Asthetics: Early inspirations
It is probably true that at heart I am a would-be painter. That is, would be if I could so much as draw a stick figure that is decipherable. Actually, even my hand-writing is so bad that I have trouble reading it myself! Providence may have given me the desire to create "visions of beauty", but it was much less generous when it came to the talent department- at least insofar as drawing or painting are concerned. In the genre of painting there exists a very wide spectrum of styles of course. One is not going to confuse a Monet with a Picasso or a Renoir with a Michaelanglo. And in truth my own tastes are somewhat narrow. I like people in paintings to look like people. I'm fascinated with much of the work of the Old Masters and love Renaissance-era art. I do admire some of the Impressionists work, but only to a point. One particular group of Artists have long held my interests and in fact their work has a very direct influence on my photography- This group is known as the Pre-Raphaelites. Strictly speaking, the term "Pre-Raphaelites" refers to a narrow grouping of young English artists who rejected the "modern" (for the time, the late 1800's) principles of the then-contemporary art world and instead choose to look back to artists before Raphael (hence the name), to the Old Masters and the painters of the Renaissance, for their inspiration and direction. This group was called the "Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood" (or simply "PRB") and was a secret organization. At least at first. However, many other Victorian-era painters followed their example in style and though they were never actual members of the PRB, they've all come to be loosely referred to under the name of Pre-Raphaelites, even though this is not technically correct. Actually, the two most influencial painters of this era on my photography were not members of the PRB, though their styles were much in sync with the conventions of the Brotherhood. These two painters are Lord Frederic Leighton of England and Adolphe William Bouguereau of France. It was a painting by Leighton that first captured my imagination and spirit and I believe began the process that would later define my ideals of what makes an image beautiful. This painting is seen below.

Let's move on now to photographic influences.

Asthetics: A breakthrough occurs
I'd first began playing with a camera off and on at about age 18, using my girlsfriends as models. My early efforts were terrible and I'd basically determined I had about as much talent for photography as I had for drawing or painting- meaning, none. Still, every couple of years I'd get the urge to try again and give it another go. To no avail. The influences on me during those years were really just popular culture stuff- Playboy magazine and some black and white art photobooks by artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe. Neither of these things were what I wanted to do with the camera. I wasn't satisfied, and I think I'd more less just given up. Then, in 1996, a big controversy started up in the United States over a book called "The Age of Innocence" by a photographer by the name of David Hamilton. I'd never heard of him, but I read that the trouble basically involved his artistic photographs of "virgins"; young girls with their clothes off celebrating their innocence and transient beauty. Detractors were calling the book "child pornography" and apparently tearing them up in bookstores and holding protests, even in from the NY Stock Exchange! (Mostly misguided bible-thumping Fire & Brimstone types on a morality "jihad"- another group with a long history going back centuries, constantly trying to cause problems for artists like me). So, I immediately went to a local Barnes & Noble to take a look for myself. I was mesmerized. Of course the models were beautiful, the concept seemed interesting, etc, etc, but what really got me was that I'd found the work of a photographer who was able to make many of his photos look like paintings! I'd found an example I could learn from to create images like "Flaming June" and other such paintings I loved so much- without being able to paint! I was thrilled! Of course I bought the book and immediately ordered every other one of his I could find. When "25 Years of an Artist" arrived in the mail I was completely captivated. The photograph entitled "The Grey Bird" seemed to me like a memory from a dream. My interest in photography completely renewed and I went out and bought a new camera. My only problem was, I didn't have any models and no girlfriend at the time to model for me! I had no idea how to go about finding a professional model, so the whole thing got shelved for about a year until I met Nancy in 1997. Nancy was a 17 year old high school girl working part-time at the financial services company I worked for. I was attracted to her immediately and we soon began seeing each other. As time went on and the relationship developed I eventually explained my interest in photography to her, showed her my Hamilton books and asked her if she would model for me. Luckily, she gave me an enthusiastic "yes" and the rest is, as they say, history. That was 1997. For the record, we were married in 1999, a few days after her 20th birthday and a few days before my 30th, and have now been married for 4 years, our relationship going back for almost 7. Nancy, now 23, continues to model for me now and then. Ok, we should get back to the story here, but actually, bringing up my relationship with Nancy right after discussing Hamilton's "Age of Innocence" brings up another matter: My wife was 17 when we met and I was 27. Hamilton's models were all very young and I loved his work- Is there a connection there? Of course. Though Nancy was and is the only significantly younger partner I've ever had, I'd be lying if I were to say that I don't see and admire what I believe is a unqiue and fleeting beauty in young girls. There is a quality in their beauty that fades as a girl matures into womanhood- a quality however that we have trouble recognizing when we are at that age ourselves. But I am getting ahead of myself here. I will address this in much greater depth later on in this essay. Let us return to the story... So, now with real direction for my photography, a new camera, and a willing young model I began to try and learn the techniques Hamilton (and his emulators) used through trial and error, and by reading every book I could find on the subject. Much of my early work were near direct copies of Hamilton photographs, trying to emulate what he had done. I caught some criticism from people in the Internet clubs I was posting to, accusing me basically of plagerism, but I held fast to my belief that in any form of art "Innovation Follows Imitation". I knew that after I conquered the task of learning the techniques of Hamilton and others like him and I began to feel confident in my work I'd begin to experiment and in time develop my own signature style- though the influence of those I'd learned from would likely always be there. An example of the similarities in style is shown below.

"Galet" by David Hamilton (C) 1974 David Hamilton www.david-hamilton.net	"Sophie Reclining" by Richard Murrian (C) 2001 Richard Murrian

This example shows the strong simularity in styles, and also demonstrates the great debt we both owe to the Pre-Raphaelite painters of the 19th Century- glance up the page once again to the "Flaming June" and the influence is obvious. These samples also touch on one minor difference in our subject matters that I'll address now: Our respective choices of model age group. Many, if not most, of Hamilton's models are younger than the age I find most fascinating- many of his girls appear to be in the 12-15 age group, the classical "lolita" type, whereas I am drawn to using models in the 15-18 age range- girls who are leaving adolescence behind and just becoming women. The model I used in my photograph here was a 17 year old girl- a common age for my models. Hamilton's model looks significantly younger, Probably about 13 I would guess. Both photographs are successful in my opinion. Either would make a nice piece of art on a living room wall, and both carry their messages clearly. Hamilton's photo, in my view, draws the viewer into a direct contact with the girl. What is she saying to us? To my mind she is challenging us to see her for what she is becoming: She is beginning to leave her childhood behind and challenges the viewer to recognize and acknowledge her developing beauty. She is very young and doubtlessly innocent. Yet she is also sensual and alluring. She is the "forbidden fruit"- But most clearly of all, she is simply beautiful. My photo is more erotic. The girl is a bit older. She is now more woman than child, and her carefree abandon, sprawling pose, closed eyes and passionate expression suggest, to me, she is fantasizing about something. But what? A lover? A day-dream of one she hopes will someday find her? We cannot know; not even I, the photographer who made the image. I'd never ask her. I don't usually pose the girls. I photograph what they offer me. True, I set the scene. I give them the props and wardrobe I want them to use. But then I let them be themselves and express to my lens what it is they want and are willing to show it. This creates a sense of mystery. While I don't consider my photographs to be literal representations of the girls who are modeling for me, choosing instead to use the girls to create visions of imaginary & unobtainable "nymphs", I do try to create an environment in which the model is comfortable expressing real emotions and injecting them into the images I create. One of the more common compliments I've received from people about my work (including, in fact, the model in this sample) is that there is "so much feeling" in my photographs. That is indeed something I strive for. Tangible emotion in the photograph leads to emotional reaction in the viewer- And THAT is what Art is all about! Art is only successful if it causes an emotional reaction in the beholder- whatever that reaction migt be doesn't much matter. All that matters is the reaction is there. Without it, there is no Art. But once again I am drifting... Let me get back to photographic influences...

As time has gone by my style has evolved into it's own. I think that my work now carries it's own "trademark" look that makes one of my photographs usually instantly recognizable even if no photo credit is present. The Hamilton influence still comes through clearly in some images, but what many people don't seem to catch is the influence of a second photographer who has also contributed greatly to my work. Much of my evolution of style is owned to the work of photographer Robert Farber.

The Robert Farber Influence: Farber is a fabulous talent and one of America's greatest photographers. His style and techniques (image diffusion using various substances, use of warm-up and sepia filters) have greatly influenced my work since I discovered him in the year 2000. My work dating from 2001 forward certainly shows a strong influence and in my view my present day work bears as much resemblence to that of Farber as it does Hamilton. Perhaps it is because Farber is less well-known that many people catagorize my photography as strictly "Hamiltonian". Farber doesn't share exactly the same subject matter- though he works most often with the nude female form the controversial issue of youth is not present in his work. In any case, it was his artificial lighting techniques that first convinced me that I could work without the sun. Prior to 2001 all of my work was shot with natural light. Nowadays it's about a 50/50 matter. I work with artificial continuous output lighting frequently now, which has made me less of a slave to the weather and time of day. Additionally, it was through Farber's work (who, unlike Hamilton, is very forthcoming with sharing his techniques) that I discovered various new methods of image softening and diffusion and the creative use of color altering filters. So in truth, while my work shares subject matter, some settings, and general composition with that of David Hamilton, it shares lighting techniques, imagine filtration, and capture methods (along with compositional discipline and more settings) with that of Farber. Like Farber, I work with 35mm, digital, and medium format photography, whereas Hamilton worked stricty within 35mm. In the end my photography owes much to both of these artistic geniuses and any credit for my development as an artist myself must be shared with their preceeding work which had set a foundation for mine to develop from.

Rather than make another image-to-image comparison, here is a small sampling of Robert Farber images. A quick look at them, then a walk through my various portfolios on this site, will demonstrate that the influence his work has had on mine is plainly obvious:

Photographs by Robert Farber - (C) Robert Farber - www.farber.com

Having now examined the various influences on my photography in a technical sense, I hope you can see the influence of all these sources on my work. With the photographers I share compositional style and technical matters. With Hamilton and Bouguereau, I share, in general, a subject matter. With the painters as a whole, and particularly Leighton, I share strong use of color- I do think that a review of my work along with that of Farber and Hamilton will demonstrate my tendancy to use color in a stronger fashion than either of them. They both tend to go towards the pastel whereas I prefer to use the power of color to capture the eye in a manner more normally associated with painting.

Well, I think at this point I've fairly clearly defined my "Vision" and artistic style in terms of semantics & stylistic development. Now let's move on to the subject of motivations, the driving inspirations behind my work, and what I seek to accomplish with my photographs.

Inspirations: The capturing of a fleeting beauty.
I suppose that more than anything this subject must be considered the "heart and soul" of my photographs. While as evidenced by all the text above I am obviously quite seriously interested in my photography itself and learning all I can to continue becoming as skilled of an artist as I am capable. But it's also true that I am not one of those photographers who is a "shutterbug"- one who is in love with photography in and of itself. Photography for the sake of photography holds little interest for me. I rarely carry a camera, even while on Holiday. I don't care about grabbing spontaneous snapshots at parties and family events. I don't want to photograph your kids, your dog, your wedding or anything else that documents "real life". For me, my photography is rather an escape from the "real world". It is simply a tool to use- a means to an end. That end being the creation of images which capture my ideal of Perfect Beauty. So what is my ideal of "Perfect Beauty"? Let me explain: I admire female beauty at any age. Growing up, I almost always had older girlfriends, sometimes as much as 10 or even 11 years my senior. Were you to ask me whom I think is the sexiest female alive I would have to say Annette Bening, who has many years on me. But when it comes to my photography, it is all about capturing the unique and transient beauty that exists in girls who are just becoming women. Even if a particular girl doesn't happen to reach her peak physical attractiveness until her 20's or 30's, she still will have had a unique and short-lived beauty as she was first entering womanhood that is quickly lost as she becomes "a grown-up" and begins experiencing romantic relationships, has her heart broken for the first time, and is faced with the world of responsibilites that confront us all as adults. The years from late puberty to full-adulthood are generally untouched by all that reality, and are seeped in an eroticism and sensuality that is temporary and unique- Innocence giving way to discovery... and, perhaps more somberly, realization. So many of these words can come off sounding like cliches, I know.... I try to avoid that. But it is truly this unique quality held by girls in their teenage years that I seek to capture in a way that can be admired respectfully. To create images that the girls will always be proud to look back on and recall their younger, more innocent and blissfully unaware selves. Visions of their once held "Perfect Beauty" that they were most likely incapable of seeing in themselves during those years. Think about that scene in the movie "Titanic" where the recovery crew discovers the old drawing of Kate Winslet's character in a safe in the wreck- a nude drawing of herself at age 17 that "Jack Dawson" had made of her. Remember when they are all looking at it and "girl" in drawing, now an old woman, smiles proudly and says "Wasn't I a dish?". That is how I hope all my models feel about the photographs I've made of them many years on. I hope the photos help them recall their earlier years in a postive way and think to themselves. "I was such a beauty!".

When it comes to a choice of subject matter, youth has a long history of inspiring artists. Of course there are the recent examples of photographers such as Hamilton and others such as Jacques Bourboulon, Irina Ionesco, Dominik Alterio, Violetta Gomez, Mauro Bertocello, and many more. Then there are the painters.... Balthus of course, the previously discussed Bouguereau... Michaelanglo was particularly inspired by youth. The great art museums of Europe are filled with centuries-old art treasures depicting youth, often in a sensual manner. The juxtaposition of innocence and sensuality has always been, and always will be, a subject of great fascination and inspiration for artists. This holds true in my case. Through my work, I attempt to immortalize the beauty of the girls who pose for me at a place in time that I have come to refer to as the Years of Becoming. A viewer of my work should feel sincere longing- whether it be longing for their own lost youth, a longing to be the nymph in the image, or even a erotic longing to posses the nymph, they should all recall the sense of promise that all things and dreams are possible- that feeling they once held so deeply in their own youth. My photographs should carry the viewer to a fantasy land where youth and love and beauty and sensuality and promise are eternal. Not every photograph can reach such a lofty goal of course! Sometimes I must settle for "That's a beautiful image". But sometimes, every now and then, I think I manage to get it right and create something truly special.

Let's also point out an obvious though easily overlooked fact of the matter, too: Truth is, most people look their best when they are young. I'd kill to have my own 17 year old body back! Who wouldn't? As my images are about youth, it is just common sense that I would need to work with young models. It is difficult to get the picture of "youthful innocence" across if the model is beginning to show the lines and wrinkles that Father Time beings to us all; for some, as early as their late teen years. Physically speaking, the average girl will be best suited for my photographs sometime around age 16. Perhaps a bit before, perhaps a bit after, but 16 is the general "target" age I usually look to project in my photographs. This motivating factor is a simple matter of biology. The majority of my models are high school girls between 15-18 years old.

Of course there is controversy involved with all of this. Let's address that in the next and final segment of this essay.

Issues: Confronting the Controversy.

Before we begin, we must set the playing field. First and foremost we must address those people in the World whom believe that nudity in and of itself equals pornography. As shocking as it is to people like-minded with myself, there are hordes of these misguided individuals, particularly so in the United States (also to a still disproportionate if somewhat lesser degree in the other Anglo-Saxon English language countries). This is not the forum to go into an examination of why that situation exists in the US, but I will give some evidence of it both to Americans reading this who may be unaware of how much more open-minded about nudity and sexuality much of the rest of the World is, and to Europeans and others who might be unaware of how seriously close-minded America is on this subject. Here are two examples: Where in Europe depictions of the nude body are extremely common in television, billboard, and print-ad advertising, in America, when Victorias Secret held a televised lingerie fashion show in 2001 (which displayed no nudity other than buttocks), the FCC (a government agency which monitors and "controls" media content) received THOUSANDS of complaints from Americans "outraged" at the "pornography" being shown on television, and the agency came very close to leveling punitive fines against the network which aired the program. A second example: Pick up a copy of the French photo magazine "PHOTO" (this is the world's premiere photography magazine and is available everywhere). The pages are full of nudity, sometimes shown in a sexual context. Look in the letters section and try to find a single letter of complaint. There won't be any. Then pick up a copy of "American PHOTO", the American version of the magazine from the same publisher- try to find one that followed an issue in which nudity was depicted (relatively rare for the American edition) and look in the letters section. Without fail, you will find letters complaining about "pornography", demanding subscriptions be cancelled, insults against high-grade art nudes which are often labeled such things as "filth" by writers, and in general the babble of various morality-crusaders without-a-clue trirades. This is why nudity in the American version of the magazine is fairly sparse, whereas in the French version it is rather ubiquitous. Clearly, there is a fundamental difference in the way the peoples of Europe and those of America, in general, see the subject of human nudity.

My point here is this: If you are one of these people that would make one of those complaints to the FCC about the Victorias Secret show, or would have written one of those above-described letters to American PHOTO; More directly, if you are one who thinks a nude photograph is pornography simply because there is nudity, you are a lost cause. You may choose to stay and continue reading, but to be honest, you are not welcome on my website and I'd prefer you left now. The world has too many close-minded "holier-than-thou" moral crusader half-wits and I don't want any here. The arguments and viewpoints I am going to present in the rest of this segment will go right over your head anyway, so why bore yourself with reading it? Really... Do us both a favor and just go away. Click here to leave now.

To those of you who are more on the level-headed and open-minded side (I'm sure the vast majority of readers here), from this point forward my arguments and views will go forward with the assumption that there is no issue or moral difficulty with nudity in itself. It will be assumed from this point forward that the reader is comfortable with the idea of nudity and eroticism in Art and will I address only the question of youth in relation to the depiction of those subjects in a work of genuine artistic merit.

"PORNOGRAPHY": What divides Eroticism and Porn?

This question has long perplexed society. If nudity in and of itself doesn't equate "porn" what does? Simply saying "nudity depicted in a sexual context" doesn't really settle the issue- there are lots of sexuality themed works of art that involve nudity that are not considered "porn" by most people. Is it then sex and nudity portrayed in a lewd or lascivious manner? Perhaps. But how does one define "lewd" or "lascivious"? What is lascivious to one person may be simply erotic to another. There is a vast array of shades of gray here- on the extreme ends it's simple to define. No one is going to call Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" pornography, but on the other extreme no one is seriously going to suggest that the lastest group-sex hardcore DVD to come out of the LA porn industry is "erotic art" and keep a straight face. On the ends it's easy to define. Closer to the center of the scale, deep in those gray areas, is where it gets a bit tougher to draw the line.

In my view, the line is where a work ceases to have any decernible artistic merit. However, this is highly subjective so cannot be set as any sort of a legal or ethical standard to which anyone could or should be held to account. It is exactly this ambiguity that has caused so many problems for artists through history! As this argument is impossible to settle, I must work within the context in which I define the difference myself- a generally moderate view that I believe the majority of people will go along with. In my view, Penthouse magazine is an example of pornography. It is pornography due to the explicitness of it's depictions of sexuality and the lasciviousness of it's displays of womens' bodies. (Note: this is not a knock against Penthouse or any other pornographic publication. I've no personal problem with pornography. I am simply defining the difference between art and porn as I see it myself). On the other side of the coin, the work of aforementioned photographer Robert Farber is not pornography. It is Art. Both porn and art can share the turf of the nude human form.

The bottom line here: The difference between Art and Pornography is, in my view, a matter of the content, context, and method of presentation of the subject rather than any particular quality or characteristic of the subject in and of itself.

Here are two Internet sites that I like. Both display nude girls, and both in an erotic fashion. Yet one is nude art, while the other is clearly pornography. Take a look at both to see examples of what I view as the difference between art and porn:

Click here to view the Art site.

Click here to view the Porn site. (Note: for those over 18 only. Under 18 readers should not click here.)

Now that we've established my views and have laid the groundwork for the rest of my arguments, I'd like to put you to a test and see how you react to a situation that brings my above stated position into question. Let's see if your views on the matter are the same as my own, or if you are at least able to apply my views to the situation and come to a position of accepting my views as reasonable, even if you can't embrace them as your own.

Please take a moment to study the two photos below:

Looking at these two photographs above, do you find either of them to be "pornographic"? What I see, and I'm sure most people agree with me, are two simple portraits of relatively young girls with their breasts uncovered, gazing into the camera in a very casual manner. There are certainly no lewd expressions or poses. Absolutely nothing "pruient" here. These are non-threatening, very sweet photos of two pretty girls. Nothing more than that. Only one of the Puritan-minded bible-thumping close-minded anti-nudity half-wits that I dismissed from the room at the start of this segment would see anything offensive when looking at these photos... Right??

Well, at least, when the photos are taken at face value. Let's see how you feel when given a bit more information about the photos.

The photo on the left is mine and is a 20 year old model I work with. The photo on the right is by Fabrio Cabral from Brazil and is from his book "Anjos Proibidos" (see amazon.com to purchase). The model in his photograph is 13 years old. Does that change anything about the photograph in your mind? Did learning the age of the model somehow transform the photo from a harmless semi-nude portrait into something else? Knowing the girls' ages, do you now find the photo on the left completely acceptable, but the one on the right to be "contraband"? If so, stop for a moment and try to clear your mind of the pre-concieved ideas that are forming these thoughts in your head: Can you consider the situation objectively, look again at the two photos, and then truly convince yourself that your conclusion really makes sense? Can you apply my personal definition of the division between "porn" and "art" to this example and in the end come around to my view that there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with either of these photographs?

What questions in your mind make you consider that something could be "wrong" with such a young girl posing for a photograph like this? At this point, we've established that you don't have a problem with nudity. So it is only the girl's age that could be troubling. But why? Though there are doubtlessly hordes of people from both the right-wing and the left-wing who will argue otherwise, the bottom line fact is that NO study has ever demonstated a negative impact on any person for having posed nude or partially nude for art while they were young. Certain groups motivated by their own political or moral agenda will claim otherwise, but a casual examination of their "facts" reveals a pile of flimsy and vague conclusions based on completely anecdotal evidence which serves only to prop-up their pre-concieved ideas. That is the fact. Any counter-argument is based on ideas and emotions, certainly not factual evidence.

In my mind, so long as the model is happy with posing for the work, her parents have consented to the work, and the artist is genuine in his/her intent and there is no "hidden agenda" concerning the work, there is no reasonable grounds for opposition to the creation of the work other than someone's personal opinion, kept to themselves. In this particlar case, years later, Cabral's models have all expressed good feelings about having modeled for him and the work being published.

The photo example above might be tough to swallow for some because the girl is so very young at just 13. But in America, the same rules would apply to a 16 year old, right? Federal and State "child pornography" laws generally all define the age of a "child" as anyone below age 18. So in America, if you created and marketed a Playboy-style magazine made of up entirely of nude photos of 16 year old girls, would you expect to run into legal trouble, correct? You bet your butt you would! However, just across the Atlantic in the UK, a country most people would consider to be quite conservative, the legal age to pose for nude glamour photographs as one would find in Playboy magazine is 16 years old. If the "age 18" thing is an absolute, somebody obviously forgot to inform the British. (for the record, this age 16 thing is also the law-of-the-land for many other countries- though further keep in mind, bare breasts are not classified as "nudity" in many European countries so there is no legal questions for photos such as these there regardless of age). My point here is that clearly, without question, this whole concept of there being a specific age at which it is "ok" for someone to pose nude for a photograph is simply a matter of opinion and is totally subjective. There is no "right" or "wrong" here. There is only opinion... and those vary widely. Throughout history, it has been age 15 that was has most often been regarded as the age of passing from childhood to adulthood. Most latin-American girls still have their "Quinceanera" at age 15, a celebration of their reaching of sexual maturity. Many other societies have such "coming out" ceremonies, virtually all of them held at ages 15 or 16. Age 15 is the age of sexual consent across most countries in Europe. Some are actually even lower. As I said, this is all a highly subjective area and ruled entirely by opinion, not "fact". And while it is absolutely just and right that governments should create laws against child pornography, which is the documentation of child sexual abuse, blurring the clear line between what is "child porn" and genuine art involving nudity based upon personal moral values is a very dangerous thing to do.

The issue of pornography being thus settled insofar as it can be for the purposes of this discussion, it leaves only this question: Is it appropiate for such young girls to model for photographs such as mine? This really does come down to a matter of your personal opinion. I cannot give you a "correct" answer for this- it is something you must decide for yourself, based on all the facts (including all of those I have presented you in this essay). But I will offer you this information: For the girls who have modeled for me, it has been appropriate in their minds, and in the cases of the younger ones, the minds of thier parents. Without exception, when I am working with a particularly young girl (under 18 or under 16 depending upon the country I am working in), I always involve the family and will work only with not only the parent's consent, but also their enthusiastic approval and support.

In the end, what really matters is only that my work causes you some reaction, be it positive or negative. For as I said earlier in this essasy, what matters in Art is that it creates an emotion in the viewer. What emotion is caused is much less important than that fact that you were caused to feel it in the first place. That said, it is my sincere hope and my firm belief that for the vast majority of people, looking at my work reveals only what has ever been intended... Beauty.

Richard Murrian
Paris, France
11 February 2003