Categorizing my work seems hard. I look at a lot of things. I have no visual filter. I look because I like to look at things. Looking is beautiful. I once had this conversation with a good friend about how beautiful these bags with trash on the streets can be. All we perceive is a lot. There’s different ways of looking. I could say that I am sort of a musician with the eye of a photographer who prefers to work with tangible things. It is a concrete thing, tangible. I am a sensitive person. I could be painting with some nice music on the background and my senses are actively used, or I could sit in a busy place and feel in a way misused. I mean, these senses are open to something I receive. When creating, the senses are open to something I create. I mostly prefer the second option, to feel that you are surfing these waves, instead of the other way around. My mind works in an associative way. Linear conception of things, to put names and titles on things and trying to describe into categories, it is counterintuitive for my brains. I’m a wanderer, I like to be distracted. In these distractions, I’m very attentive. I have a background in Architecture. I think all the good architects in history are great artists. Nowadays they barely survive. The glory times were when computers did not yet exist. Drawing tables are gold. There’s feeling in things. Things need not be calculated. Good proportions are in our genes, intuition. Drawing a floor plan, or thinking of spaces is not much different than composing a painting. There’s much to say about proportion. Everything is composition, at least in my way of thinking. I think in an abstract way, to me, visual arts are like music: a play of elements. The whole of elements, the composition is what you’re in the end creating. You can work separately on the elements while forgetting about the whole, and bring the whole together again. There's always this interesting tension between wholes and elements. Assemble/disassemble. Like on a very broad scale. It suits well my mind. This way of working, you can have something which is not working out, but this one piece within the current composition is so damned interesting, well extract it. Turns out somewhere else perfectly fine. It is this idea of elements floating through time, like a piece of second hand clothing, or an old furniture. These elements have a story and that’s part of what makes it so interesting. The coincidence of unpeeling layers. My works, they bring together moments, in essence, physical proof of these different moments, elements. Nothing is ever lost, although I used to destroy a lot, because I was never satisfied. Now I try to be more chill about dissatisfaction. That’s where my theory and way of working came in handy. I once picked up the term ‘kaleidoscopic’ from the photographer Jay Maisel, as a description for the exact same sort of working process that I tend to have. Distraction, wandering, little acts, composing. Whether I am composing a sort of furniture, which is to me sculpture (a spatial composition of forms), or a painting, to me it all comes down to the same things. And for that reason, categorization is a stupid thing. Also: It seems hard as well to have a finished thing. They are only in a temporal state of being. I should consider works as time-recordings, like photographs. Only these photographs are literally a timeframe, compositions they contain a wider span of time. So they’re maybe more a capturing of a time span, layers of moments. We’re sold perfections, but they’re essentially deceptions. I believe in the constant change of things. Process and continuous questioning and search, that’s a way of building a language. The process guides to the thing, which is for now yet unknown. That’s really the goal.