On the one hand I consider art history as to be a source of inspiration, on the other hand as to be of great ballast. Me being a painter I am continuously wondering about today’s roll of art history and what values this represents. From the desire to be able to understand and position art I use art history-elements; image-quoting that sneaks into my work. However there, as a result, these quotes become autonomous. This is because the painting exists within ‘the present’ and as an artist I am a subject to contemporary impulses.
The way I think is in existing shape collages: the way different images come together causes shifting of context. I am trying to make myself a way through all of what is apparently dated and try to re-actualise it. Isn’t art always a reaction on what has been? Which is about dealing with or getting rid of conventions? Is the creation of a new piece of art underlining the temporality of all that came before?
Although the combining of elements may lead to new images, in my mind art may not become art science. This is why I am making an attempt to disintegrate my work into something that is ‘human’ again. The Main subject of my work is the physical human being as a given fact. Sometimes this turns the spectator into a voyeur but at the same time he may also be able to identify with that subjective human on the canvas. This way of shifting might be what brings my work together. From this sense ‘identity’ also means ‘quality’ and not only about the identity of the human being or the spectator, but also the identity of the work itself. Gladly I would like to create a mentality upon which the spectator would regard abstraction and a certain level of reduction as to be complete. Regarding the work he would not have to wonder about questions like: ‘why are the sizes out of the ordinary?’ or ‘ why doesn’t this woman have any arms?’ but would agree with me that when something is broken we might simply be ably to fix it again.