Every person on the planet has his or her concept of what it means to be normal. The very notion that each individual has a personalized standard for normality only serves to prove the concept of normal is an illusion. It is life, what the individual experiences over and over again, which shapes his or her concept of normality. Normal is in essence the repetition of stereotypes, clichés, and caricatures.
It is the nature of symbol (the visual representation of a stereotype) that much of my works seeks to challenge. The symbol is not the object it represents; it is a cultural and social construct. The philosopher Wittgenstein said this in relation to cultural conditioning:

What I want to oppose here is the false idea that we could hit on something entirely new. That is a mistake. In truth, we already have everything. We move within the realm of something that is already there, the grammar of our accustomed language.
The language spoken of can be interpreted as literal or visual language. This is apparent when we look at literal visual forms of language such as hieroglyphics. The question that my work seeks to pose is: What happens when those symbols are taken out of their expected context?

My most recent work has dealt with these ideas in a variety of visual forms. Many of the works involve the deconstruction of life’s absolutes and their recombination. This process results in a system of irrational logic. The separate pieces seem illogical, but their linkage with other elements forms a logical structure. These ideas are applied not only to physical objects, but also to concepts such as time.
Viewer interaction with the work, whether it is physical or verbal, is an important aspect of the work. Many of the works have an element of physical interaction that causes the viewer to make a choice. The choice made requires thought on the part of the viewer. Will they accept what is presented, will they disregard it, or will they make changes?