BORN: 1970

2001 University of Delaware, MFA
1994 Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, CFA

2002 J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, NY
2002 The Art Institute of Philadelphia, PA
2001 J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, NY
1998 Hollis Taggart Gallery, New York, NY
1996 Fleisher Challenge Exhibition, Samual Fleisher art Memorial, Organized by the Philadelphia Museum of Art

2007 Paris, New York and Philadelphia, F.U.E.L. Collection, Philadelphia, PA
2007 New Talent Show, Gallery Henoch, New York, NY
2006 Art 20, Gallery Henoch, The Park Avenue Armory, New York, NY
2006 Artists' House Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
2005 PAFA Fellowship Show, The Plastic Club, Philadelphia, PA
2004 PAFA Fellowship Show, The Plastic Club, Philadelphia, PA
2001 Thesis Exhibition, College Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
2001 USArtists, J. Cacciola Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
2000 J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, NY
1999 J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, NY
1998 USArtists, Philadelphia, PA
1998 Kennebunk River Club, Kennebunkport, ME
1996 Hollis Taggart Gallery, New York, NY
1994 Hollis Taggart Gallery, Washington DC
1993 Pentimenti Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
1992 Woodmere Art Museum, Chesnut Hill, PA

1999 Competitive Fellowship, MFA Program, University of Delaware
1994 Ware Travel Scholarship, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
1994 Cook Prize for Drawing, PAFA
1994 Garber Prize for Drawing, PAFA
1993 Cook Prize for Drawing, PAFA
1993 Samual David Cast Drawing Prize, PAFA
1993 Stanfield Scholarship, Boston, MA

2001 University of Delaware, Figure Drawing
2000 University of Delaware, Painting the still life
1999 University of Delaware, Figure Drawing

Antiques and the Arts Weekly, pg. 40. April 17, 1998
Sozanski, Edward J., The Phiiladelphia Inquirer, pg. 36. February 2, 1996
Higgins, Edward, South Philadelphia Review, pg. 35. February 15, 1996
Fleming, Lee, The Washington Post, Arts Section, December, 24, 1994



As consumers of media, we are confronted on all sides by the uniformity of the repeated image and the forced consensus of what others determine to be reality. This has a training effect on the imagination and has forced a visual orthodoxy on us. In terms of the organic strangeness of reality, computer-generated imagery is inferior to the analog style of models, puppets and manipulated plastic forms that existed in the pre-photographic age. The very benefits of technology that enable vast amounts of imagery to be created quickly by digital formulae are what cause the bland, unconvincing uniformity of surface in computer generated images that work against their achieving verisimilitude to nature in the imagination of the viewer. There is a societal standard now that reality resemble these modern, digital-based forms to be considered real. The concept of reality is constantly updated to the newest technology and a forced stereotype has replaced each individuals’ unique perspective. The neuropathy that limits thought outside this stereotype is becoming greater in direct proportion to the visual vocabulary of the modern graphic/visual consumer. I think the sophistication of the digitally enhanced image is a crutch to the imagination when the only criteria to the truly captivating image should be its’ strangeness. Photography is not to blame for this new orthodoxy. It is only a technological tool. Rather the repetition by the media of the new video-based reality has brought about this change. Pre-digital imagery was symbolic but still considered as real as life to its contemporary viewers. They had be taught the acceptance of the photographic image as reality. I have been experimenting with imagery that is proto-realistic in nature. In reaction to the contemporary visual stereotypes, I am developing a neo-primitive classical art that is similar to Early Renaissance or the various styles of the Antique in its conception and execution, but not innocent of photography or contemporary environments. Enigmatic genre scenes, environmental and figurative subjects are presented to the viewer as my answer to what is real. Duality of interpretation comes into play when I present a painting of what looks like dolls in an interior. The viewer can ask if it is a realistic painting of dolls or a stylized painting of people. Surfaces are presented with layers of paint and varnish, sometimes cracked or worn, implying, on the one hand, that age has brought a patina to the painting and the viewer is looking back through time to a different concept of reality, or on the other, that there is no patina, only a mode of expression through marks and tones and the painting is an object, nature itself, rather than merely a representation of it.

Andrew Wrigley