Problems with how Nature can be interpreted in artistic processes, and what I am working on at the moment

As a reader, you might want to decide when something is complete or when it is not. This thing about deciding, having some kind of opinion about something being finished or not, where will it take us?  A piece of flint that is washed can very well be an artwork, enough so to talk about it. We take things from nature, as of nature, and put it in another context in order to have another conversation about these parts. But the horse we ride only wants to be a horse, even if we want to project our own ideas onto it? We don’t ask the horse. What nature wants and what we as humans want are probably very different things in our time.  Things that we have not had a finger in the production of, palpably, will probably not be experienced as something more beautiful and more interesting than the opposite. Perhaps it might even be seen as necessary to understand that the things we do are not the ones that interest us intellectually. Nature is beautiful in itself; I turn my gaze towards it without understanding it. I do not want to create similar, just as good things, as it does. Instead it is about finding a way of working where I can be conscious of this dilemma. To be able to turn my gaze towards something else than what I have tried to see, perhaps through the things I did not want to see, and not be sentimental or unnecessarily romantic in order to see further and beyond in the direction that one thinks about things.

Image: tsnoK

My process mostly consists of thinking, watching and sorting. The sorting is constant, things move around in the room and I try to see how they appear to fit together. There is a lot of positioning different things which I have looked at and combining them. I try to make out different patterns; what can happen now, what can possibly not happen now and what can happen later. In these attempts I proceed from the premise that my distinctions with regard to these events and how they can work are wrong. The subjective and objective contemplation take a lot of thought at that point, as well as the potentially common. Otherwise I mostly work on things with tools. That means working a lot with space, in sculptures and installations, and trying to investigate how different materials can work and fit together. Perhaps even how they potentially would like each other and collaborate a little. But actually I probably don´t want them to do that at all – fit together, I would rather just have them leave each other alone. I work with the pieces until they don´t want anything from me. When they do not want anything from me I partly feel like they die and partly that they obtain new life. That´s when they are ready for an exhibition

Perhaps it is a kind of deconstruction of the work through a transformation of the image, object and the removal or neglecting of an obvious symbolism, if possible. Like the desire to speak about decay but not knowing where the talking belongs. The process is like an octopus sometimes, one of those disgusting octopuses with a big heavy occiput which looks like a cross between a fester and a water-filled balloon. In that head, in the mind, there is either a muscle visible under the skin, or else there aren´t any muscles at all, alternatively withered muscles and a lot of skin. Sometimes it is as if there is loads of fat wobbling under the skin and there is this sack which is the head (the fester-balloon). Things are not left unobstructed from potential editing.

Image: tsnoK

I show sculptures, objects and paintings. The work with these was originally about finding a passage between sculptures and objects.  And then the transitions between different areas such as; from sculpture to image in space to the social interface (or dialogue), from social interaction to societal structures, and then to the role of architecture in social interaction, back to the spatial image, the dislocation of the spatial image, materia versus air and the possible internal variations between them, painting together with sculpture, the affective in art, existence through association to different things, storytelling, the form of a cuffer and why it is so difficult to keep to the non-truth, trying to leave the image perceived as beautiful in order to either disregard it or find it somewhere else, thoughts about concepts like truth, history and facts that are partly incorrect and how they are used.

Image: tsnoK

If you can´t communicate so well, you want to do it all the more. If you were to compare my working process to an apple or a pear it would be an apple, but the choice is unfair since I never really have been able to appreciate pears. I want to move toward research through dexterity, but without producing something material; without sentimentality and romanticism, without creating a beautiful image of it, rather in the mind be what adrenaline is for the accident; an overlap. An adjustment of the mind, between pain and a condition of well-being; the desire for a discussion where art can be the adrenaline. It can be there, overlapping states; it can help through thoughts about something else.

(translated by Jonatan Habib Engqvist)