I am unwilling to limit myself. I believe that as an artist, it is important to express creation in every form necessary. My concentration is in printmaking but I work in sculpture, drawing, painting, installation and sound. I am a maker. My practice has developed significantly over the past year and I have begun to focus on select interests throughout my work.
I consider the starting point of my work material. I am genetically predisposed to hording and collecting objects. I view this as my inability to ignore my inherent subconscious connection with materials. This nexus is ensconced in aesthetic attraction and a longing to bring vitality to something through the construction of a new entity.
What is beauty? It is experiential and significant, a consequence of our perception. It is ingrained in every aspect of life and it is my duty as an artist to present this. There is a cliché attached to beauty, and I will refrain from reiterating it here, that associates importance with recognition, which can be understood as the identification of something as having been previously seen, heard or known. Déjà vu, literally “already seen”, defines beauty and gives reason to my personal fixation with the sensation.
The relationship between artist, viewer and art is imperative. As the creator, I see and understand everything that I do on an experiential level. Art in its purest sense is communication. Often, our first step to understanding art is looking at it. We translate (in the sense that art and language are two forms of interdependent communication) our optical experience, breaking it down to variables and process. Our eyes cannot see without our mind associating. This is the fallacy that nullifies optical painting. All understanding is based on a system of relativity, which is begot through semiotics, and the function of language. What every viewer longs for is the perspicacity of the artist. They are given the product without the process and left to decipher the denouement.
My work is process. It is about the conflicting relationship between artist, art and viewer. The idea that “what one sees is what one gets” is true. I am interested in why. I want to expose the ever-present gap of understanding in art. Art cannot exist without interpretation. Art’s purpose is to be interpreted, the effects of which are limitless. Every movement, from Impressionism to Minimalism, is subject to analysis but it is essential for one to be aware of the layers of recognition.
There are steps that one takes in the presence of art. They see the thing-in-itself, as Kant said, the object in relation to the viewer. Every aspect of an artwork has significance, whether the paint is dripped or evenly distributed, applied to wood or canvas, hung on the wall or lain on the floor. After a physical relationship to a work of art is established it becomes subject to cognition. Form is processed and content is derived. When one looks at a piece of art they always see their own self. This is a result of the human consciousness, which creates meaning in relation to personal experience and perception. What differs between viewers is awareness of this phenomenon.
What my work asserts is how the engrained history of materials, modus operandi and presentation advocate personal conjecture. I appropriate components and afford meaning to them through an aesthetic-driven decision making process.
I envision the physical embodiment of my thesis project as a mixed media installation. I will incorporate both sculpture and art books. The sculpture, a continuation of my current explorations, will act as the art object, the signified. I see the artist books as being a physical bridge between artist and viewer. They themselves are art objects, physically digested by the viewer through interaction. The images and words will comprise a system of meaning that pertains to the sculptural objects. The viewer will reach a level of understanding indicative of their experience, interaction and aesthetics.
