On the wandering begun by the postmodernists - from the picture to the object, then to the idea of the object, then to the object and again back to the picture as view of the object - I try to constantly grope "my own way" by comprehending the meaning of the objects and installations.
At the end of the 20th century critics declared in the name of artists that practically each category of art is dead and the picture as an artistic handicraft became Kitsch, etc. Is the way in the art nothing else than a dead end? Ilya Kabakov says in "About the "total" Installation", that "probably the inner possibilities of a development of the picture as a genre are exhausted. Today the picture in the artistic world appears as "an object under objects". It loses its privileged position, as it was not yet very long time ago."
For me the picture is a pictorial possibility of expressing the sensual variety of the being in the countless forms which the existence causes in the soul of a painter . If a painter succeeds in finding an ?inspired rhythm",then just in a picture can the condition of a reality be achieved, in between each point and each line settles the principle of a expressive reason .
The virtual reality takes a substantial part of the habitat of modern people. Many times "the emphasis of life is shifted from the real world into the "virtual reality", into the nothing. Thus one robs the life of its emphasis". As a method in the art I reject the virtual reality, since there creation equals an annihilation. Therefore in my painting I try to take distance from abstract constructions and formations steered purely by understanding. To recognize this world, to grasp it and not to flee before it into the nothing, that is the principle of my artistic view.
Henri Matisse said once: "if a painter is afraid of the banality, he will never be able to avoid it". I turned to the landscape painting, the most anachronistic kind in the entire genre of modern picture.
How can the surrounding living world of nature be possibly exhausted in all its varieties? Is it senseless to try to identify one's "I" with the living nature, to see nature as a part of one self? In my eyes the refusal of landscape painting as a kind of pictural self-expression is nothing else than a post-modernistic syndrome.
A very long time ago the Chinese taught: "Wholy equal, how far you go or how high you climb, you must begin with a simple little thing". This simple little thing was for me the tree. In my painting the tree forms and arranges the landscape. It is symbol, concept and constructional element at the same time. The body of the tree can be convex and conkarv, smooth and rough, crossing and bent, long and defining?
That offers unlimited possibilities for plastic - colored modeling. In the plastic modeling of tree figures I try to arrange picturally the forms of living nature.
It seems to me that I have found my way, which however I still have to go.