Most of times, contemporary art proposes works which meaning only expresses through the speech that clarifies the represented subject. Our look is detached from any emotion, the interaction with the work is established through speech, and if an emotion emerges from this exchange, it is the result of a thought that leads to the comprehension of the artist’s concept. Concepts that often claim, with authority, the questioning of society through mockery, commonplace, ugly, morbid, odd… That way, scattered installations invade museums, foundations and galleries, cultural sites marked by the institutional seal of “modern art.” Beauty and aesthetics have become a counterculture against the current status of avant-garde as official art. Beauty in terms of art is offered by past works, but cannot express the consciousness of the century for a contemporary artist. The question “what is art?” initiated by Duchamp keeps looking for answers, whereas the aesthetically pleasing picture finds its last refuge in the consumerist world of advertisement.
It was quite pleasing to see Duchamp transform his urinal into a work of art in 1917, or Malevitch, in 1914, exhibiting his “white on white.” Art found an amazing freedom of expression, but a century later, the concept of innovation and avant-garde is threadbare, and Jeff Koons’ lobster has become indigestible.
We are living in a disillusioned world where medias are the immediate and repetitive vectors of informations only concerned with war, natural disasters, social conflicts, revolutions stuck in pain and massacre, insane bloodsheds and destructions of terrorism, and so on… To me, art is also a means of expression that can and must reconcile us with life. This is why I claim my work as a source of visual pleasure, emotions, discovery or positive thoughts.