“For the typologist the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist, the type (the average) is an abstraction and only the variation real. No two ways of looking at nature could be more different.”
Variation within species, abstraction as type. The averages of the work become the systems under which production of form occur, producing an array of objects that all relate, both in kind and in type, standing as individuals. Elements turn into methods of identification, processes solidify and become records of handling, forms built from mounds of earth.
Structures form, fall apart, and form again. Material becomes discrete objects -- then morph into relationships, conditions of display, compete and complete -- turning objects into objects. Objects determining the way in which objects mesh to become more objects, to become more objects, to become more objects. Alone, together.
Light becomes color, illuminations questioning our perceptions, a constant itch in the eye. Variegated surfaces serve to serve a cacophony of hue and saturation blended to distort and deform. Discrepancies between the real and the sensual, seduction under false pretense, emanations from within.
What makes an object an object? Even as forms shift, surfaces alter, and finishes change among the objects, each piece seeks an answer to that question. The work here approaches from an oblique angle, built on an understanding of the history of sculptural presentations and using the idioms present in ceramic traditions to create an idiosyncratic basis for the work.
The idiosyncrasies in these objects, constructed through a regime of repetition and differences, are mirrored in their pedestals. A shifting language of pedestal and non-pedestal seeks to both centralize and decentralize the objects that sit upon them. For some pieces the object and the pedestal act as one and in others a clear hierarchy takes place. While many of the objects strive to a kind of autonomy, like so many other objects, they clearly rely on the support apparatus of their respective presentations.
This support framework, one in which the object’s objectness is affirmed but also questioned, begins to ask us to ask questions of what it means to be an object.
Each piece has a sense of frozen time, a moment in which something has happened or is waiting to happening. These candy colored amorphous shapes begin consuming their rough mottled support structures. Their bright, slick surfaces giving way to uneasy feelings, each one becomes an uncanny familiar of gestural presence.
Constructed with small balls of clay, all pressed and pinched together, the bottom supports are left rough and well handled. The top portion of each piece has this same texture stripped away. The pieces are then painted and a thin resin shell is applied to the top.