In my work I shamefully deal with everything coming my way. I turn personal experiences and private emotions and obsessions into simple, often “logical” images. I apply a variety of visual means but most of my work is two-dimensional. I’m not dogmatic in this respect: every work gets the form it needs.

    Everything I create can be viewed as the conclusive result of a period of time that I’ve gone through. I try to order my word in a schematic way and I regard this working process as a kind of momentary exorcism. There is something compulsory about that. Paradoxically, both repetition and multiplicity play an important part in my work. I employ figuration, texts and mathematical formulas, not as parts of a unified system but as means to use when needed. They are never complicated: feelings and experiences are visualized in a trivial and schematic manner. Although I don’t employ any formal rigorous consistency I feel some kinship to an artist like Hanne Darboven and also to artists like Stanley Brouwn, On Kawara or Roman Opalka because of the way they project their personal, subjective preoccupations onto the larger and impersonal backdrop of objectified history, a standard linear measure and the passing of quantifiable time – in other words, I also try to fuse personal and objectified elements. Still, in the end my primary concern in creating an artwork is a kind of universal statement or conclusion which is by and large purged of direct emoting and perceiving – my original ‘subjects’ or preoccupations are more often than not unrecognizable as such in the final result while on the other hand that result is mysteriously imbued by meaning emerging from life experiences.

   I always use simple material. The visual means are secondary to the image (to what the image needs to become the ‘right’ image) and the image is secondary to the conclusion – they are all means to an end and while these means importantly includes the need to order personal experiences the viewer may not rationally become aware of this. Hopefully they will sense the urgency and necessity of the work on a meta-level. After all art is not synonymous with autobiography and I strive after a common visual denominator (or, rather, each work shows a different common denominator in a manner of speaking) rather than after some kind of exhibitionistic confessional art’.

   My relentless obsession to grasp events and emotions and transform them into art entails a steady flow of productivity. This high level of productivity, along with the urge to destroy and renew, is another reason why my work has adopted so many different forms. I welcome this and do not strive after visual consistency, there is no ‘style’, no ‘wool mark’.

   I often dwell on the relationship between life and work. I consider my life to be my work - or ‘a’ work so I don’t intentionally set out to look for themes and subjects, they are always there because I am. Everything surrounding me and happening to me may stimulate me to discover new ideas and notions to put things in perspective by transforming them in terms of art.