NO followed WHY and HOW as an impulse to push an architectonic sensibility within the use of the algorithm I have been working with over the past few works. I’m unable to remember why this coincided with the choice to try to envision the concept behind the word, as it is written, “NO.” There is something about the word that feels closer to me to the shutting off of a signal or current; it’s an intensely finite thing, the kind of negation that saying, “no” entails. If there is an infinity, or an ultimate truth in existence, it can only be hallucinated thanks to the simple manner in which one can say, “no.” I think Nietzsche knew this. I’m very interested in this hallucination of the infinite, of truth.
In the past, while working sculpturally and with space, I was interested in a comparative aesthetics – the sense of reality that arises from causing two or more different media to re/present things alongside one another. I am looking for this kind of tension within a painting. I present a contrast between the intensive, resonant space engendered by the interweaving circles and patterns that form the overall composition and a Cartesian space of squares – like that of pixels – in the lower left quadrant of the image. The desire is to try use an aesthetic and conceptual contrast to propose that schemes and schemas follow rhythms, or that an extensive space can easily be set within an intensive one and not vice versa. (One cannot draw a perfect circle with a grouping of squares.) NO is finite in this manner of extension that is evident in a fetish for ever-higher resolution of digital images, this perverse desire to pixilate a universe into ever-smaller units, etc.