DR

One of the odd phenomena I noticed when hanging pieces years ago was that sometimes a painting would be slightly muddy or scattered when viewed up close but at a distance, or when photographed, it was stunning.
As strange as it sounds, I worked out that it had something to do with the artists eyesight. When they painted up close, it looked to them like it looks to us from a distance - no different from taking off your glasses to view it from a distance and seeing something completely different.
When I suspected this, I experimented and did a huge painting without my glasses on and it confirmed my suspicions because, with my glasses on, standing way back from it, it then looked like what it looked like when I was painting it.

My reason for sharing that little insight is that that's the feeling I get with a lot of DR's pieces. I think of his style as naive but I've stopped being surprised that his pieces often look way more spectacular when I've taken an image, edited and published them.
The piece above is a classic example. Technically it's shit. As happens on many of his pieces, he used way thin paint on a dense background that was never going to be covered, but then he ends up with a surreal translucent effect.

I know DR's pieces aren't that polished but they're prolific, so through default, like his work or not, like him or not, this guy has a presence.
In his own words "I am wot I am and I do wot I do"...
I've done a first where I've featured DR today on The Street too, so you can see better examples of what I'm on about.

PS: I heard he had a 40ohzee and an armload of cans the other night so it doesn't take a psychic to guess the upshot of that combo ;-)