Stasys Mostauskis was born in 1968. He obtained Master’s degree in Vilnius Art Academy in 1993. In 2002 he defended a thesis for a Doctor’s degree in Vilnius Art Academy. The thesis theme was ”The problem of interrelations between art and insanity: complex analysis”. From 1996 he has been taking part in scientific conferences with discourses on philosophy, art philosophy, psychology and art criticism. From 1998 he has been delivering lectures at Kaunas Art Institute, the faculty of Vilnius Art Academy. From 2000 I has been working with televisional projects as a painter and scenarist-editor.He takes part in various art projects in Lithuania and foreign countries.

Ten years ago I had a dream that in a proper sense shocked me with its reality and perfection. That nightmare wasn’t somehow else special - the nightmares had become my permanent friends - and so I forgot it very quickly. Until those strange weeks when I started to work on the meadow cycle, when these works word by word, mood by mood started to speak to me in the language of that previous nightmare. The memory started to unclose inside me, and together with the strange mixture of fear and delight I began to experience the same dream again and again, but now it was diluted with the presence of the waking and reverberating consciousness. In everyday life I don’t like flowers very much, especially the cultural forms of them - these changes of proportions in painting. The selection of meadows as the important motive must have been determined by the positive experience and memories from the childhood: till eleven years of age I used to live in the homestead that was the only one near the forest. The homestead was separated from the forest with wide grasslands and arable fields. To fall down the high grass, to dive in, to mingle together with it for me as a child meant safety, quietness that was merged with strong and somehow comfortable smells of meadows. Meadows as such aren’t beautiful for me (beauty as the esthetic value doesn’t excite me very much), but they influence me and for that reason they are important for me. They are functioning as the particular connection between present me and those contents the lack of which I feel and which I name through the analogy with the memories from the childhood. Of course the matters depicted in this language of sameness aren’t just childhood or lack of comfort; it’s just one of the possible ways to achieve the fullness of oneself and by using it any individual activity is being narrated. In such context the painting becomes a conversation with myself. When appreciating only the formal manner of accomplishment it is possible to say that it’s somewhere between impressionism, precisely between one of its possible variations, and the abstract play of colors that keeps the right to depict only itself. It is also possible to say that the visual elements which have grounded the texture of creation usually take the form of vegetative motives and gravitate towards the abstraction. They’re sort of placed between these two posts: some closer to reality, others closer to abstraction. Undoubtedly, the type of abstraction is a variation on the natural elements and as such is the contrariety to the geometrical tendency. I like when my works are being called primitive. It is difficult to tell what determines my relish in the protuberant painting of strong texture. This may be the result of the positive tactile memories from my childhood - after all meadows always influenced me exactly with their touch - or maybe something different. Anyway, the strong texture allows us to obtain a lot of extra effects not just visual but also the tactile ones. The eyes are travelling on the surface of works touching every gap, every crinkle drawing the map of the territories that are being examined. The works those of even biggest format can be observed from a very short distant, with the nose almost touching the canvas concentrating on the detail. However, it is much more important to look at the painting as the entirety.