American artist Charlie Terrell has more than one string to his bow. This tattooed musician in his fifties is certainly more renowned as a video artist ( at DaddyVan ), bringing his savoir-faire to live performances of artists such as Maroon 5 or creating music videos for famous hard-rock bands (Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Megadeth and Disturbed). But his talent also extends to graphic creation. Indeed, for years, Charlie has been digitally altering photographs, creating unique portraits, mainly of alternative female models.
His image treatment is reminiscent of the work of painter Gustav Klimt and mosaic art. On organic colored backgrounds, women look like fantasy wood inhabitants, either nymphs, pagan priestesses or heroines of romantic poetry.
Charlie also has the knack of turning everyday life situations (reading, taking selfies) into witty and beautiful digital paintings, tattooing his models bodies with jewels-like geometrical patterns.
Love, love, love! Outstanding art!!! Thanks! :)
Our pleasure Shawn, so pleased you are enjoying our new site!!
Thank you for the lovely feedback
Wonderful, beautiful, unusual and nothing like I’ve ever seen before. Where can I see more?
Images 2,3,5,6,9, and 10 are stirringly yummy. The twins are especially thought provoking. They are both dualistic and equal but clearly two different people… The one to the left has a “x” on her panties (“no vacancy”) which may indicate she is emotionally motivated or driven by heart. The one on the right has the “x” on her cheek (“no vacancy”) which may indicate intellectual motivation or a colder mechanical perspective. Some married adult film stars reserve space on the body (such as cheeks) exclusively for their spouses. The reverse of this could be reservations concerning intercourse brought on by non-tactical motives for dedication (love). Clearly those who use “love” to generate capital are employing a “tactic”.
So the one on the right is saying “not the cheek, that belongs (or is dedicated) to someone”, where as the other is saying “not my vagina, that belongs (or is dedicated) to someone. Both are attractive forms seperately, but flawed. Each individual is missing what the other has. They are only perfect when the opposite “halves” are paired to create a whole akh.
All who aren’t both, are all wrong.
I think trying to mix archetypes while at the same time depicting the sexuality of the female form is a bit immature. Not only does it really not say anything important, it fails to create a new symbol. Instead of bursting through the walls of the matrix with a revelation, it merely presents the known limits of female identity with pictorial /symbolic juxtaposition.
An example of something more interesting / powerful / culturally relevant than this would be to do the same thing stylistically, but instead of showing the women posing for a male viewer, to depict them rescuing a child or heaving a large garbage bag into a dumpster.
Using the terms angel and pagan in the same title kind of implies that someone is having trouble with archetypes. Ok, I get that. But how does it resolve? It resolves with the pagan learns in a moment just like the angel . . . that the world is made from one consciousness. That one spirit fills all things. If the result is not this . . . then both the angel and the pagan are fake identities, because it is consciousness that ties them together.
Here we see an artist hiding in shapes and forms who has not yet discovered the real magic that evokes and provokes the soul.