Style Consistency Is Overrated

There is a question artists hear often, sometimes directly, sometimes implied:

“Why don’t you stay in one style?”

Behind it lies a familiar expectation. That a serious artist should be immediately recognizable. That a body of work should look uniform. That variation signals uncertainty.

I understand the appeal of that idea. Consistency feels reassuring. It simplifies categorization. It makes recognition easier.

But repetition is not the same as coherence.

Recognition is not the same as identity

A painting can be recognizable because it repeats visible traits. The same palette. The same lighting. The same compositional structure. The same subject treated in the same way.

This kind of consistency is not inherently wrong. It can be powerful. But it is only one form of stability.

There is another kind.

One that does not rely on surface resemblance, but on internal logic.

The idea comes first

Not every idea asks to be painted in the same way.

Some subjects demand restraint. Others require intensity. Some call for precise rendering. Others lose their force if over-defined.

For me, the style, the tone, and the presentation must obey the idea and the narrative behind it.

At times a more impressionistic approach feels necessary. At others, a hyper-real treatment is the only honest response. There are paintings that need looseness. There are others that demand control. Occasionally, collage becomes part of the language.

The technique follows the narrative. Not the other way around.

Imposing a fixed visual formula on every idea would be simpler. It would also risk reducing the work to a signature rather than allowing it to become what it needs to be. Each of these works required a different visual language.

Beyond decoration

I do not paint simply to make something pleasant or decorative. There is nothing inherently wrong with beauty, and at times a work may lean toward it. But as time passes, I find myself less interested in surfaces that exist only to please.

What matters more to me now is weight. Presence. Meaning that extends beyond appearance.

If a painting is only “pretty,” it may function well on a wall. It does not necessarily endure in the mind.

Style, for that reason, cannot be an ornament. It must serve something deeper.

What remains constant

If the surface shifts, something else remains stable.

The attention to structure. The concern for perspective. The insistence on presence. The search for tension beneath stillness.

That continuity is less visible at first glance. Coherence lives deeper than appearance. It does not announce itself. I have written elsewhere about how interpretation and perception shape that coherence.

The comfort of predictability

Style can become a shelter.

Once a visual formula works, it is tempting to refine it endlessly. To protect it. To polish it until it becomes unmistakable.

But what is unmistakable can also become expected. And what is expected eventually stops demanding attention.

Predictability is often mistaken for maturity.

It is not always the same thing.

Variation is not instability

Movement across themes or visual approaches does not indicate confusion. It reflects responsiveness.

This becomes particularly visible in portraiture.

When I paint someone, I am not only concerned with likeness. I am concerned with presence. With temperament. With the internal rhythm of the person.

A contemplative subject may require restraint, quiet transitions, a controlled atmosphere. A figure like Iggy Pop demands something else entirely. Intensity. Friction. Color pushed beyond neutrality.

I could have painted him in a classical, restrained manner. It would have resembled him. It would not have felt like him.

The visual language must reflect the character, not merely the features.

The language changes. The intention does not.

The human presence remains central in my work. The underlying questions return again and again. What changes is the visual strategy used to approach them.

If two paintings do not resemble each other immediately, that does not mean they belong to different worlds.

It may simply mean that each required a different form.

Consistency of thought

If there is consistency in my practice, it is not stylistic repetition. It is consistency of inquiry.

The same concerns reappear:

• perception

• projection

• intimacy

• distance

• the instability of certainty

These concerns take different visual forms because they demand different forms.

Uniformity would be easier to explain.

It would also be less honest.

What Matters

Style is a tool. Not a destination.

For me, coherence does not mean sameness. It means alignment between intention and execution.

If that alignment leads to variation, I accept the variation.

Recognition may follow. The work will decide. You can explore individual works here.