I like the look of adult human bodies. Be they male or female. And despite that not all bodies or their faces are beautiful, they all possess some characteristics of uniqueness and handsomeness. This applies to their bodies even in the nude.

Similarly, I like the faces and bodies of children. They possess the cuteness of having overly large heads in proportion to their yet-undeveloped bodies, making them look like amusing three-dimensional caricatures.

As a parent, I was privy to see my children naked. After all, I occasionally bathed them, and dressed them. I was proud of this privilege in experiencing a personal and private view of my naked babies, and later as little children.

In due course, as my kids grew, they were taught to take care of their own cleanliness, so that by the age of ten they were in possession of privacy when showering or bathing.

This did not mean we were prudish. For instance, on occasions, my boys and I shared communal beach showers. But the overall respect to the privacy of total nudity was provided for my kids.

In experiencing the existence of my kids, I had portrayed them in paintings, including showing them swimming. But I had never even considered depicting them totally nude. I could never see the benefit of doing so. In fact, I see no reason, whatsoever, that would justify any child or prepubescent teen to be depicted totally naked. But I do understand why some would.

The reason why some people produce images – by any techniques and methods – of children with their genitalia exposed, is not so much as paedophilia (which is a sexual feelings directed at children), but that of voyeurism and a physical and mental desire to manipulate or control children.

On no occasion, in all of human existence, have I ever heard or known of any child who, when requested to be photographed or painted, would without any prompting instantly remove all their clothes. Therefore, to obtain any image of a nude child requires some level of efforts by an adult to subject that child to their will. Whether this is done by request or demand, by pretence of lovable cajoling, by bribing with gifts, or by stern threat of punishment, the fact remains that a child is forced to submit to the will of the adults.

And what of the adults who desire to produce an image of a naked child, and those who later view – or own – that same image? Well, to be very brief, these adults are not like parents and pedagogues, who exercise their will over children for the benefit of the children, but are exploiters of children.

It has to be understood from the start that these images of naked children – as is the case with all professional art – are produced for sale, as a method of satisfying the demand of those who would ogle and perhaps even drool at such images, and would desire to possess them.

We, humans, are of high intelligence and sexuality. That means we are able to be visually drawn to a sexual image and to unavoidably differentiate various details of that image. But while I, for instance, wouldn’t be shocked by an image of a naked child, I would find no pleasure in it. Not only would I not find it interesting, I would – and do – find it sad that adults continue to exploit children for their financial gain and voyeuristic (read that as sexual) pleasure.

Did I say sexual pleasure? Yes I did. For in essence that is why any adult would provide images of naked children for the viewing pleasure of other adults. It may not be sexual desire of paedophilia, but sexual gratification, never the less. These sad adults are the connoisseurs of titillation, who derive suppressed pleasure in viewing a child being made to disrobe and to take on unnatural poses, as directed by an adult photographer: considering that I know of no child photographer making photo images of other naked children. The adult who enjoy viewing, and owning images of naked children, obviously enjoy seeking and finding any visual innuendo of genitalia, be they hidden by shadows or any other visual disguises. They also, be it subconsciously, enjoy the plight of that child, a child who has been manipulated by an adult to pose for them – for their viewing pleasure – and to be owned, even if only as a photographic image on a piece of paper.

And are these images of naked children a vanguard of artistic freedom? Hardly. ‘Piss Christ’, by Andreas Serrano, was and remains. A photographic image of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass jar of amber liquid (supposedly that of the photographer’s urine), is a challenge to human delusions. It is provided succinctly, but only with inclusion of the title: without the title it is ambiguous, and therefore inoffensive. There is nothing ambiguous with any photo images of naked children, irrespective of their titles, just as there is no artistic merit in such images. They are all merely the process of adult manipulation and exploitation of children, for the benefit of the adults producing those images and the adults who enjoy viewing and owning such images.

Were this not so, then there’d be no need of images of naked children adorning the walls of galleries, offices, and homes (and covers of art magazines).

*** For a while now, I had been pondering how it could be possible to depict those who hold themselves superior to others – be that due to their wealth, status, or birth (such as royalty) – so as to show them to be mere mortals: no better and no worse to all the other pathetic, vane, fearful creatures that we are. The intention is not to ridicule such people, or belittle them, but simply humanise them to the level of all humans, and show them having to perform physical functions that are simply imperative to every human life, as to any other primary life form.

Finally, the solution has presented itself. Very unique. Surprising. Perhaps shocking. Definately memorable. And deffinately a new series in the making. The fallout shall be pronounced, as those depicted shall, most probably, not appreciate their appearance. But legally there is nothing they can do about it, as natural human functions cannot be denied by any human.

I shall first produce a handful of these paintings, before posting them as a separate page in the Gallery. I wonder if anyone shall protest on my behalf, claiming that I have the artistic right and freedom to produce such paintings?
.



*** Admission: I have recently joined an art society. For me, this shall be an interesting experiment; not that I'm expecting a great deal out of it, apart, perhaps, from some social intercourse.



*** In the past years I had received many frivolous and some serious inquiries relating to the sale of my pictures, including those for the Errol series, as well as, whether I take on commissions. The answer is yes. Yes, my paintings are for sale, and I do accept commissions. But at a modest price that ranges in thousands of dollars per painting. I personally consider that they are much more valuable than that, but that's just me being biased. If anyone considers that they are not worth this, that's fine. I'm not desperate to sell if you're not anxious to buy.

However, I have to admit that I am greatly amused by reactions from some visitors to the site, who consider that anything displayed on the net is either cheap, or mass produced; and therefore, can be churned out speedily and with minimum of effort. A guy actually wanted to commission me to paint ten nudes, which he was going to sell for "a few hundred bucks each', then pay me 50% out of his profit, before ordering more "stock" of paintings. I cheerfully directed him to art exporters of China, who are more than capable of producing thousands of hand-painted replicated works of any painter requested, at prices that buyers on internet can appreciate.



*** After a long absence, I've made an effort to resume this site. But not as the large and comprehensive entity it was. The reality of a large and comprehensive online presence is that of a great deal of work – not to mention the expense. As apart from massaging my vanity – in my self-presumption that my art is of consequence to someone beyond my own liking for my pictures – this site sells nothing, and, therefore, has and had little (if any) benefit from maintenance of a large resource dedicated to my art. So now the Gallery comprises of just one page, where an inclusion of some selected new pictures shall replace the presence the older works.