There are two professions I surely did not intend to practise: philosopher and artist. I practise them both now. At first I got a PhD in 1989, and a few years later in 1991, in rather strange circumstances, I became a painter: I think the only purpose of philosophy is to refute other philosophies. I do not have a philosophical theory. I just philosophy in my paintings. I do not have a style either: that is my style. I jump from one subject to another. I therefore do not have any problem to switch between " magnificent and grand" works and small canvasses on which pin-ups or shadow-images from the fifties can be seen. This switching from large into small and vice versa keeps me "focussed": whatever you produce in small seize, you are able to produce on large canvasses.
Apart from the fact that my work can overall be classified as figurative
, there is another reason why it does not show one style
: my style adjusts itself to the subject and not the other way around. That is why everything is allowed concerning methods and techniques: anything from sprayers, paint rollers, syringes and markers to airbrush, paintbrush, oil, acryl and silk stockings.
Furthermore, the technique using forms and patterns
runs as a leading thread through all my work. They deliver the brand of my work, how to recognise a vandenbos
However, this is never allowed to become an obligation. On almost every painting there used to be a text or title sprayed through a pattern. That is not generally my way of working nowadays, although I still tribute great value to a title.
do not just give the meaning of an artist. They provide either as text within the painting or as mega-title an extra dimension, an extra weight to the work. I painted, for instance, a huge futuristic airplane (2002). I think the image is quite "heavy" in itself. However, combined with the title: 'Flight 285 heading for death; nobody knows but me'
it really gives me the shivers! Moreover, that actually is the way it was painted.
Finally yet importantly: through all ambitions, chaos, and inconsistencies runs as a artery the narrative
character of the work. Hence my paintings save me from waffling to much. By the way: what I experience to be exciting in painting: to feel when a painting has reached its climax, and to be able to hold a maximum of austerity. The moment you realise: don't touch it anymore. After that, the quality surpasses its climax and is only to be followed by the technique of bungling.