I'm a painter, potter, sculptor, illustrator, writer, avant garde publisher.  My interest has been in creating cutting edge work in all the above disciplines.  If you move through my site you'll see some of the innovative works.  There have been others, not shown - Abstract-surrealism; moving paintings; the novel as sculpture; a new landscape approach; 25 portrait styles; pocket art collections; matchbox art collections; hand bag art collections; multi-purpose paintings; infinite decorative effect vases; skinless vases. 
      I made the mistake of thinking, having been a professional actor for a number of years (12) that I could teach myself how to paint, illustrate etc.  My first 'serious' exhibition was in 1980 in North Devon (not a good idea) of ABSTRACT-SURREAL paintings.  Synthesis of surreal and abstract concepts, acrylic on canvas sheets in unusual frames.  Since then I have held in the region of 25 one man exhibitions mainly OUTSIDE the gallery system.  And contributed to group exhibitions inside the system.  Though, every work sent in to an 'open' exhibition has been suppressed.  This includes two MYRIAD IMAGE ABSTRACTS. 
       In my experience, exhibiting outside the gallery system is a waste of time.  The public is habituated to shop for art in art shops - galleries.   Very rarely will they buy from venues outside such shops.  Though, the 'recent' arrival of the internet and websites seems to be changing this.  They will buy, sometimes, from on-line sites. 
      I'm an artist whose work the English seem to love to hate.  Quite why is, at this time, a mystery.  I create NEW FORMS OF BEAUTY with every innovation.  U.K. society, generally, is habituated to established forms of aesthetic beauty.   But  seem to discriminate against the NEW forms of beauty, judging it in relation to the old forms.  Or they need it to be approved by middlemen before they buy.  In Nazi Germany, artists HAD to be approved by the state.  There seems little difference between the two kinds of OBLIGATORY approval. 
     Also, there are millions of different forms of beauty in nature, so, why not in the arts?  A robin is not a hawk, yet both are beautiful.  Nor can a robin be a hawk, or an owl a song bird.  We accept all the different natural forms of beauty but set up judgements on aesthetic beauty.  My personal opinion is that all such beauty should simply be EXPERIENCED for what it IS and not judged by established criteria about works that new forms of beauty are NOT, in my view, much of the work of acclaimed established artists (living and dead) has been incredibly standardised to fit into tight categories.  
    Because standardised, is, to me, of little worth.  The same forms repeated, ad nauseam, from century to century with slight superficial amendments.  This obtains in painting, theatre, publishing, pottery, sculpture and literature.  The art work moulded by educational input, gallery and public tastes and mainly based on creaking archaic concepts.  Progress in all other sectors but not the arts, they MUST remain rooted in the distant past.  A case of 'plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose'.  Weird!