Search

Actor headshots.

Actor headshots.

Political candidate headshot.

Actor headshots.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

Actor headshots.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

Headshots for a college's international exchange program.

This was actually for a client. I guess I shouldn't sound so incredulous. They really liked it. I am using too many adverbs. Of course they did. I am legitimate. I am beginning to think what separates great artists from nobodies is how straight of a face you can keep. Look, I mean that. I don't think this is bad. I actually love it. It's very dear to my heart. I'm just never not surprised when someone else agrees. And I see a lot of art out there that's so bad, and people bought it, and people keep using it, and clearly they think that's okay, and I see 'real artists' selling stuff that's absolute nonsense, and other things that are just boring, and they seem to be making a living this way without necessarily being someone's niece or nephew, but. It's always funny to me when I make everyone into monkeys and the people involved don't mind. Takes a rare kind of good humor. I don't mean to roast the clients, but my conscious mind isn't ever doing this; it's my deranged id that takes over and makes art, so god knows what's going to come of it. It's a really unsafe process!!! :O Trying to turn weaponized auto-cartoons into someone's commercial asset is not a sure bet.

During undergrad, my employer busted in and asked me to crank out a promotional poster in a few hours, so I whipped this out.

Idk, I don't love this, but I don't hate it. Here. Vote. Is it a keeper? Will see how many likes it gets and turn this over to democracy. Deffo not my best work, in retrospect. One of those pieces I was quite stoked about at the time, then woke up to coyote ugly 6 months later, like it had all been a dream.

When I first moved to SF, I was such a bumpkin looking for the hustle that I didn't grasp the underlying machinery of this ad's premise. This gives me a lot of insight into people who, in ignorance, work for terrible places, because I was so in the zone with balancing and enhancing visuals that I had almost zero enquiry into the deeper meaning. They told me what to write, and I wrote it, oblivious to the implications of the language used. It's crazy to think about now. This is literally just dawning on me as I review this old work, how little those words meant at the time. "Oh, people want their properties to sell for a lot of money! As a broker, your goal is to ensure they can sell for the highest possible value!" It seemed like good business, common sense. An argument could be made for that in other markets. But learn about the market firsthand, watch how it plays out in people's lives, and it becomes clear that this is not morally neutral at all. That being said, most regulatory efforts fail at economic sustainability. I do think there are many fair solutions for both property owners and renters, but they rarely make it to actionable legislation, unfortunately.

Jesus wanted something for the weight-conscious brigade, people working on their swimsuit bodies or whathaveyou.

They mostly got good reviews, honestly.

The logo predated me. At one point he thought about redesigning it, but then got busy and let it go.

In retrospect, I have no idea why the stars were basically inverted. Wasn't trying to be subversive. Did he ask for it that way? I can't remember.

This menu is so maximalist. I love it. So many options. Sometimes he thought it might be overwhelming. It definitely cost a fair bit to replace, but they had nice menu holders that kept the pages clean/washable.

This is Big Mike; he had my back when stuff got weird.

These are from back in the day, when I managed a cafe in the red light district of SF.

Cos then some other regulars started asking, "Where's MY cup drawing?"

Gary was a regular. We had us hold onto his cup for him, he'd come back and reuse it throughout the day. I drew on his cup so it wouldn't get thrown out. That's what started this whole thing.

There's a cool ephemeral nature to drawings on a coffee cup. Now it's special. "Chosen". It becomes the envy of undecorated cups. "Listen, Jimmy's Paper Mug, we don't like the way acting lately. Putting on airs." I gold leafed one.

Sometimes I'd ask people what they wanted on their cups, on a slow day. Sometimes I'd prepare it for the regulars.

This is the kind of 'lowbrow art' stuff I personally quite dig. It's fine if a lot of people don't get the chaotic simplicity or aren't into it, but I feel like this is what it's all about, as far as I'm concerned; basically the whole ethos of art making. These remain some of the drawings I'm most happy with, lifelong to date.

The dude in the left foreground was done by Dingo, not me.

Sometimes people gave them back to me when they finished their drinks. Usually they kept them. Once in awhile someone slammed it into the trash. Sometimes people threw it away nonchalantly. Realistically, what are you supposed to do with cup art? But also, why are we consuming so much to throw it away constantly, ya know? Not trying to get deep or anything, but it does sorta draw attention to a culture of disposability. It's funny in a way, those rare times when someone would *aggressively* smash it into the trash as if in rebuke, deliberately looking me in the eye. What was that even about? Kind of hilarious, though. I do feel like it was a bit. Choreography of an existential joke. Everyone playing their part.

Julian's whole thing was that having kids made him want to run for office to try to stave off the hazards his children would be dealing with in their adult lives, and so they were an essential part of the campaign. It seemed evident to us that the only way to persuade people was to make the emotional stakes real to them, concretely associating the future with their own children, and our choices today with the world our children live in tomorrow.

Some people thought it was in poor taste to use children in a political campaign, but I can't disagree more, given the nature of the campaign and our undertaking being directly influential on their health and livelihoods.

Then again, this was 2015, a very different year for children in media. AI deepfakes didn't exist, and the Epstein files issue hadn't blown up, so it was kind of a more innocent time in some senses.

We didn't win, but we got 7% of the vote despite active opposition from the Oregon Democratic Party, such that we were blacklisted from interviews with local journalists (afraid they would lose access to incumbents & established players), were excluded from media that supposedly factually documented candidates running in the upcoming primary (we filed on time, we listed on the SoS website, but were still excluded from mention, and no redactions were ever printed even when I called to correc the papers). Despite all that, we still achieved more than double the votes of other opponents of the incumbent governor.

The goal wasn't exclusively to win. The core goal was to gauge the interest in climate change action within the state, and nudge the party establishment to act on behalf of the expressed will of their constituency. I don't think it worked, unfortunately, though it's hard to say. Rather, as I see it, a lot of red herrings were dragged over Sockeye Sam to divert from the growing interest in progressive politics. And then we got Cheeto, so the unifying cry of corporate liberals became, "Hey! We're not Cheeto. Vote for us."

I took every photo on the billboards except for this one of Julian's son, which was taken by Julian with his phone.

To be clear: Julian drew a draft of Sockeye Sam on our campaign office whiteboard. I vectorized him, tidied him up, and provided various colorways and contexts. This was a collaborative logo.

Placed at a major intersection in Portland.

Placed near a Catholic church, at a major intersection in Portland.

Placed near Mt. Hood, in the line of sight of likely snowboarding enthusiasts.

Placed at a major intersection in Portland.

Listen. I didn't choose or agree with "fixing" climate change as a slogan. It's not scientifically accurate. But Julian was adamant that it was emotionally effective. And the more I dealt with the voting public, the more I agreed that emotionality was what drove people. That being said, the imprecision of language never ceases to bother me.

Brown's "landmark" Coal2Clean bill was drafted in collaboration with the fossil fuel companies and major utility companies, and was ultimately another pro-fracking ("natural gas: the cleaner solution!") bill disguised as abolition of an already dying coal-industry in favor of a more lucrative anti-environmental lobby. No doubt she and her minder Tina Kotek profited heartily off of it in one way or another, cos you really can't get the Oregon Democratic Party out of bed with the fossil fuel industry. Pre-MAGA, Oregon Republicans were actually more favorable to sustainable solutions due to the job-creation incentives in rural precincts, but post-MAGA, most candidates have represented an onslaught of human sludge and/or at very least misguided yet idealistic social climbers with minimal sway, so the problem remains.

Seth Woolley of the national Green Party sold a digital advertising package to Julian (despite my reservations); I was tasked with creating the ads. The compromise was to make them as silly as possible so they'd at very least be less obnoxious. Analytics were vague as to whether or not they increased site traffic or campaign awareness.

I used to work for a super evil company, and since I can't undo that, I'll at least show the quality of the work that might be leant toward more altruistic undertakings in the future. I was unaware of their evilness as the time, and left with 2 weeks notice when the insidious nature of that business became clear to me.