When people approach me to inquire about my photographic work, they usually ask about the object portrayed or the theme that is narrated trying to comprehend my images from a rational/descriptive perspective. I have to say that I don’t rationalize my work, and therefore do not attempt to represent defined objects or orthodox readings of the common visual world. My proposal is not designed to be read literally or to be given an accurate reading of a recognizable theme. The spectator is free to do so, but it will lead him into a prompt dead end and I will see the intention of my work frustrated.
Rather, my objective is to introduce the viewer to a different visual reference allowing him to enjoy my art from a naked emotional perspective. I am a primary artist with a primitive visual language that reflects form, color, line and movement. I generate abstract images, not figurative ones, not objective or representative ones, or however else anyone might wish to tag them. I aim to surprise the spectator and motivate him to spontaneously connect to primary irrational feelings. My work is an invitation to receive the impact of a language that might attract or leave you indifferent, without having to understand why.
Much of the art in earlier cultures: signs and marks on pottery, textiles, inscriptions or paintings on rock, were simple, informal or linear forms that had a symbolic or emotional purpose. It is at this level of visual meaning that my abstract photography communicates. One can enjoy the beauty of Hindu symbols or Jewish calligraphy without being able to read it. In the end, you’ll either love or hate my pictures, want them near or reject them.
This experience is also a form of wisdom. To me, the purest form.