Category: Decorative Art
Apart from narrative images, portraits of Adam and Eve are not common. Those one does find are likely to be nude sculptures of the first parents in their prelapsarian state – attractive young adults, as in the statues at right or this one from Notre-Dame de Paris or this willowy Eve at Autun.
Narrative images are seen in six different categories as follows.
The Creation of Adam and Eve
In the first account of creation God makes “man” in his image and likeness, “male and female” (1:26-31). In the second Adam is created from mud and Eve from Adam’s rib (2:7, 21-22).
The creation of Adam is seen in some Genesis sequences, for example the reliefs on the façade of Orvieto Cathedral and the mosaic sequence at the cathedral in Monreale, Sicily. We see the creation of Eve as early as a 4th-century Roman sarcophagus, where she is created by one of the earliest images of the Trinity. In the sarcophagus relief Eve is already standing by the side of the sleeping Adam, but later works such as the 12th-century mosaics at Monreale Cathedral and Palermo’s Palatine Chapel and the reliefs on the 14th-century façade of Orvieto Cathedral all show her emerging from Adam’s ribcage or torso.
Eve’s creation seems to be a more popular subject than Adam’s. In a 13th-century Swiss manuscript page with a medallion for each day of creation, the sixth day has God creating a human who is almost certainly Eve.
In modern illustrations the Creator will often be an old man with a beard, but in all the images mentioned here he is visualized as the Son, not the Father. The Son, who was to become incarnate as the man Jesus, is the “Word” of John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God and the Word was God.… And the Word was made flesh.” At least as early as the 2nd century Christian writers extended this to imply that it was the Son who interacted with Adam and Eve in the garden, and the artists followed this cue.1
The Fall of Man
In Genesis 3:1-8 the serpent persuades Eve to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God had forbidden. Eve then gives some of the fruit to Adam and they immediately realize they are in big trouble. From the earliest times Christian writers identified the serpent with what Revelation 12:9 calls “that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world.”
The iconography of this narrative is exemplified in the second picture at right. This iconographic type has been in use since at least the 4th-century and has experienced little change. The couple stand on either side of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, with Adam usually on the left. The serpent coils around the trunk of the tree, which carries fruit. Eve will be variously reaching for the fruit, taking it, and/or passing some to Adam. The couple is sometimes shown completely naked when they take the fruit, as stated in Genesis 2:24 and illustrated in the second picture at right. But most artists either pose them so as to preserve modesty (example) or simply neglect to include the genitalia (example).
Before the Gothic era the serpent was just a generic snake, but in the mid-12th century Peter Comestor wrote that there is a certain species of serpent that has the face of a young girl, and that Satan had chosen to use that kind of serpent to beguile Eve because “like heeds like.”3 This claim was repeated by subsequent commentators, the putative species acquired a name (“Draconcopedes”), and by the early 13th century female faces started to appear on the serpent.4 The earliest may be this relief at Amiens. By the 14th and 15th centuries they become quite common (example). The most illustrious example is Michelangelo’s panel on the Temptation in the Sistine Chapel.
God Confronts the Couple and Expels from Paradise
After they eat the fruit the couple realize they are naked and make themselves garments of fig leaves. These are almost always represented as single leaves covering the genitals, as in the third picture at right, where we see God confront them. The confrontation is less common in the art than the actual expulsion from Eden, in which God “cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims and a flaming sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24). The images usually have an angel do the casting out, as in the fourth picture at right. That picture also portrays the “garments of skins” (3:21) that God made for the couple. These vary in the art, sometimes taking the form of shaggy tunics as at right and sometimes more leather-like as in this sarcophagus relief.
The fourth picture at right portrays a Cherub in addition to the angel, but that is much less common in the art.
The Assignment of Labors
As part of their punishment God tells Adam he will have to work to eat: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (3:19). The point is repeated a few verses later: “The Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken” (3:23). In the 8th century Bede commented on 3:19 that the curse of work applied to Eve as well (In Pentateuchum Commentarii, col. 213), and she has always been included in images of God’s assigning labor to mankind.
There have been two ways of looking at the curse. One was to see it as a plain hardship, as in this 12th-century relief where Adam and Eve bend sadly over a little hillock with their hoes, or this mosaic where Eve looks up disconsolately from her spinning. (The stereotypically female task of spinning thread is the one most commonly given to Eve in images of this kind.)
The other way of looking at the curse is to accentuate the positive. Sarcophagi of the 4th century, for example, symbolize the assignment of labor to the couple by showing Adam with a sheaf of wheat and Eve with a lamb (example). The sheaf represents the fruit of Adam’s labor. The lamb refers to the task of spinning, but with an emphasis on the lamb’s closeness to Eve and possibly a reference to the “lamb of God” that will be borne by Eve’s counterpart, Mary. A catacomb painting from the same century seems to show the couple’s progression from wearing animal skins to the more comfortable life that results from the labors God has assigned.
We see this optimism again in the Middle Ages in this example of domestic contentment in Adam’s family and in Bede’s remark that Adam “…was sent out from the paradise of bliss ‘to till the earth,’ that is, to labor in the body and gain for himself the merit to return to life, which is what the name of Paradise signifies, and be able to touch the tree of life and live forever” (ibid., col. 215, my translation). In the early sarcophagi this optimistic emphasis is so strong that the sculptors almost invariably place the sheaf of wheat in the scene of eating the fruit, as in this sarcophagus. There is another sarcophagus that puts both the sheaf and the lamb in the picture.
Adam Pictured at the Crucifixion
Medieval and earlier images of the Crucifixion sometimes include Adam in a coffin below the base of the cross (example). This is to remind the viewer that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (I Corinthians 15:22), a point especially stressed in this manuscript illumination, where Adam holds a chalice to collect the blood falling from Jesus’ body on the cross.
The Anastasis or Harrowing of Hell
In “Anastasis” or “Harrowing of Hell” images the risen Christ rescues the souls of those who were faithful in the years before the Redemption. Adam and Eve are always the first of these. In western images they may be naked (example); in eastern ones they will be clothed (example).
adam and eve, adam and eve posters, christianity posters, biblical figures, renaissance art, old testament figures, religion and spirituality, decorative art prints
Lunch atop a Skyscraper (New York Construction Workers Lunching on a Crossbeam) is a famous black-and-white photograph taken during construction of the RCA Building at 30 Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, New York City, United States.
The photograph depicts eleven men eating lunch, seated on a girder with their feet dangling 256 meters (840 feet) above the New York City streets. The photo was taken on September 20, 1932 on the 69th floor of the RCA Building during the last months of construction. According to archivists, the photo was in fact prearranged. Although the photo shows real construction workers, it is believed that the moment was staged by the Rockefeller Center to promote its new skyscraper. The photo appeared in the Sunday photo supplement of the New York Herald Tribune on October 2. The glass negative is now owned by Corbis who acquired it from the Acme Newspictures archive in 1995.
Formerly attributed to “unknown”, it has been credited to Charles C. Ebbets since 2003 and erroneously to Lewis Hine. The Corbis corporation is now officially returning its status to unknown although sources continue to credit Ebbets.
There have been numerous claims regarding the identities of the men in the image. The movie Men at Lunch traces some of the men to possible Irish origin, but the director plans to do further interviews to follow up among other claims from Swedish relatives. From the left, number three is Joseph Eckner, number four is Michael Breheny, number five is Albin Svensson and number six with the cigarette is Peter Rice, a Mohawk ironworker from Kahnawake, Canada. The first man from the right is Slovak worker Gusti (Gustáv) Popovič from the village of Vyšný Slavkov in the district of Levoča. Gusti was originally a lumberjack and carpenter.
In 1932 he sent his wife Mariška a postcard with this photography on which he wrote: “Don´t you worry, my dear Mariska, as you can see I’m still with bottle. Your Gusti.” He came back to Vyšný Slavkov at the beginning of World war II and became a farmer. By the end of World war II Gusti was killed by a grenade in his village. His and Mariška’s joint grave is in the Vyšný Slavkov cemetery. The third from the right is Joe Curtis. The man sitting fourth from the right is allegedly Irishman Francis Michael Rafferty with his lifelong best friend and fellow Irishman, Stretch Donahue, sitting to his right.
Throughout his time as Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson used the image as a motivational tool, showing it to all his players when they made the team. Noting that there are eleven men in the picture, Sir Alex said, “What is the greatest thing a team can do? They can sacrifice their life for each other and sometimes when one falls two can save him.”
Renato Casaro 1935 in Treviso / Northern Italy.
At the age of 17 first commissions for cinema-decoration in change for free tickets.
At the age of 19 moving to Rome – 1 year of work as voluntary at Studio Favalli.
At the age of 21 opening of his own studio in Rome becoming the youngest movie-painter in Italy. First commissioned poster for the German movie Two Blue Eyes.
1965 first international success with the worldwide used keyart for Dino de Laurentiis’s The Bible and first billboard on Hollywood’s Sunset Boulevard.
In the following years working with the big names of the movie-scene: Leone, Lelouch, Coppola, Petersen, Bertolucci, Rosi, Besson and the Studios in LA.
From 1979 numerous exhibitions and awards like “Best Keyart“ 1988 in US for The Last emperor or in 1991 for Dances with Wolves, just to name a few.
1985 invitation to lecture Istituto Europeo di Design, Rome / Italy.
1988 Honorary citizen of his home town Treviso / Italy and holder of the medal Totila.
1988 Honorary member of the Advertising-Association, Venice / Italy.
1992 Holder of the Medal “The iron mask“ of the city of Turin-Pinerolo / Italy for 30 years of life for movies“.
Since 1988 first paintings of his cycle Painted Movies including Invitation, 100 Years of Film, Paradise View.
Since 1985 regularly educational trips in Americas West on horseback for the cycle Going West and to African countries as to study African Wildlife for his Cycle African Impressions.
Trish grew up in Minnesota in the world of art along side her mother who enrolled her in every art class and contests in which she would usually come in second place. This made her work even harder. Then on her own, she moved to Dallas fresh out of high school and graduated from the Dallas Institute of Art.
Pursuing her artistic dream, she secured a job as a textile designer and a fashion illustrator for a clothing manufacturer. She later moved to the J.C. Penney home office in the design department. After several years in the corporate world, she decided that it wasn’t for her, so went to work as a freelance artist. She was signed by a textile agent in New York City and continued to freelance for several years.
In the summer of 1996 Trish’s beloved Grandmother passed away and Trish was given an old cigar box full of vintage photos. She took the next couple of years to reflect and be inspired by these photos and realized it was time to pursue her dream of being a full time painter. Trish was signed by her publisher Canadian Art Prints, Vancouver B.C. in 2003 and produced over 40 images currently being sold around the globe. Her prints are sold in retail outlets globally.
After years of persistence and overcoming obstacles Trish’s rewards are coming to fruition. Invited to be the Official Artist of the 2008 Kentucky Derby and Kentucky Oaks, and as the Official Artist of the 2009 Westminster Dog Show, she is now fulfilling her lifelong dream of being an important artist.
Trish’s paintings reflect the Art Deco era to such a convincing degree you can’t help but wonder how she transported herself to capture that lovely era. Her motto is to inspire others, especially girls and women, helping them reach their goals by setting a positive example.
Trish has given back to the community by contributing original artwork to charity which has been more rewarding then any amount of fame she says. The organizations include Girl Scouts, Make a Wish Foundation, Shining Stars, Arts Net, Young Artist’s of Texas, Greater Southlake Women’s Society, Southwest Transplant Foundation, Westlake Academy, Greater Southlake Women’s Society and GRACE donating paintings to help raise funds. Trish donated the original artist’s proofs of her winning Kentucky Derby designs to Girl Scouts for the live auction at their fundraiser, Derby Day at Lone Star Park.
Famed throughout the ancient world for her outstanding beauty, queen Nefertiti remains one of the most well known of the queens of Egypt. Nefertiti was the Wife of Akhenaten during the Eighteenth Dynasty. She bore Akhenaten 6 daughters and no sons, and shared a near co-rulership with the king.
Fifteen years after her appointment to the position of Queen of Memphis, Nefertiti mysteriously disappeared. Egyptologists have assumed that this was either due to banishment or her death. However, little evidence suggests that she actually died. Similarly, speculation exists as to whether she was the obscure pharaoh Neferneferuaten.
Nefertiti was the chief wife (queen) of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV who took the name Akhenaten when he led a religious revolution which put the sun god Aten at the center of religious worship. Art from the time shows a close family relationship, with Nefertiti, Akhenaten, and their six daughters depicted more naturalistically, individualistically, and informally than in other eras. Images of Nefertiti also depict her taking an active role in the Aten cult.
What Happened to Nefertiti?
After about fourteen years, Nefertiti disappears from public view. Akhenaten was succeeded first by one Pharaoh, Smenkhkhare, usually described as his son-in-law, and then by another, Tutankhaten (who changed his name to Tutankhamen when the Aten cult was abandoned), who is also usually described as Akhenaten’s son-in-law.
One theory of Nefertiti’s disappearance is that she assumed a male identity and ruled under the name Smenkhkhare. In another theory, she was murdered as part of the return to the traditional Egyptian religious customs. Another is that she simply died.
As for Nefertiti’s origins, these too are debated by archaeologists and historians. She may have been a foreign princess from an area in what is now northern Iraq. She may have been the daughter of the previous Pharaoh, Amenhotep III, and his chief wife, Queen Tiy, in which case either Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was not the son of Amenhotep III, or Nefertiti married (as was a custom in Egypt) her brother or half-brother. Or, she may have been the daughter of Ay, who was a brother of Queen Tiy.
The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War ( July 18, 1870) found Claude Monet at Le Havre, where he remained as that fateful summer wore on. On September 2 came the German breakthrough at Sedan; Napoleon III capitulated and on September 4 the Third Republic was proclaimed. Leaving Camille and little Jean in Normandy, Monet sailed for England in September. Bazille volunteered for the Zouaves and joined a line regiment in August (he was killed in action at Beaune-la-Rolande on November 28).
Manet, as a confirmed republican, waited for the Empire to collapse and then enlisted (as did Degas) in an artillery unit of the National Guard. Pissarro, living at Louveciennes, found himself in the path of the advancing Germans and fled to England, leaving behind hundreds of his pictures together with many that Monet had stored with him. Torn from their frames and used as floor-mats and aprons by the Prussian soldiery, who turned his house into the regimental butchershop, all were destroyed — an irreparable loss, depriving us of by far the greater part of Pissarro’s pre-1870 output and a substantial part of Monet’s. To these losses, in the case of Monet, must be added the many canvases which he himself ripped to shreds in fits of despair or to prevent their being seized by his creditors.
Things went no better for him in London than in France. The English public showed complete indifference to his work. He submitted some pictures to an exhibition at the Royal Academy, but they were rejected. He had the good luck, however, to run into Daubigny, who introduced him to his own dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, also a refugee in London, who had opened a gallery at 158 Bond Street. This meeting was providential not only for Monet but also for Pissarro, who met Durand-Ruel at the same time. “Without him we’d have starved to death in London,” he wrote later. But in spite of his enthusiasm for their work and his persistence in bringing it to public notice, Durand-Ruel failed to sell a single one of their pictures in England. He nevertheless went on buying canvases from Monet and Pissarro, and thus enabled them to keep afloat.
Monet made several views of the Thames in addition to some studies in Hyde Park in which the figures are very roughly silhouetted against a simplified landscape composed of broad, flat planes of color. Pissarro tells of their visits to the museums and how much they were impressed by the English landscape painters, by Constable and Turner in particular. Monet later denied that he had been influenced by Turner at that time, and indeed it is only in the much later series of fog effects on the Thames ( 1904) that Turner’s influence becomes apparent.
In the summer of 1871 Monet left England for Holland, where he painted some landscapes in which the mighty forms of windmills, outlined against the immensity of the sky above the canals in the foreground, are treated in a free, sparkling style very much like that of his Trouville seascapes of 1870.
Life had gone back to normal in Paris now and artists were returning to their old haunts. The group that had formed around Manet in the late sixties now formed again, but this time it centered on Monet. Even before his military service, as early as 1859, Monet had met Pissarro at the Académie Suisse; after his discharge from the army, at Gleyre’s studio in 1862, he had met Renoir, Bazille and Sisley. Monet thus formed the link between the group at Gleyre’s and the group at the Académie Suisse, where Pissarro had been joined by Cézanne and Guillaumin.
In December 1871 Monet settled at Argenteuil, on the western outskirts of Paris. After a visit to Le Havre in the spring of 1872, he left for Holland, eager to rework a vein that had proved so fruitful in the previous year. It is difficult to distinguish between the pictures made during these two stays in Holland, few of them being dated. Assignable to 1872, however, are those which foreshadow the fully developed technique of his Argenteuil period, those, in other words, in which we find a breaking-up of color into a patchwork of small brushstrokes and a new emphasis on atmospheric vibration.
In the autumn of 1872 Monet returned to Argenteuil where he lived for the next six years, with occasional expeditions to Paris, as is proved by two views of the Boulevard des Capucines in winter. He saw much of Renoir and they often worked together on the Seine banks. Monet’s first river scenes, in 1872-1873, were still built up in separate, unblended strokes and patches of color. A good example is Pleasure Boats which, enclosed in a triple frame with a Sisley and a Pissarro, forms a triptych bequeathed to the Louvre by Monsieur May.
As soon as they appeared, the Water Lilies of Claude Monet old age, those hymns to light, plant life and water, incurred the displeasure of both the well-wishers and the detractors of Impressionism. The first were baffled by Monet’s new manner; the second were blind to the new depth of vision these works revealed. Misunderstood and neglected for over thirty years, the Water Lilies are at last receiving the recognition they deserve.
Having had the privilege, from childhood up, of seeing and familiarizing myself with them in the setting at Giverny in which they were created (the only setting, let me add, that can do justice to them), it reflects no particular credit on me to say that personally I have never shared that incomprehension. To see the Water Lilies in the garden studio especially built to house them was to see them in natural, harmonious conjunction with radiant summer days spent in the garden at Giverny beside the pond which inspired them. It was a delight which those who experienced it will never forget.
I cannot deny that, for me at least, the spell is irremediably broken in the Musée de l’Orangerie, in that bleak back room which, designed especially for the Water Lilies in 1925, nevertheless baldly reduces them to a mural decoration — and they are ever so much more than that. The way in which they are encased there, in a long horizontal belt around the concave wall, restricts them to the narrow, perfectly extraneous function of emphasizing the ellipsoidal line of the architecture.
Monet himself contributed to this over-modest setting by approving the whole project at the time and by doing his utmost to adapt his panels to it. To break and diversify the even horizontal flow of the paintings around the room, he sprinkled the foreground with willow fronds suggestive of the decorative style of art nouveau, fashionable around 1900. At the same time they introduce a third dimension which strikes an uncalled-for contrast with the sheer vertical plane of the water surface; the latter, with its rich play of light effects, was theme enough in itself.
The setting, then, in which the Water Lilies have been exhibited to the public in part explains both the eclipse they underwent for over a quarter of a century and the keen revival of interest in them caused by the recent revelation of further Water Lilies hitherto hidden from view in the studio at Giverny. The evolution of taste and ideas in the course of the past halfcentury explains the rest.
This evolution, as far as painting is concerned, began with the dissensions that led to the break-up of the impressionist movement in the eighties. While Monet went on, singlemindedly pursuing the subtlest, most elusive effects and variations of light and atmosphere, Pissarro, Renoir, Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin each branched out in different directions. The Neo-Impressionism of Seurat, with which Pissarro threw in his lot in 1886, was both a logical development of Impressionism and a reaction against it. The systematic, scientific application of the principles which Monet discovered and applied by trial and error signified in effect a tacit condemnation of the intuitive, empirical nature of his art.
As for Renoir, after an uneasy interlude in which he toyed with a harshly linear, Ingresque style, he finally reconciled his concern for form with his love of light, fusing both in an inimitable glorification of volume saturated with color. Cézanne, however, always deferring to his “sensations,” gradually exacted from them not an atmospheric so much as a geological revelation of the visible world. After a fling at Neo-Impressionism, whose narrow harness failed to hold him long in check, Van Gogh hit his stride at Arles, throwing off every constraint in a jubilant, preexpressionist exaltation of color and line. But it was the symbolism of Gauguin which worked the most radical transformation of Impressionism. Gauguin sacrificed the visual aspect of things to the expression, in terms of line and color, of the “idea” they engendered in the mind. He rejected outright the whole battery of naturalistic effects calculated to suggest space and light, and adopted flat colors and heavy contour lines.
The upshot of these powerfully diverging currents was Fauvism, which abandoned every semblance of fidelity to outward appearances in favor of a rapturous glorification of color — but color handled more plastically than it was by the slightly later followers of Van Gogh, with their bias toward expressionist distortion. In spite of this reaction, however, Fauvism and Expressionism remained, like Impressionism, essentially dependent on the sensation induced by the object.
This was no longer true of Cubism, which rejected the outer world as it appears to our senses and built up another one out of a select assortment of elements artificially reassembled in the mind. This essentially cerebral art stood at the opposite pole from the essentially sensuous art of Impressionism. No wonder then that the meat of the one was the poison of the other. The rise of Cubism and the era that followed, during which its influence spread and was assimilated, set up a reaction against Impressionism, whose achievement was belittled and whose most characteristic representative, Claude Monet, was disregarded by a whole generation of artists.
It is the most environmental lighting product that make the home open and peaceful, either as an accessory in a home or integrated into a China atmosphere, Bamboo home decoration brings minimalism and flexibility. The Bamboo represents strength and the virtues of the male, reflecting a sense of perfect balance with upright integrity and tremendous flexibility, which is ideal for living room and workstation.
Lighting is one of the main applications of bamboo, which is the diffused for giving the warm glow. With the bamboo blind unique design, projects a diffused light to surrounding and creates a fusion of warm atmosphere. It’s made with bamboo leafs with the lighting paper together for creating the unique feeling for desktop lighting and perform also a home decor too. Get the unique feeling that any materials never provide for you before.
Eco-friendly Bamboo Lighting Design for Bedroom which is made with the real bamboo leafs covered with the lighting paper together, and the frame is made with bamboo too. It integrates the Japan and China elements together for making such unique effect. Which is typically good for home use especially after switch off the main lighting supply for creating the romance feeling.
decorative art prints, theme rooms, high voltage art print, ge feng artworks, figurative art prints, best sellers
Brent Heighton has been painting for over 20 years fulltime. After college Brent began a brief career in the commercial art field. Not satisfied with the deadlines, the rush jobs, and working out other peoples ideas as to how they wanted things to look, he realized that as difficult as working in the Fine Arts was, becoming a painter of what you want and not what someone else wants, was the most important and satisfying. He has never looked back on or regretted taking that chance.
Working as a fulltime Artist has allowed Brent to travel all over the world in search of ideas and things to paint. Brent has travelled with his family to Europe, spending time in France, Holland, Belgium, and as far south as Greece. All the time with paints and brushes in hand, always looking for that inspiration just around the corner. The difference of light in a place like Greece compared to Cornwall, England is very exciting says Brent.
During the last few years Brent has travelled to Mexico numerous times. The Architecture, the people, and the light that keeps enticing Brent back there, “I find Mexico helps my creative juices start to flow when I’m there and I love the color of the light.” says Brent.
Brent’s watercolours and oils have been well received by many corporate and private collectors in over 25 countries of the world. Brent has had exhibitions in New York, Tokyo, Germany, Belgium, Holland, many parts of the U.S.and most recently Cabo San lucas, Mexico.
His work has won him numerous awards throughout Canada and the U.S. But the important thing is, as Brent points out is not the awards, it’s how it makes you feel putting your feelings on paper or canvas so that the persons observing can experience the joy you had in painting that particular artwork. “If you can make that connection with someone it feels great inside,” he says.
Continuing to explore new ideas and approaches to painting, he is never happy to stay in one place creatively. Just recently Brent has been asked by a large wallpaper firm from the U.S. to design a wallpaper collection using his style of painting. Working with the textile industry has opened new doors in experimenting with texture and color that he has never thought of.
And most recently Brent has just returned from a trip to the Brandywine area of Pennsylvania, home of Andrew Wyeth. “ It was a great experience to visit and explore that area to feel what that man could say in his paintings.” Brent is never happy to stay in one place creatively. And his work continues to grow and mature as he pushes his creative boundaries.