The essence of painting is that it is a form of language and therefore does not really need an explanation in written language. Nevertheless, it seems that the artist is required to comment in writing on his/her pictorial work.

But are writers encouraged to explain their works with pictures? Probably not.

My motivation is to create my own visual world.

The process of creation is just as important as the result. My approach is more like free improvisation than implementation according to a preconceived plan.

I often approach an image from different points of view, such as the purely physical prerequisites, the materials used, and on the other hand the image I have in my head, the idea. Both are necessary.

The content is not so important, but the implementation. True. The implementation is not so important, but the content. Also true.

As a result, content and implementation are closely interwoven and form a unit. The unit is important.

The question of the limitation of painting, which is given by the fact that the picture stops somewhere when viewed spatially, i.e. ends abruptly at the edge, is comparable to the temporal limitation of music.

Or comparable to the limitations of a text like this one, which has to end now.....