Whoops I just tripped over the “thing”

I use found objects, materiality may play apart, an important part but I dont think it drives my practice.

I combine found objects that have meaning or interact with one another.

The table cloth that tells stories but no one so-far can tell me the tales it portrays. My bowl disappeared but lives on in my memory. I didn’t make theses things but by combining them strategically I make sense of them in my memories and it settles me allowing me to move forward building on my past.

why do I need to make them real?

I need to make them real prove their relationships

If I leave them wondering around in my dreams and memory they change which I find disturbing, they haunt me, by painting them making them real they “become”. I can examine them, research them, explain them, defuse them, contain them, then I can build on them, arrange them. I am bringing the past forward to explain the present and to allow me to make decisions for the future, base on my learning from my past.

To do this effectively I need to explore past and present understanding of these objects, arranging them to allow a contemporary reading.

The abstraction does simplify and may make a more direct point which would make the arrangement less decorative and more obvious, less cryptic. Which would keep Luisa happy. I like the decorative elements of both Mark Bradford’s and Tapies’s work. May be you may have both although I disliked the symbols and what I found ugly in Kiefer work it prevented me from wanting to read it.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•