The absence of a primeval image

Examining your work, there appears to be a lack of interest on your part in the creation of a primeval image, as if your artistic pursuit is not concerned with exploring a notion that can be defined as original and is thus resolved through the combination and culmination of existing images presented in seemingly new ways Your statement deserves some attention on my part. In this regard, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the creation of an image (or initial design) represents an inevitable step during the artistís creative process or at least I affirm that it is inevitable in my personal approach towards my work. If this were not true, I would find myself immersed in the creation of some sort of ready-made production, a process through which I would limit myself to swallowing existing images for the sole purpose of reworking and regurgitating them, while qualifying the result as artistic and innovative (?) production.






This scenario intimates a manneristic approach to my work, something that was not intended. And, therefore, to try and address your thoughts and reflections. I do not think that a case can be made to substantiate a lack of interest on my part in the conception of an original image. Rather, I would say that I purposely chose to pursue what I would qualify as an ex-novo approach, through the elimination of the initial design or image (referring to the most classical and traditional definition of the term). There is no intended criticism to the value of an original îdesignî in the approach, it is rather a step that creatively escapes me (for now). That said, while I may renounce the design, I do not relinquish the value of a personal image that substantiates the VISION.





It can thus be said that I draw with pre-existing images. Moreover, I believe this to be a formal approach in the production of things that is not totally unknown. Think, for example, about the assemblage of Polaroid photos created by Hockney, which he himself defined as drawings expressed through mechanical means. Now, it is certainly clear that there is a difference and a divergence in both the composing elements and the aesthetic outcome of the two works. However, it is the underlying content, on the deepest artistic level, which presents a common ground: art as the ability to LOOK, and then to IMAGINE, while inspiring and directing others to PERCEIVE. I am more interested in feelings as an approach to reading and interpreting a work of art, rather than an intellectually speculative focus whose content (literary, sociological, psycho-pedagogical), in my view, is destined to endure the misnomers of the other disciplines.