I am fascinated with functional images (images that have pragmatic reasons for being around). Traffic signs and subway maps are clear examples; these images convey meaning through symbolic languages. Advertising photography is a more elusive but equally functional example.

There are numerous symbolic languages that can be attached to any object or environment. Think about the house or apartment you live in. A painter might paint an impressionistic view of the house during sunset. An architect might create a cutaway view of the house, showing the layout of the living room in relation to the larger structure. A real estate company might photograph the house from ground level, emphasizing its size, and position it centrally, inviting the viewer into the scene.

Various visual languages speak in different ways about images. Some languages speak with emotion, others with authority. I see my studio practice as an open arena for the destabilization and hybridization of visual strategies. My aim is to use familiar languages to speak new phrases, creating different symbolic interplays that illuminate different facets of familiar viewpoints. The underlying motivation for this project is the recognition that our visual culture is far more complex than it is meaningful; that we’ve got plenty of tools and not enough construction.

What is this (or that) about? It seems pertinent to address this question, because it’s almost always the first one that people ask in the presence of a painting. Unfortunately, there’s no equally blunt answer in respect to this work. The paintings don’t serve the purpose of illustrating meaning. Often, they take the “meaning” of the source material as the tool with which to illustrate the limitations of the image.

Painting, like writing, is hardly more audible than thinking.