In producing this trio of work I intended to synthesize all of my understanding and conscious concerns into a series of art objects. It is not possible to express these ideas and concerns in one single style, consequently I have compartmentalized my work into three modes of production aimed at interacting with potentially conflicting audiences. The use of three styles, that are conceptually united yet aesthetically different, aims to garner as much gravity with the public as possible.
The construction is a style that has spawned through a natural progression of experimentation from abstraction. Abstract painting has its limitations using a flat or uniform surface. I have pushed my painting to a point where I can no longer describe the work as a painting. It is more an advancement of ‘the surface.’ Through a combination of historic materials and radical techniques, I have produced this distinctively original new style.
This work is truly a celebration of abstraction. I have chosen to utilize this historic style because it is very close to my heart as I grew up fascinated by abstraction. I particularly loved the work of Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg. The geometric system I have elected to use is in part a societal reflection about both our similarities and uniqueness as humans. It is also partly a physical representation of me trying to navigate my way through both the art world and my own world. It is about compartmentalizing problems and finding an order to chaos. Painting has an intrinsic aesthetic value and making an ode to the history of painting as a conscious choice is very important to me as feel that I am honouring the history of art whilst pushing the boundaries of my conceptual practice.
What makes this unit particularly relevant is the conceptual statement being made whereby the unit is produced with the intention of never being sold. This ‘non-sellable’ concept is my contribution to a rebalancing of power in the art world.
In the framework of Deconstructed Authenticity I take sections of flooring from my studio or used paintbrushes and other similar compositions of materials that are equally aesthetically sound. These articles of studio debris are mounted appropriately thus elevating the object to a status of fine art. Most look like abstract paintings or what the ‘man in the street’ would perceive as modern art but they are not! They are a highly paradoxical set of art objects. I am elevating not an ordinary object e.g. a urinal or shovel (Duchamp), in my case I am taking a section of bric-a-brac from the place that I produce my art (my studio), consequently paint and other art associated debris is present in the material composition of the piece. It is therefore paradoxical as it may actually look like an intentional abstract painting or something similar. Its aesthetics are only intentional in the selection and mounting of the debris and are absolutely non-intentional in its original production. Additionally this work is then not actually for sale, giving it a capability that tends to be reserved for more ethereal pieces of art such as performance. It is non-marketable and non-commercial. It undermines the art market and therefore purifies its status as art from the perspective of anti-elitism, anti-art, and a general rejection of art as an economic tool.
Conceptually, I am more interested in the viewer deciding their own personal emotive response than providing them with an explanation. This is an egalitarian set of art objects intended to redistribute the power of the artist, art object and viewer to a terrain that places much less importance on the intent of the artist, and much more importance on the response of the recipient.
My work and life are dedicated to positive change inside and outside the art world. This unit of production aims towards the facilitation of that ambition.