibility of their work falling into the realm of “cute”, mostly because we want to think of ourselves as serious artists who makes serious art. Only recently did it occur to me that “cuteness” has the potential to be dead serious.

When we’re small we’re asked “what we’d like to be when we grow up,” and presented with a suggestive list of options: doctor, lawyer, artist, teacher… without mentioning specific possibilities: homeless, lonely, knocked up, outspoken, afraid. We’re presented with a simplified image of the world which makes the transition from child to adult fuzzy. The vague, mute and subtractive faces are anonymous. The characters are identified by their bodies, by their clothing, their stance, their suggested profession, and their possessions. By using a clean palette of black and white I’m mirroring the simplicity by which it’s easiest to view ourselves in our world, only injecting some slight discomfort and disorder.

This work is the regurgitation of a lot of people watching, and a lot of wondering who people are a little deeper than how they present themselves.