Maybe in my exhibitions I deepen my sculptural research to highlight the dichotomy between the individual and the social and, by extent, to dwell on the membrane each individual is willing to forge or develop between him/herself and the visible constraints and silent coercions of the socio-cultural world.
I mostly conceive of an exhibition like a metaphorical dissection table where the everyday surrounding and different levels of my thoughts converge. I try to compare present social mechanisms and aesthetic phenomena and incorporate past equivalents by looking for their signs and symptoms across different disciplines. This is how I try to explain the everyday to myself.
I am aware that everyday or assembled objects are activators of collective, shareable thoughts. Objects contain the patina of history. They can be used, reexamined and activated in relation to different cultural contexts and historical situations. They might be able to speak a more subtle language across time. In one of my recent exhibitions, the combination of materials forming, what I would call sculptural situations and their spatial arrangement in space, might underline this phenomenon.
The work Pulleys, I, for example, spreads like a tentacle in the exhibition space. The adjacent works might so relate to it to present each one a different version of a story, only from different viewpoints. Some works might look similar. Repetitions – works which are quasi-doubled – point out that the same thoughts incorporated in a work might occur over and over again, but each time are uttered with different words. I believe that artworks are a source of ideas – not just one, but many – rather than a vessel for a single thought or a concept. They by definition speak a language that ignores tags. It is the role of the artist to show that there are multiple, mysterious grey-zones in language and that they are more powerful when left unspoken. I like to think of the viewer like someone that would like to join an open-ended conversation.