As an artist I think of myself as being a researcher on his own terms. My conception of art is that of an applied philosophy, engaged in what constitutes our reality: this confusingly complex net of relations in which we find ourselves somewhere amongst other entities – humans and objects, spaces and places, media and devices, things and concepts.
I am therefore not specialized in a certain medium. Rather, I am interested in specific contexts, situations, histories, the fabrics of everyday's life: the beauty, the absurdity, the craziness of what surrounds us, of what enters our minds, of what we do for whatever good or silly reason. Within these contexts I am not trying to take an objective, a neutral position; I am sharing, exchanging, participating. So that any outcome will be a co-creation within and with the conditions and experiences of these contexts. I am not so much interested in operating on a meta level of pointing out, referencing, documenting. It is "inside" from where I hope to gain a sort of poetic knowledge, one that tries to tell the stories, the myths, these strange fictions we call our identities.
My work thus often begins with fieldwork, with walking around (I am a passionate flaneur), with collecting things and images, with listening and sniffing. In a certain sense I am always at work. Nonetheless, at one point, something particular shows up, gets examined and finally transformed into a distinct "piece". My means of research as well as the final outcomes are very broad: images (from photography to video to painting and drawing), objects (sculptures, installations), text (books or inscribed within other media). These are relational, "social" works; not autonomous auratic masterpieces. What they have in common is my interest in the everyday and ordinary, a certain narrative quality and a sense of humor and self-irony.