I think there is something rather contradictory about having to explain tangible visual art objects with words - the work should speak for itself. But if you want a few pointers: the following is an extract from a article on the "walking a a black dog" series - it is a bit gushing - but essentially the guy seems to understand where I am coming from. WB.
"WILL BROWNING CASTS A CLINICAL EYE OVER THE MENACING DIRECTNESS OF HIS SUBJECTS, TO PRESENT THE DARKER SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE.
Immersing oneself in the charged imagery of Will Browning's work, one is reminded of the late writer, Primo Levi and his vision of human nature which he descibed as "a centaur, a tangle of flesh and mind, of divine breath and dust".
Browning's pictorial allegories posit him as a humanist forced to confront the worst chaos of modernity, riddling the tangles, filtering the dust. His images are a complex inquiry, more than a detached testimony, "of alienation, isolation. anxiety and depression, of the extremes of human nature", he asserts. His images show him to be a probing and mature pictorial essayist of the self and human nature.
His use of light and textured shadows recall Rembrandt, yet Browning has found a way to depict the vast arena in which life alternates ceaselessly between sturdiness and precariousness. 'We all inhabit that arena", he says. Yet without works of art as self revealing as these we barely recognize it.
His relation to self knowledge is oblique: "I prefer to eavesdrop rather than listen, to spy through keyholes. I prefer to turn over in my fingers a single tile rather than view the whole mosaic". Browning is reluctant to reveal any anecdotal particulars about his own life. Indeed, he is quick to point out that "to do so would impose my view on that of the viewers. I want people to invest my images with their own cargo of stuff". Ultimately the impact of his work is in the intricately woven study of certain aspects of the human mind, within and beyond testimony". text: Peter S James