Brutalist Sky, as the title suggests, is the secular version of Brutalist Heavens. By this, I simply mean that this sky hints at an infinity of infinities, whereas the other work is more crystalline in its harmonies.

These works, I’m realizing, are about making sense without the pressure to produce whatever might count as useful knowledge. I’m interested in effects and affects and how these things inform realities. A scientific approach might limit one pattern per painting and make claims about each example. What I’m interested in is presenting a series of parallel possibilities in a manner akin to quantum physics, where all possibilities need to be considered simultaneously. What if forms are both schematic and rhythmic, and come and go, persisting in theory and perishing in theory? What does this mean for our sense of the everyday? Is it liberating or traumatic? I don’t know. I’m just following a hunch or three… something about the interwoven and entangled nature of thingly beings: thinging things while being beings.

The little squares are like snapshots of the greater roaming and changing patterns. The snapshots make sense as part of a whole but somehow distort it without a betrayal. Or? How curious this is, for me… and of course, the whole painting is a snapshot as well. A series of folds, as Deleuze so beautifully articulated.