During the last years, it became harder to answer the question what it is that I want to paint. Sometimes, I try to overrule this doubt by using very recognazible motives, it seems to be the case that exactly by being cliche, these motives make space for something more vague. Dutch landscape, birds and flower still life are examples of the kind of motives I use.
Other times, I try to make paintings that defy every category, in an attempt to get closer to an essence that lies beyond those categories, something like the appearance of life itself without a specific time, place or narrative. The figuration of these paintings is less recognazible, and they balance between genres like landscape painting, mythological imagery or impressionistic depiction. The objective is to give shape to a very undefinite state, something before definition.
I don't want to exclude one of those two methods at forehand and since they are eachothers opposites, everything seems to be possible at every moment in my actual studio practice. But I guess this confusing situation is actually a desired one, since it makes intuition an important factor for the determination of a painting. A more important factor than ratio. And to me intuition seems more valuable than ratio, and a better tool to make art.
Altogether, this practice leads to a divergent output, that challenges the spectator, since it forces one to look from scratch at each new painting. But exactly this constant change makes the viewing more intense and more true to the complexity of life. In the end, my painting deals as much with fundamental elements of life (memory, myth, desire, intimacy) as it deals with fundamental aspects of painting (illusion of space, figure and background, suggestion of a narrative etc). My approach to painting has always been an inclusive one, it's not my goal to isolate and analyze any of the before mentioned aspects, but rather to show all those things in an unseparated and rich way that does justice to the experience of life.