2013 Applicants: Post Your Work

[emeliej]

michaelwebster and DrawMinimal - wow. big thanks! it's great to get some feedback outside of my tiny liberal arts bubble.

do you guys have any recommendations of well funded programs that would suit my work?

caitlingm - really really enjoy your work! i think the different parts of your work (sculpture, drawings/paintings, performance) works really well together and adds additional depth to the work without being distracting or trying to do to much.

[caitlingm]

Thanks everyone! This post inspired me to change some things around so apologies for the website construction of you run into it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by caitlingm

[michaelwebster]

do you guys have any recommendations of well funded programs that would suit my work?

I don't know much about strong photography schools that give a lot of money. Most of the higher ranked private art schools only have a couple (but sometimes big) scholarships. I would just look at tons of photo programs and see whose work you like, then try to find out if they have any money.

[01010101010101101010101010]

Hello artists, I would love to hear criticism on my paintings. Thanks.

[Kelly Neibert]

Hey there,

I applied to Hoffberger last year, got waitlisted, and now here I am... Ready for round two. Trying to narrow it down to 5-7 programs that are well respected/give good funding, cause let's face it, I wouldn't have been able to afford MICA anyway. :-/

Here's the link to my website. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

http://kellyneibert.com/home.html

Edited September 28, 2012 by Kelly Neibert

[01010101010101101010101010]

Hey there,

I applied to Hoffberger last year, got waitlisted, and now here I am... Ready for round two. Trying to narrow it down to 5-7 programs that are well respected/give good funding, cause let's face it, I wouldn't have been able to afford MICA anyway. :-/

Here's the link to my website. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

http://kellyneibert.com/home.html

I think the painting 'David' is your strongest piece. It takes the portrait to a new level and really evokes thought on a different level (rather than "ooh nice painting" I'm thinking to myself "ooh nice content"). Your other paintings are quite good but don't speak to the same degree as this one. In my opinion, WHAT your painting says is probably more important than HOW it says it. 'Farhan' is also excellently painted, though it sort of teeters between being a portrait and sharing a message.

I feel your pain with the funding. I will literally be unable to attend graduate school if I can't get the funding under control. Waived preferably.

[losemygrip]

Hello artists, I would love to hear criticism on my paintings. Thanks.

I think you need to DO something with those figures. They're still too much like studies. And why is there always just one of them? There is interesting stuff going on with the actual painting, but the subject isn't adding much.

[losemygrip]

Hey there,

I applied to Hoffberger last year, got waitlisted, and now here I am... Ready for round two. Trying to narrow it down to 5-7 programs that are well respected/give good funding, cause let's face it, I wouldn't have been able to afford MICA anyway. :-/

Here's the link to my website. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

http://kellyneibert.com/home.html

These are extremely skillful but the limitation in subject is a problem for me. Heads and busts. Who are these people and why should we care? The more abstract, later ones start to move away from illustration, but kind of start to remind me of Marlene Dumas.

[losemygrip]

Here's my work, I just completed the series: The Lustration check it out

http://caitlinmccollom.com

I respect your daring and your clear conceptualization. I can't help feeling I've seen a lot of it before, however. Lots of people do ontological performances, so it's not easy to stand out. That most recent series (lustration) is probably the best, so that's good. That stuff with bodily fluids has kind of been done to death (all those "menstrual prints"...) That said, there was something neat about the tiny female figures in blood or red ink. I hope they're really as small as they seem.

Edited October 1, 2012 by losemygrip

[01010101010101101010101010]

I think you need to DO something with those figures. They're still too much like studies. And why is there always just one of them? There is interesting stuff going on with the actual painting, but the subject isn't adding much.

Is that to say you don't think I'm on the MFA track? I don't expect to be the best possible artist I can be this early in the game, I'm learning as I go like everyone else which is my central reason for even wanting more school. My paintings include only one figure because my art is about isolation and individual struggle. I feel that adding multiple figures would sort of dispel the lonesomeness I seek to depict. As for the paintings resembling studies, my goal is to dabble with allegory rather than flood the work with it. But if you perceive them as studies I imagine a panel of professors might feel similarly. How to remedy this?

Edit: In retrospect, yeah, they do look like studies. Never really saw them as such before. Must. Not. Discourage self.

Edited October 1, 2012 by wm000

[caitlingm]

I respect your daring and your clear conceptualization. I can't help feeling I've seen a lot of it before, however. Lots of people do ontological performances, so it's not easy to stand out. That most recent series (lustration) is probably the best, so that's good. That stuff with bodily fluids has kind of been done to death (all those "menstrual prints"...) That said, there was something neat about the tiny female figures in blood or red ink. I hope they're really as small as they seem.

Thank you SO much for the honesty. I went to a public university in rural Texas where what I was doing (2nd wavey performance) was totally unique. So, my college work was probably not accurately evaluated. I graduated in Dec. 2010. The Lustration was a clear trajectory in a new direction for me. So the work I will be applying with this year will be all work from The Lustration. Any further critique is most welcome.

[losemygrip]

That's a great sign that you weren't offended by my honest comments. You'll get some really harsh criticism in grad school, so it's good that you're up for it. Make absolutely sure that you have your BS (a.k.a., artist's statement) completely and thoroughly under control for lustration and subsequent works. Make sure that you know ALL of the contemporary art that is similar or conceptually connected.

So, ARE those red nudes really tiny? I imagine them to be maybe 3 inches. What's great about those is they show graceful rendering with economy of means--like the Lascaux cave paintings. And with a conceptual subtext.

[losemygrip]

Is that to say you don't think I'm on the MFA track? I don't expect to be the best possible artist I can be this early in the game, I'm learning as I go like everyone else which is my central reason for even wanting more school. My paintings include only one figure because my art is about isolation and individual struggle. I feel that adding multiple figures would sort of dispel the lonesomeness I seek to depict. As for the paintings resembling studies, my goal is to dabble with allegory rather than flood the work with it. But if you perceive them as studies I imagine a panel of professors might feel similarly. How to remedy this?

Edit: In retrospect, yeah, they do look like studies. Never really saw them as such before. Must. Not. Discourage self.

Your best piece is the two heads at the top. It's the only one that doesn't look as if it originated with, "Let's find a model so I can get started." In contrast, the two heads seems to have started with an idea. And that's the way it should be. Idea first, means of expression after.

Every single image is a torso or head. Or torso AND head. (Except the drawing of a dog.) So it suggests that you have a limited formula based on individual figure studies. For me, the sense of isolation and individual struggle is not coming across at all. I can sense that maybe you're trying to do that with paint and color, like Kokoschka or Schiele. Tough shoes to fill. Your figures (with some exceptions) don't seem to be struggling--they're just standing there. They often don't really even have expressions on their faces--some of them don't even HAVE faces. Using solitary figures is the most simplistic and cliche way to suggest isolation. Some of the most successful images of isolation and alienation involve crowds of people. Have you seen George Tooker's The Waiting Room or The Subway? It makes me question--did you come up with this idea about isolation and individual struggle because you thought it matched up with these images of solitary figures? What came first?

I have to say I have a lot of students in my department who have this issue. They have some instructors who rely on using lots of models in class, so they get used to that as their starting point, then just try to figure out some gimmick to make it look different from their peers. But they can't conceive of starting a painting without a model.

Don't get me wrong--these pieces are beautifully painted; wonderful passages of brushwork and color abound. But the subject needs to ADD to the content, not just be a coat hanger for you to try to hang the content on.

This is not to say that you couldn't still get into a grad school somewhere with beautifully painted figure studies. But your options would be limited. They'd probably like this work at Pratt, for instance.

Also, don't get discouraged by this criticism. Just use it as leverage.

Edited October 2, 2012 by losemygrip

[caitlingm]

That's a great sign that you weren't offended by my honest comments. You'll get some really harsh criticism in grad school, so it's good that you're up for it. Make absolutely sure that you have your BS (a.k.a., artist's statement) completely and thoroughly under control for lustration and subsequent works. Make sure that you know ALL of the contemporary art that is similar or conceptually connected.

So, ARE those red nudes really tiny? I imagine them to be maybe 3 inches. What's great about those is they show graceful rendering with economy of means--like the Lascaux cave paintings. And with a conceptual subtext.

The red ink blot figures are about 9.5 inches long. Maybe I will spend a little extra time in the library before I submit my portfolio anywhere. I was especially interested in Robert Irwin and Bill viola's water pieces for the series. Thank you again for your criticism!

[01010101010101101010101010]

Your best piece is the two heads at the top. It's the only one that doesn't look as if it originated with, "Let's find a model so I can get started." In contrast, the two heads seems to have started with an idea. And that's the way it should be. Idea first, means of expression after.

Every single image is a torso or head. Or torso AND head. (Except the drawing of a dog.) So it suggests that you have a limited formula based on individual figure studies. For me, the sense of isolation and individual struggle is not coming across at all. I can sense that maybe you're trying to do that with paint and color, like Kokoschka or Schiele. Tough shoes to fill. Your figures (with some exceptions) don't seem to be struggling--they're just standing there. They often don't really even have expressions on their faces--some of them don't even HAVE faces. Using solitary figures is the most simplistic and cliche way to suggest isolation. Some of the most successful images of isolation and alienation involve crowds of people. Have you seen George Tooker's The Waiting Room or The Subway? It makes me question--did you come up with this idea about isolation and individual struggle because you thought it matched up with these images of solitary figures? What came first?

I have to say I have a lot of students in my department who have this issue. They have some instructors who rely on using lots of models in class, so they get used to that as their starting point, then just try to figure out some gimmick to make it look different from their peers. But they can't conceive of starting a painting without a model.

Don't get me wrong--these pieces are beautifully painted; wonderful passages of brushwork and color abound. But the subject needs to ADD to the content, not just be a coat hanger for you to try to hang the content on.

This is not to say that you couldn't still get into a grad school somewhere with beautifully painted figure studies. But your options would be limited. They'd probably like this work at Pratt, for instance.

Also, don't get discouraged by this criticism. Just use it as leverage.

I'm just about floored by your insight. I forget how valuable criticism can be (haven't really had any since undergrad 2+ years ago). I find it funny that you found the two heads most successful because I felt the opposite about it . I don't give my figures faces because my goal is to strip them of identity, to make them disposable and remove their uniqueness (hence the mask imagery). You pose a strong argument, that the solitary figure is sort of an easy way to approach the problem. I'm working on a triptych now that I feel handles the situation more effectively (i'd love to hear your criticism when I finish/post it).

I don't my work to just be seen as beautifully painted figures, I want the figures themselves to be messages.

[losemygrip]

I don't my work to just be seen as beautifully painted figures, I want the figures themselves to be messages.

Ahhh. Good. It's very difficult to do. You're going to have to think carefully about who the figures are, how they are posed, what settings they're in, how they're dressed, etc. Thinking is the hardest part about making art.

Part of the problem is there are a lot of self-portraits that look like studies. If you're going to have a bunch of self-portraits taken seriously, you have to be like Rembrandt. He was always painting himself as characters (or Cindy Sherman!). You're going to have to pick (or invent) models based on what you want to express, not on what's available to you. They're not interchangeable neutral components. Think about what the painting's theme is going to be, then decide what physical type will express that best.

Think about scale: what about some tiny figures? What about close ups of some portion of a figure? Think about composition--HARD. Your compositions aren't particularly unusual or innovative--that's another reason they seem like studies. Space? There's a lot of undefined, flat backdrops, as though figures are floating in limbo (again--reads as "figure study"). Everybody is at a sort of middle distance, even if they're cropped.

On the other hand, you could go the other direction and make the figures flatter, more abstract, more symbolic.

Lots of options to explore.

[01010101010101101010101010]

Think about scale: what about some tiny figures? What about close ups of some portion of a figure? Think about composition--HARD. Your compositions aren't particularly unusual or innovative--that's another reason they seem like studies. Space? There's a lot of undefined, flat backdrops, as though figures are floating in limbo (again--reads as "figure study"). Everybody is at a sort of middle distance, even if they're cropped.

You make it seem so glaringly obvious. I hadn't even considered putting the figure in a real place, opting for a more ambiguous location (which was intended to communicate a sense of lost place). I've been taking a sort of stream of consciousness approach wherein these nameless/faceless people are meant to occupy nondescript, dreamlike voids. I WANT them to be in voids, but it's apparent now that that message is not clear. I'm not certain if you had a chance to read the statement on my blog but my goal is to describe an almost hopeless sensation of being inconsequential and ineffectual (without becoming political or preachy [though maybe that's what I need?]). Do any contemporary artists come to mind with similar M.O.s? I almost feel like I'm against a wall, unsure of how to move forward.

[TheStranger]

I'm not certain if you had a chance to read the statement on my blog but my goal is to describe an almost hopeless sensation of being inconsequential and ineffectual (without becoming political or preachy [though maybe that's what I need?]). Do any contemporary artists come to mind with similar M.O.s? I almost feel like I'm against a wall, unsure of how to move forward.

In regards to your question of possibly being more preachy, I am going to be very blunt:

Your artist statement describes things in your paintings in a fallacious manner (e.g. the headless man has no identity, the single figure is alone, "self portraiture functions here primarily to illustrate...the need to project a piece of myself into space and time"). We almost don't need you to state these things yet they make up the bulk of your entire statement. You throw in flashy trigger words like Expressionism or space & time too freely which comes off as if you are trying to elevate your art using their associated authority, history and theories without earning it yourself. Your artwork is almost synonymous with undergraduate figure painting assignments and ultimately you have not left the security of the school's academic structure.

[01010101010101101010101010]

In regards to your question of possibly being more preachy, I am going to be very blunt:

Your artist statement describes things in your paintings in a fallacious manner (e.g. the headless man has no identity, the single figure is alone, "self portraiture functions here primarily to illustrate...the need to project a piece of myself into space and time"). We almost don't need you to state these things yet they make up the bulk of your entire statement. You throw in flashy trigger words like Expressionism or space & time too freely which comes off as if you are trying to elevate your art using their associated authority, history and theories without earning it yourself. Your artwork is almost synonymous with undergraduate figure painting assignments and ultimately you have not left the security of the school's academic structure.

Well, thanks for your very blunt (condescending?) bit of criticism. My vocabulary is not intended to look flashy, it's to reach my core ideas as closely as possible. Some words are just more specific than others, and I wouldn't be so bold as to shallowly plug artspeak where it isn't needed. If I speak of Expressionism it is for the element of cultural criticism that goes with it. I am foremost a critic of my world, whether that's apparent in my work is a matter that needs addressing. I would never wish to elevate my art to something it isn't (nobody likes a cheater, least of all myself) which is one of the reasons I come to this forum, to gain insight from others regarding what needs work and what is working. Clearly, my paintings aren't speaking as I want them to speak. That much has been made obvious by LoseMyGrip, and I understand that what I see isn't what other people see. But I referred LoseMyGrip to my artist statement to give him/her a better idea of not what I've already accomplished but rather what I'm working toward.

Alhough I appreciate an honest opinion, I feel like your comment wasn't really constructive. I am struggling to find my way like every other artist.

[Nacht]

Well, thanks for your very blunt (condescending?) bit of criticism. My vocabulary is not intended to look flashy, it's to reach my core ideas as closely as possible. Some words are just more specific than others, and I wouldn't be so bold as to shallowly plug artspeak where it isn't needed. If I speak of Expressionism it is for the element of cultural criticism that goes with it. I am foremost a critic of my world, whether that's apparent in my work is a matter that needs addressing. I would never wish to elevate my art to something it isn't (nobody likes a cheater, least of all myself) which is one of the reasons I come to this forum, to gain insight from others regarding what needs work and what is working. Clearly, my paintings aren't speaking as I want them to speak. That much has been made obvious by LoseMyGrip, and I understand that what I see isn't what other people see. But I referred LoseMyGrip to my artist statement to give him/her a better idea of not what I've already accomplished but rather what I'm working toward.

Alhough I appreciate an honest opinion, I feel like your comment wasn't really constructive. I am struggling to find my way like every other artist.

Actually, speaking from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about painting (and basically anything else), I do see how your art connects with your statement. I really like your paintings, and your message certainly got across to me, and your portraits have an emotional depth/intensity I find very impressive. Well I'm not saying these to flatter you and I understand that artists should be able to deal with critiques, and of course I don't know anything about painting. But having read the comments above I feel like telling you that I'm moved by your paintings.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Nacht

[01010101010101101010101010]

Actually, speaking from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about painting (and basically anything else), I do see how your art connects with your statement. I really like your paintings, and your message certainly got across to me, and your portraits have an emotional depth/intensity I find very impressive. Well I'm not saying these to flatter you and I understand that artists should be able to deal with critiques, and of course I don't know anything about painting. But having read the comments above I feel like telling you that I'm moved by your paintings.

I thank you for the kind words. I'm given a bit of solace knowing that you connected with the work (I don't believe one has to "know anything" about painting in order to read or feel a painting). But I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to criticism, in fact I value it above praise. What I am opposed to is criticism that doesn't seek to improve anything, like a child being scolded for bad behavior then given nothing to build upon. I value what TheStranger has to say, but I feel it could have been more tactfully said.

[leee]

Your piece "Reverse Mourning" reminds me of Natalie Frank's work, if you aren't familiar with her I highly recommend checking her out.

[lady rainicorn]

I'm not certain if you had a chance to read the statement on my blog but my goal is to describe an almost hopeless sensation of being inconsequential and ineffectual (without becoming political or preachy [though maybe that's what I need?]). Do any contemporary artists come to mind with similar M.O.s? I almost feel like I'm against a wall, unsure of how to move forward.

I would say that Francis Bacon dealt with some of the existential-like issues you're interested in. If you're feeling up against a wall, I may suggest reading, or look to something outside of the visual arts. Maybe you should read some Camus if you want to think about hopeless situations, or Marx, as he dealt with the anxiety and disengagement of the working people in the face of capitalism. Much of the impetus for my own work has come from literature, film, and personal experience.

Some words are just more specific than others, and I wouldn't be so bold as to shallowly plug artspeak where it isn't needed. If I speak of Expressionism it is for the element of cultural criticism that goes with it.

Beware of using art historical terms in ways that they shouldn't be used. ressionism'>Expressionism is specific to the modernist movement at the beginning of the 20th century. If you explain what you're trying to do without using heavily loaded (and sometimes incorrect) terms, I think you'll find yourself not getting into any trouble and if anything, being more succinct.

I agree with TheStranger that some of your earlier work does have that undergraduate feel. But no worries, just keep painting! Based on the progression of your newer work, it looks like if you keep working, something great will explode. Remember, work comes from work. Over the summer a friend posted a great quote by Chuck Close in our shared studio space:

“The advice I like to give young artists, or really anybody who'll listen to me, is not to wait around for inspiration. Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work. If you wait around for the clouds to part and a bolt of lightning to strike you in the brain, you are not going to make an awful lot of work. All the best ideas come out of the process; they come out of the work itself. Things occur to you. If you're sitting around trying to dream up a great art idea, you can sit there a long time before anything happens. But if you just get to work, something will occur to you and something else will occur to you and something else that you reject will push you in another direction. Inspiration is absolutely unnecessary and somehow deceptive. You feel like you need this great idea before you can get down to work, and I find that's almost never the case.”

-Chuck Close

[TheStranger]

Well, thanks for your very blunt (condescending?) bit of criticism. My vocabulary is not intended to look flashy, it's to reach my core ideas as closely as possible. Some words are just more specific than others, and I wouldn't be so bold as to shallowly plug artspeak where it isn't needed. If I speak of Expressionism it is for the element of cultural criticism that goes with it. I am foremost a critic of my world, whether that's apparent in my work is a matter that needs addressing. I would never wish to elevate my art to something it isn't (nobody likes a cheater, least of all myself) which is one of the reasons I come to this forum, to gain insight from others regarding what needs work and what is working. Clearly, my paintings aren't speaking as I want them to speak. That much has been made obvious by LoseMyGrip, and I understand that what I see isn't what other people see. But I referred LoseMyGrip to my artist statement to give him/her a better idea of not what I've already accomplished but rather what I'm working toward.

Alhough I appreciate an honest opinion, I feel like your comment wasn't really constructive. I am struggling to find my way like every other artist.

My apologies that my post came off as condescending. I actually wrote it close to 2 in the morning and I needed to just go to bed but I wanted to leave something to help guide you. Unfortunately bluntness came off harsher than I realized. Also, I am reading essays by Robert Hughes who is really blunt in Nothing if not Critical (...as you can tell by the title).

You may be interested in looking at David Kassan's paintings: http://davidkassan.4ormat.com/ They have a certain figure/background dynamic I think you'd appreciate.

As for the idea of the Void, there are many ways to depict it. I suggest looking at Yves Klein’s Leap into the Void (1960):

I think it shows this idea of the void, existentialism and even the Absurd which lady rainicorn alludes to with suggesting Camus and French philosophy (My username is not the_stranger by any coincidence ). There are many things to think about such as would this image be as shocking if it were painted in oils? How does this approach differ from depicting the Void as a surreal space versus real space?

Like everyone has said, just keep on painting and growing---that's all we can ever hope to do. But always questions things and even yourself. Speaking of reading on philosophies, I also suggest looking into Post Structuralism which should help guide your art.

[01010101010101101010101010]

I would say that Francis Bacon dealt with some of the existential-like issues you're interested in. If you're feeling up against a wall, I may suggest reading, or look to something outside of the visual arts. Maybe you should read some Camus if you want to think about hopeless situations, or Marx, as he dealt with the anxiety and disengagement of the working people in the face of capitalism. Much of the impetus for my own work has come from literature, film, and personal experience.

Beware of using art historical terms in ways that they shouldn't be used. Expressionism is specific to the modernist movement at the beginning of the 20th century. If you explain what you're trying to do without using heavily loaded (and sometimes incorrect) terms, I think you'll find yourself not getting into any trouble and if anything, being more succinct.

I agree with TheStranger that some of your earlier work does have that undergraduate feel. But no worries, just keep painting! Based on the progression of your newer work, it looks like if you keep working, something great will explode. Remember, work comes from work.

I will be cutting down the misused-artspeak before I get myself in trouble. I will also be looking into Camus, as you and TheStranger are edging me toward his work.

I see now that the further in time I go, the less academic my paintings look. I think this curse is partly to blame on my undergrad education; strictly traditional and not even remotely challenging until my final semester. My professors were scarcely helpful and most would just lay on flattery and never criticize. What good is that? I also begrudge them for not giving me more advisement about graduate school. Alas I am now a baffled young man grasping at straws. Thank you for your reply lady.

My apologies that my post came off as condescending. I actually wrote it close to 2 in the morning and I needed to just go to bed but I wanted to leave something to help guide you. Unfortunately bluntness came off harsher than I realized. Also, I am reading essays by Robert Hughes who is really blunt in Nothing if not Critical (...as you can tell by the title).

You may be interested in looking at David Kassan's paintings: http://davidkassan.4ormat.com/ They have a certain figure/background dynamic I think you'd appreciate.

I think it shows this idea of the void, existentialism and even the Absurd which lady rainicorn alludes to with suggesting Camus and French philosophy (My username is not the_stranger by any coincidence ). There are many things to think about such as would this image be as shocking if it were painted in oils? How does this approach differ from depicting the Void as a surreal space versus real space?

Like everyone has said, just keep on painting and growing---that's all we can ever hope to do. But always questions things and even yourself. Speaking of reading on philosophies, I also suggest looking into Post Structuralism which should help guide your art.

I'm relieved to learn that you weren't trying to condescend, and my apologies for being so defensive. I took a look at David Kassan, and though I don't aspire to paint photorealistically, I do appreciate what he's doing with his sitters by placing them in this bizarre, pseudo-industrial confessional booth (still closer than I'd like to be to portraiture though). I see elements of the void in this work, and they are excellently painted, though I also see weaknesses similar to my own e.g. redundant perspective, figure-study modeling, cliche mannerisms. I'm glad you (collectively) have brought this to my attention, otherwise I would not have seen it, and now it is so painfully obvious I feel like I need to start over.

Klein's 'Into the Void' is amazing, I remember this from art history. It possesses a sort of jovial madness that I find myself lacking and could definitely use a dose of. When contemplating the void, my first instinct is to shove some hapless body into an empty space (which I now see as being the easy way out). Klein does it in a freaking suburb that he probably lived in and does so masterfully (someone in an earlier post said thinking is the hardest part of making art, this photo is full of brainstorming and I think that's why it's so effective). To answer your question (which I think was rhetorical anyway) this would definitely not be as potent if it were painted rather than photographed. I'm fairly sure he's going to injure himself, there's no risk of that in paint.

I think my current challenge is signifying void while being rooted in reality. My most recent painting is quite a different approach to this problem and I'll let you know when I've posted it.