The purpose of my artwork is to make the viewer consciously aware of his own presence and how his thoughts, beliefs, and opinions dictate the art piece, or vice versa.  Through this dialogue, the intent is to initiate a questioning of the preconceived notions of art that the general public misplaces on all contemporary art.  By using text, the everyday object, sarcasm and humor, I hope to ultimately turn the audience’s own opinions and attitudes back onto themselves, forcing them to question their role in the whole “art” experience.  Ultimately my work is an attempt to blur the line between art and viewer, merging the two as one and the same.

            When a person views a piece of art, she brings to it a set of pre-determined guidelines as to what will make the art piece a “good” one.  Brimming with information from a lifestyle submerged in popular visual culture, the public will inevitably attach their own circumstances, interpretations, and prefabricated notions to the object that they view.  They then misplace these opinions to be the intentions of the artist.  But, if one is consciously aware that her presence is included as part of the art, might she interpret the art more carefully?  My work plays off the notion that soon after we see, we are instantly aware that we can be seen.  Much like the art of Adrian Piper my interest is in making the viewer the object of surveillance, thereby forcing him to re-evaluate the thoughts he imposed on the art since, in fact, the viewer is the subject.

            In order for this dialogue to be successful, the concepts and media I use are extremely important.  My art needs to lead the viewer in a very calculated way so that the attitude targeted will be exposed.  The incorporation of the “device” is crucial.  I often use everyday objects, or taken-for-granted structures, in my work because I can be sure that the viewer will know precisely what to do with such items as chairs, drawers, mirrors, words, etc.   By allowing these objects to lead the viewer through the pieces, they become control devices.  Accompanying each device is a topic/ assumption/ belief/ opinion that I wish to discredit.  These concepts are meant to question the function of art, the role of the artist/viewer, and the boundaries of art.  Like Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades, they rely on their everyday presence, and are meant to be humorous, sarcastic, and philosophical.  They often present the concept in a punch-line fashion so the message is quick and direct. 

         Because my work needs to be ambiguous enough to allow questioning, I choose to use only objects, words, and definitions as the signifiers of my ideas.  Any pictorial representation will take the emphasis off of the viewer and allow the questioning to be directed back to the art piece itself.  Pictorial representations are also understood as the artist’s rendering of that given object, and this would only foil the notion of the viewer’s interpretation. Pictures are therefore irrelevant and unnecessary in my work.  The writings of Julia Kristeva and Joseph Kosuth have helped me understand the role of the written word, and the implications it can have on an idea.  My art exists in these implications. 

        Through my work, I argue that it is time for the viewer to re-conceptualize their activity to include the responsibility of rethinking art itself.  Why should this task be left entirely to the artist?  The process of art making is a two part process.  As artists, we can only provide the tools to make the viewer look.  The act of “seeing” can only happen inside the viewer.  That pivotal moment of realization is out of our reach.  We can communicate, but one must be open to communication.  By breaking down unspoken pretenses--- pretenses that pre-fabricated systems of thinking create--- my work is an attempt to allow this re-conceptualization to occur.  It’s purpose is to make the viewer think about the way he thinks about art, and to accept his responsibility in the art-making process.