My work consists of simple gestures, small movements and marriages. I try to create pictures and situations that we have difficulty speaking about, so we describe what they produce. For example, a pontoon with its loose planks which slam down like a keyboard thanks to the rhythm of waves and floats. Or fountains which drive a puddle like a small version of Versailles (p 16). Also torches inside truck wheels in a car park when truckers sleep…(p 11)

    All the time I try to take things out of the ordinary to find subversion and reveal what kind of fiction it contains. Also I put into a public fountain composed of an alignment of jets of water, big canvas sheets (made with rubbish bags). It will now only live on in the form of the video “funeral parlour”. It lasts as long as I can find unlikely arguments to present to the town cops (two minutes). I try to explain to them why it’s lawful and why it makes sense. The languorous hole of black plastic seems to be a phantom dance. You can see the wind inflating the sheet like a sail. I couldn’t help thinking about Valerie’s note: Mallarmé says that the ballet dancer is not a woman and she doesn’t dance. Valerie verifies it: “ The most free, the most supple and voluptuous dance appears (to him) on a screen which shows big jellyfish: it was not a woman and she doesn’t dance”.

    It is usual for my work to appear indiscernible due to poetic conjunctions and the association of ideas. Is poetry made with this mixture? The diversion always mentions several things which inflate the picture, to give it polysemy. Each proposition is held by the richness of its poetic field, by the crossroad of worlds, by its fluctuating aspect.

    The elevation of the car park layout creates volume in the road sign (P 17). It makes a kind of stand for the falling snow. Also it holds up the parked car which seems to be in hibernation. We don’t know where this story comes from. We can’t say how the picture can stay in the mind for the long term in spite of its lightness. It lives this indecision in which time is suspended such that a confused attraction is formed. I think it’s in this haze that poetry can be critical. In this way we can understand this piece “turn around to turn right” (p 4). An angular and white figure, put up like a folding screen. A look from above reveals to us that it’s just an elevation of an arrow. The usual road sign becomes an enigmatic object. The speech will turn around for a long time before finding the key of this obviousness. Can we say that the speech doesn’t exhaust the evidence and its turn around the reality without reaching it?

    I began by using the narration form of comic books. In this way, where the imagination turns madly, we can joke outside of the material and social constraints. I was obliged to come from the literary picture to these concrete objects to find these unlikely oxymorons. By this rule, you can find the curious articulation of conflicting elements like these plaster balls which can express the law of gravity but even contradict it by hanging from a branch (p 6). We can think about the Breton and Soupault Surrealist poetry at the beginning of the last century (for example the soluble fish of Breton). These works give an understanding that the conjugation of two opposites are like a kind of rainbow of forms according to a Didier Semin expression. The rainbow is an oxymoron which we find in nature. The sun and the rain aren’t made to coexist.

    Was I prepared to paint these monumental pictures? (p 22) Like Philipp Otto Runge dreamt of hanging up his hours. Or like Botticelli who spread his seasons. This work was built by the story and the devils of an author illustrator. I was trying to question my artistic background. If it was possible to make something in this meticulous way, with these details flattened as sonorous scene or set like wallpaper.

    In Austria, at the beginning of this century, an Architect said in a terse sentence what, to him, decorative form where. Close to Otto Wagner, Adolf Loss asserts a justified use of the architectural elements, without pretence. He condemns the decorative ornament which spreads in the frenzied vegetables of the Secession Viennese. His demonstration is ardent and is representative of his period.

    He dares to use the short cut : the ornament is a crime. It’s for him a primitive relic without foundation. A relic which the modern humans have to put out to find his own style : restrained, pure and eloquent. The restrained, the rational reading of volumes removed its ceremonial dress. It was as imposing as the vocabulary of a new area of modernity brought by rigorous architects like Le Corbusier, Richard Neutra and also Rudolf M. Schindler. One century after the Loos satirical tract, would we have known what we thought now about it?

    I take back the sentence of the uncompromising architect for my exhibition and turn back it like a Dostoevsky echo: 

    “ Crime or ornament” What I do here is it reprehensible? What other alternatives can I find? 

    As my sculpture with which I have previously spoken about, I try to open a scene with which the world is “fictionning”. Alsosimilar because it seems to be reading like simple joke. “Joke” as a mechanic with which the pieces are a special part inside.