objects with little or no social value, discarded cheap stuff determine the shape and readings of the works. the works appear to be using an abstract and gestural way of making marks or forms. it is a language that is rooted in intuition and feelings. it's very 60's. but that is not the case. the works came from a mechanical process. they came from banal objects.

the works are bilingual, trilingual, etc, a singular reading is denied. we can no longer adpot and speak in a particular -ism and make art according to the language of that -ism. they are no longer isolated languages. they are verbs, nouns and adjectives in a larger language. i use the language developed by abstract expressionists but never alone. or i use a language that has all the earmarks of abstract expressionist work but in fact was made in a very different way.

take roxy paine's sculpture machine and drawing machines. mechanically reproducing works that have all the trademarks of abstract expressionism or an art driven by intuition and expression. his work is only one end of the spectrum in my area of interest. it is not neccessary that things be made by an actual machine. adopt -ism's and languages from old and new modes of display and ways of making.

(blah blah blah)

my concern now is that people are not picking up on the larger critical dialogue my work is partaking in.

use the shavings to build something.