I wish to contradict any established rule or parameter by forcing any individual to look at what one sees in our culture with a twist of question. Any barriers must break. The attempt is to not only seem beyond the rules of conduct, but to mimic the parameters as well. It is not that I hate the order, I believe it is an accomplishment; I simply realize that individual human nature distorts all intended regulations.
My work uses standards of commercial or pop art are followed and then broken erratically. The status quo of post modern art are ignored in my work purposely. Laws of modern innovation are ridiculed by our contemporaries without apology; A result of an abundant and unnecessary information surplus has resulted in anxiety of new ideas. Post-Modern's characteristic attempt to portray Art as either reference to the past, other artists or objects are seen as clich* in my work. Categorizing rank into a status hierarchy, Post Modern depends on society and culture to decide on what is Art and what isn't. My work declares itself as art and contradicts and ignores my own social status. I violate all codes with the hope of future enlightenment of what is ethical.
The only rules that I follow are the guidelines of publication. I believe that my work serves a purpose even in an environment that refutes the activity of opinion. The concept of a global hypertext library is insubordinate against every force that wishes to control the convention of thought. The intent of my work is to be loud enough to float in the already overwhelming sea of information. To seem commercial enough to be recognized, and enough of a disruptive element to accomplish the needed adjustment to the system. My work involves incessant maneuvering of military strategy. A mirage of popular culture and corporate authenticity is enough of an attractor to influence attention. I recognize that I must as an individual declare my work as special for others to notice. This is where my graphics embrace the connotation of art as a label for my work. I do not consider others as insipid, I believe the general population simply does not have the attention span to deal with reasoning as a result of environmental factors controlled by reprimanding institutions.
It seems fashionable to portray work with minimilized content. The realization of a history of significance, has inspired artists to either make reference, or present the medium, being whatever it is, as a vehicle for content. Negative data is an instantaneous mirage that defeats all needed positive information. The only safe communication becomes one that either declares something negative, thus feeding into a cycle, or one that states an unopinionated fact such as the medium itself, thus feeding into another paradox of the medium being the message. For example, watching a news broadcast becomes predictable and formulized as are recognized current events. Corruption becomes repetitive rhythmic messages to zombie participants who feed off like parasites. Negative simulacrum simulcast to sustain the negativity of ones own life. A loop occurs. The negative communication returns back to the viewer and the viewer reacts recreating the negative act, thus feeding the media with more negative energy to broadcast again. Our cultures camera is observing itself through it's own broadcast. This is live video feedback.
My work monitors the phenomenon of negative feedback. Presenting the negativity twisted into the structure of a commercial forum, thus paralleling the media itself. Output that is negative as an effect causes a negative reaction. The only way to break the cycle is to broadcast conflicting negative information that is labeled as being negative. Two negatives multiplied together gives a positive. This is a dangerous aspiration, but as long as my broadcast is honestly recognized as being negative, and I multiply my negatives without an additive process. I can recreate a positive society. The argument against this process is one in which the media itself is doing the same thing, but the media labels it's communication wrongly positive and therefor this argument is misleading.
In using the multiplying process I can attack even the most controversial problems. Imagine: a presidential candidate that proclaims himself as a crook; a work at a forum of art that claims that it is completely pointless; an advertisement that focuses on the negative aspect of the product. This is my goal in presenting my work. To focus exactly what the viewer is discriminating. Exploit the negative thoughts and make it obvious.