(The following is a transcript of an interview I did with Swellnet in 2019.)

Swellnet: As far as I’m aware, you started your career as a photographer, then became a writer, primarily to complement your photography, and now you paint. How did the move towards watercolour paintings come to pass?

Dave: I actually painted before doing anything else, way back in my school days. It was acrylics and oils, but watercolour always held a sense of intrigue for me from a distance; I knew it would come into play sooner or later. In those days (1970's) a lot of commercial art and graphic design was rendered in watercolour, and I would always notice the freshness and luminosity of a watercolour wash. There was something unique and beautiful about it.

When I was around 15 though, I got an amazing dog and wanted to get some photos of him. Straight off the bat I got some great ones and next thing I was shooting a lot, painting not much, but surfing more than anything. Eventually my passion for surfing blended into the photography, and painting was out of the picture for a long time. Like 20 odd years!

Swellnet: Do you see many similarities between photography and painting?

Dave: As far as actual execution goes, there are none, but subject and design wise, there are plenty.

As photography became increasingly more of a focus (sorry pun haters) for me, I was very keen to work on composition and other ways to increase the impact of any given photograph. Composition is virtually the same concept whether a photo or a painting, and building imagery around theories such as the rule of thirds and golden section - which have stood the test of time for centuries - is a solid jumping off point for sound design and composition.

Light, of course, is probably the strongest aspect of most artist's approaches, and most photographers too. It has to be, because without it there is only blackness.

Subject wise, however, I am realising more and more that good subjects for a photo are not necessarily good for a painting, particularly in landscape painting which is my main theme. Photography seems to lend itself to the most spectacular setting possible; the viewer knows the scene is real, and there are some really trippy images out there of outrageous geographical formations, shot in colourful light. If you try to paint such scenes though, they usually look over cooked and over the top, sort of kitschy, almost. I am finding that it is better to paint a more sedate or 'normal' scene, and manipulate light and shadow and atmosphere to create a much more beautiful result that people would like to live with on their wall everyday.

I still fall into the trap at times, but it just reinforces the concept that for me, light, mood and feeling are more important than actual subject.

Swellnet: These days, when you see stumble across a great vantage point, do you frame it through your imaginary viewfinder, or do you compose it on your imaginary easel?

Dave: Referencing my last answer, it really depends on the scene. But most of my photography these days is done with the motivation of eventually creating a painting from the photo. These are never a 'copy' of the photo, but more 'as suggested' by the photo. I will often incorporate bits and bobs from several photos to create a composite painting. I hate having an otherwise beautiful painting fail because of poor design, so while I like staying faithful to the landscape as it is, I am happy to move a tree or a rock to help with composition. I think as long as you catch the spirit of a place, it is ok to use artistic license. With commissions I will stay truer to a scene; if someone wants a painting of their home beach, you can't change the shape of a headland to suit yourself, you have to just make it work.

Painting 'en plein air' (on site) is a whole different ball game. You have to distill and simplify often complex scenes, and boil them down to the essence of tone and shape. Getting caught up in details is fatal, if you want to ever get out of there; details are really just suggested through, hopefully, well chosen calligraphic marks.

Swellnet: Your photography often features surfers, yet people are largely absent in your paintings, in fact few man-made objects appear at all. Why is that?

Swellnet: Is the Australian bush ideal for reproducing in watercolour? What do you look for?

Dave: I love painting the Australian bush. It intrigues me how long it took our early artists - many of whom were European imports - to really see the Aussie flora, rather than just paint English parklands and manicured vistas. The Australian bush is disorderly, untidy, almost chaotic, or so it seems. When you really observe it, there are patterns and rhythms there, but they are very subtle. Hans Heysen was probably the first to really 'see' a gum tree, and his work from around the 1910's to 1930's still resonates with me.

Watercolour painted fairly loosely seems to be very suitable for creating a feeling of chaos.

The nuances of our greens are endlessly intriguing to me, there are khakis and grey greens and brown greens and blue greens and green greens. It is easy to fall into the trap of painting Aussie landscapes too green, too limey, but really you need to subdue that high chroma, play it down and maybe just add some high key colour here or there as an accent. Really, juxtaposing warm and cool colours effectively is more critical than actual hue for creating a feeling of distance and realism.

Swellnet: And what about the coast?

Dave: I love painting the ocean and suggesting waves and chop and different surface conditions, and watercolour is great for that. With things like water and skies, the less you try and paint them exactly as is, the better they look. The best skies are just dashed in with calligraphic abandon, when you over work them they just lose all of their mojo and become dead. It's like a signature; if you write it slowly it is just a word, it's not your signature anymore. Of course, painting loosely doesn't mean rough and ready. You have to get the fundamentals down over many years first, then it looks easy, but the work has been done. No musician can improvise a lead guitar riff without years of practising scales first. 

Swellnet: A watercolour speciality is an object reflected off water; recreating that imperfect mirror image. Is this something you seek?

Swellnet: Shooting into the sun can be problematic with cameras, but many of your paintings benefit from the same perspective, making a strength of that white, overexposed look. Is that on purpose?