Begin with the notion of making: there is making. Who or what is doing the making? The maker. What does the making result in? The made. So: the maker, through the making, creates the made. But what if the goal of the maker is not to have the made exist as any sort of tangible image or object? What if the goal of the maker is for the making to be the made? The act of making would be the only made.
This calls into question what exactly exists and what doesn’t. Making exists only in the now. It arrives and leaves in tandem with its own creation. As soon as it is done being created, it no longer exists. What is present in its place is the made. The made is the corporeal manifestation of the making, allowing for the making not to have been in vain, but in the interest of a future function. It is a tangible thing that exists as an entity in the physical world. Something that can be accessed or referred to as needed. However, if the intent is for the making to be the made, then the referential, after-the-fact manifestation of the making cannot be anything tangible, as making exists only in the present. But the made, by definition, must exist somewhere. So where?
I consider my studio practice an opportunity to explore the question of what making is and where it resides. I utilize a variety of both traditional and non-traditional materials, methods, and gestures. Whether my work takes the form of an unwitnessed action, a projected idea, or an internalized task, I am interested in the way a concept manifests and becomes part of a larger discourse. The products of these explorations, be they concrete or ethereal, question how making is recorded, interpreted, and ultimately understood.