This is a light and dark abstract painting exists as a complete contrast between destruction and a pretty banquet, ie the dinner table. It is a scene of life and death that contradicts the way we live our lives with the very much in your face presentation of death of the top of the painting and the banquet at the bottom. It’s a painting split in two halves denoting the two parts of the act of devouring, whilst the splash of green (flowers) on the table are there to help soften and support the murder of the animals and make it more acceptable and normal. The dark foreboding colours at the top ( blue black) are dark and murderous which is the antithesis of the prettier colours of the table which is saying look at this beautiful spread and see how we can cover death and eliminate our guilt for killing. However placing what looks like a fish in the mouth of the stag is a tongue in cheek way of stating they eat animals why shouldn’t we. Isn’t that how nature and the world operates ? Wouldn't carnivores argue that point?

However the civilised spread of the table cannot compete with the more potent images of the vision which stab at the conscience and asks the viewer to think about who they are and how they live their lives. In that way I believe the painting is asking for compassion. The message at the centre of this piece is destruction of beauty by ignorant and selfish humans. The stag eating the fish pokes fun at the way humans celebrate being carnivorous whilst making a complete show of their avariciousness. The dinner table is surrounded by the trophies of death and then dresses that death up to make it appear acceptable. Blood and life is at the heart of this painting which is reflected through the vibrant colours of the items on the table. And whilst the painting is extremely animated and full of life, the awful truth of the scene is one of destruction and death which cannot be ignored because it is the first thing that hits you when you look at it. Nightmarish and murderous. It is a deep painting full of meaning and instantly compelling. It screams out for compassion with the tenets surrounding the accepted norms of human existence being very much alive in the painting’s vision.

In conclusion one also has to look at the painting as a traditional piece of art. Not only does it pay homage to the still life genre it also a painting which questions the idea of death as a trophy as art. A very much alive painting that questions humanity and destruction, and what we have come to accept is a normal way of living.