I believe it is my obligation as an artist to present truths that go beyond an intellectual analysis. By discouraging an intellectual analysis of the work, I encourage the audience to connect to the work more instinctively. I encourage the audience to reflect on how her humanity is impacted while experiencing the work. Such stimulation is neither intellectual nor logical, and it’s also not emotional. Its impact is less accommodating to labeling but it is present and lasting instinctively. The audience should feel a connection to the work, without feeling sad or happy, and without intellectualizing the symbolic meanings of its parts. When the viewer goes home and is not bombarded with [the] images and various demands for attention that is characteristic of our supermodern world, she should remember and experience the memory of the work.
My work avoids the usage of layers of metaphors that the viewer is expected to decipher in order to understand the thing presented, as deciphering metaphors engages the intellect. It is also cheap. Likewise, my work tends to avoid usage of most symbolism for the same reason. I also find the need to respond to, outdo, or artificially further the work that came before mine as unnecessary. Newness is not fundamental to my work. Why engage in a race that exalts newness? The proper experiencing of the intangible is more important than newness for the sake of newness. Creativity should appear as a consequence of the work and not as an element to be factored into the creation of the work. In short, don’t think it, but absorb it. See if it impacts you.