Well, first of all the original digital files are very low resolution. At 300 dpi they would look decent up to say, 11x14 max. I work small and fast. Yes I use Photoshop but no Painter.

Most intriguing to me is the subtle changes evident to my eye when the paintings return from the "North Pole."  As much as they are instructed NOT to change anything, the hands on quality adds a humanizing touch to the reproduction.  PLUS, I'm still madly in love with paint and canvas since I got my masters in the medium back in '75 and cannot abandon the legacy of the medium.  I'm trying to extend it in my selected way through my own life's work.  It's a historical statement about what "painting" is.  So besides controversial, I consider my work historical, political, and a satire to the work ethnic via the accelerated processing of imagery with high technology. Change. Preconcepts.  Values.  Mass production.  Authorship. Old fashion collaboration.  The product versus the composer.  Bridging the present with the past.  99% genius and 1% perspiration instead of Einstein's other way around.  A dentist used to delegating instead of making my own crowns in the lab. Digital editions from a concrete object.  And, continued my teaching of Chinese great artists on how to think and paint better.  I believe each painter persecuted to render my complicated designs will pick up a technique or two on how to affect visual responses through paint alone, without a preliminary digital recipe.  The teaching urge started back here-


(answer to questions on my process by fellow artist/printer)  March 27, 2007