I Do Not Mistrust Reality, Of Which

I Don't Create Blurs. Blurring Is Not The Most Important Thing; Nor Is It An Identity Tag For My Pictures.

I Find The Romantic Period Extraordinarily Interesting. My Landscapes Have Connections With Romanticism: At Times I Feel A Real Desire For, An Attraction To, This Period, And Some Of My Pictures Are A Homage To Caspar David Friedrich.

I Would Like To Try To Understand What Is. We Know Very Little, And I Am Trying To Do It By Creating Analogies. Almost Every Work Of Art Is An Analogy.

I've Never Found Anything To Be Lacking In A Blurry Canvas. Quite The Contrary: You Can See Many More Things In It Than In A Sharply Focused Image. A Landscape Painted With Exactness Forces You To See A Determined Number Of Clearly Differentiated Trees, While In A Blurry Canvas You Can Perceive As Many Trees As You Want. The Painting Is More Open.

Theory Has Nothing To Do With A Work Of Art. Pictures Which Are Interpretable, And Which Contain A Meaning, Are Bad Pictures. A Picture Presents Itself As The Unmanageable, The Illogical, The Meaningless. It Demonstrates The Endless Multiplicity Of Aspects; It Takes Away Our Certainty, Because It Deprives A Thing Of Its Meaning And Its Name. It Shows Us The Thing In All The Manifold Significance And Infinite Variety That Preclude The Emergence Of Any Single Meaning And View.