HOME                        BIO                        STATEMENT                        WORK                        AGW                        CONTACT

“The sense organs, limited in scope and ability, randomly gather information.
This partial information is then arranged into judgments,
                         which are based on previous judgments.
Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything.
                         Remember: because clarity and enlightenment are within your
                         own nature, they are regained without moving an inch.”
                                                                                                 -Hua Hu Ching

    I set up situations or provide a point of reference that the audience may use to develop the work. The pieces do not escape
themselves; there is no portrayal of my personal feelings towards outside subjects (such as politics, society, aesthetics, etc).
When I look at a work of art, I do nothing other than form an opinion and idea of it. It is this circle we are inevitably restricted
to that allows for no other conclusion rather than: art is about art.

    I question what makes me important. Art, like everything else, cannot exist without a context and is nothing without responses
and thoughts about and towards it; with no place to reside, the art ceases to exist. The audience is of much greater importance
than the piece can ever be. If a piece, however, rests outside the viewer’s conscious senses, does that lower its richness or
importance? I have recently been exploring the capability of documentation to ask such questions. A person’s perception of any
thing, place, or idea, unless experienced firsthand, relies completely on other resources, because, much like our senses,
documentation is limited in scope and hindered by prejudices. Nevertheless, these senses are all we have. Through recording
and archiving, however, is there a level of documented depiction that can match the effect of experience? I have the nasty habit
of thinking and needing to be in control, but this has proven an uncomfortable form of understanding. Through these experiences
and processes, there is no struggle. I allow myself to rest and discover.

    My works have very few (if any) visual aspects, for I believe it is a limitation and an unsuccessful attempt to capture life
 only one of its many elements. The pieces have placed themselves at the border of consciousness, allowing the titles to
fulfill the
 audience’s need to have something to grasp onto. What is seen is only what needs to be seen. More importantly, I work
with humor
 in mind, and try to allow myself to have fun with it- nothing is forced. The work is not trying to be intimidating.
“Conceptual” does
 not mean “complicated,” it is simply a term.

    I respect the artist who creates what he or she puts thought behind. I respect the artist more who creates what he or she truly
wa­­­nts to create. My influences include the teachings of Lao Tzu, and many persons whom have discovered the depths that their
can reach. At the top are Stephen Burch, and the enigma that is Emilio Prini. Others include the Godfathers: Marcel Duchamp
 John Cage, Robert Barry, the Arte Povera movement, Ray Johnson, Vito Acconci, Rikrit Tiravanija, Ian Wilson, Joseph Kosuth,
 Boyce, and Justin Vernon, all of whom do not settle on simply making and showing. The audience must allow themselves
to rest
 and realize. Understanding is not hard: it is within our own nature.