>> By debunking the seriousness of the art, and rejecting the distinction between good and bad taste, his work could be broadly classified as Pop art (if that means anything to you). But, what you see is a vast gallery of characters, innumerable portraits on ceramic tablets, posing as unconstrained art objects. They convey a pureness of expression, simplicity of articulation, precision of execution (with a lucid geometrical surface treatment), and, enfin, superb use of colours: vibrant, expressive, articulate, brilliant, direct, talkative and communicative, but never repulsive, dull or depressive.
It's possible to view them both as various pieces of a huge puzzle or as single art objects. Sometimes, being self-sufficient and self-contained, they do not need anyone; but sometimes they crave for a companion, someone to talk to, or to relate to, thus forming a duo, or a trio, or a quartet. Each mask is intrinsically interwoven with its title. Sometimes the latter precedes the former, or vice versa, but they can never exist separately. Short statement beneath the mask appears to be a fruit promising bud.
They suggest the whirling worlds, with lives spinning within, and images circling without. They are cool, nonchalant, blase, blunt, witty, numb, gimmicky, whimsical, waggish, and, above all, human.
His parable is a tale about ourselves: about misfits craving to fit, to belong, to embrace; subjects to wandering, bizarre people longing to be something else, or someone else, to differ from others (as much as we want to differ from ourselves), hiding behind the mask. But, at the same time, since we are weary and dissatisfied with our own masks and ourselves, we temporarily wear someone else's. And so on. Vicious cycle in its full spin.
Now. Take a closer look. Which one is yours?