an explanation

"Regarding the discordant elements in my work, I think this is something that has slowly crept into my work, semi-consciously. When an abstract idea such as art is placed under the microscope of language it becomes something else. Much like the western empirical approach of the laboratory, which paradoxically is and is not the experience. That is, to observe an element of nature outside its nature, offers only part of the experience. Surely, when a piece of art is scrutinized to criticism and analyses, it shifts into a different realm. In the case of my work, I had people sharing their opinion on art, its meaning and purpose. Some of the answers were contradictory, in battle with someone elses opinion. In other cases, there was a common ground. My interest is how, through a common idea, art in this case, so many different opinions arise. Although perceptions differ, all are speaking on a single theme. Imagine we are looking at a diamond. But we are standing opposite one another. Your perception of the object is quite different than mine, evidently because of light, reflections and so on. We are experiencing the same object but our perceptions are completely different. I link this to the notion of ideas. Ideas for me are the undercurrent, they are ever-flowing, constant, unchangeable. Language is the tool by which to deconstruct and reassemble that idea and reach a new understanding. This understanding is a mental construct and only adds to that original idea. To link this to the work: the ink plays the role of the concentrated theories and perceptions on art, which is in turn represented by the water that the ink penetrates. The sound represents the view from a microscope; the visuals, a view from space - tranquility, immobility. There is randomness in the sound because how can words, which are physical sounds describe that which is immaterial? They can only describe an aspect of it. As strong as the whole but at the same time, part of it".