__

__

__

I often ask myself whether I'm a physical scientist who also paints, or a painter who has studied a bit too much physics and chemistry (as painters' science needs go). In all honestly, I draw and paint the way I do because I'm a science nerd.

Physics and Chemistry have become a big part of how I model and understand the world. Unlike people, fruit, landscapes and other traditional painting subjects, technical objects like "micelles" and "viruses" can only be visualized and "seen" indirectly. They're too small, too fragile, too dynamic, and often too abstract for even a direct electron microscope image. Ideas like bonds in molecules, the quantum not-quite-existence of high vacuum-spawned subatomic particles, and even the softly dancing dynamic structures in complex fluids don't have an "appearance" in any normal sense of imagery. They're imagined and depicted as visual ideas that guide us through complex phenomena. I've found that many images scientists create serve as visual similes to data and hypotheses, and as visual metaphors for complex and often highly abstract concepts.

"Origins of Species", "Bingham Fluid", and "Tadpole Diagrams" all emanate from areas close to my long-term research interests. Consider these images my way of offering to tell people all about my research without clearing the room.