My studio practice pursues a reflexive, concrete poetry of objects.
I create objects that attempt to reflect critically on the entangled sets of decisions and densely overlapping systems that led to their making. I know, that’s a mouthful. But it lays out an important distinction between what I do and purely formalist art making. In my work there’s always a lot beneath the surface, and I’m aiming more at performing interpretive procedures than at traditional picture or object making.
I hope that what’s communicated through that approach is a concern with analyzing, well, everything.
I work from a continuing interest in the conditions where psychology, physiology and politics overlap. My works have tended to be presented in series, each modeling a specific interpretive point of view about one or more ways that abstraction operates within fields of identity, resistance, and liberation.
Lots of my projects incorporate a concern with the words we allow ourselves to be called, or the names for ourselves that we select and exploit. I think a lot about the kinds of objectives we nurture and the tactics we employ to meet emotional or psychic needs by way of surrogate identities.
In and with my work I mull over what I think of as the foundational concern of pictorial abstraction: that all kinds of descriptions — but especially autobiographies — are always abbreviation, elision or outright fabulation. Or as Thomas Pynchon wrote, “Everything that is not a fragment is invisible.” And yet…
If you’d like to talk to me about sales or commissions, please contact me directly.
As part of my professional life, I also write and edit for publication. Some of that work is cited in my CV.
Since 2014 I’ve been a member of Finishing School. It’s pretty rad.